CAR_Public/090706.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Monday, July 6, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 131

                           Headlines

BANCOLOMBIA SA: Santa Sofia Estate Co-Owners' Suit in Discovery
CALIFORNIA: Homosexual Activists File Suit Over Proposition 8
CASEY'S GENERAL: Continues to Defend "Hot Fuel" Cases in Kansas
CASEY'S GENERAL: Oct. 9 Settlement Hearing Set for Iowa Lawsuits
CGD INC: S.C. Court Gives Final OK to "Salmonsen" Suit Agreement

CPFL ENERGY: Awaits Ruling on Suit by Caxias do Sul Public Atty.
DELL INC: Taiwan Consumers Consider Lawsuit Over Monitor Prices
ELRON ELECTRONIC: Oct. Hearing Set for Elscint Shareholders Suit
ELRON ELECTRONIC: Plaintiffs' Personal Claims Pending in Haifa
FRANKLIN ELECTRONIC: Faces Suit by Capgrowth Group in New Jersey

GROUPE AEROPLAN: Served With Motion for Authorization in Quebec
H&R BLOCK: Appeal to Junked Securities Fraud Suit Still Pending
H&R BLOCK: Defending Remaining Refund Anticipation Loan Lawsuit
H&R BLOCK: Lawsuits v. Unit Over Peace of Mind Program Pending
H&R BLOCK: SCC Still Faces Suits Over Pre-Termination Activities

H&R BLOCK: Unit Appeals "Do Right's Plant Growers" Certification
LIVE NATION: Faces N.J. Litigation Over Inflated Ticket Prices
LOS ANGELES: Court Interpreter Files Racial Discrimination Suit
LUXOTTICA GROUP: Bid to Dismiss Texas LensCrafters' Suit Pending
LUXOTTICA GROUP: Settlement of Consumer Suit v. Cole OK in March

LUXOTTICA GROUP: Stockholders' Appeals Remain Pending in Calif.
MATRIXX INITIATIVES: Faces Mo. Lawsuit Over Nasal Sprays, Swabs
NEBRASKA: Judge Favors Plaintiffs in Medicaid-Related Litigation
NEILMED PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Calif. Labor Law Violations Suit
NORTH DAKOTA: Eight Circuit Dismisses Female Inmates' Litigation

NPC INT'L: Law Firms File FLSA Violations Lawsuit in Missouri
ON TRACK INNOVATIONS: Still Faces Motion on Excessive Charges
ON TRACK INNOVATIONS: Suit on Unit's Product Performance Pending
ORACLE CORP: Expects Appeal to Dismissal of Securities Lawsuit
PIERCE COUNTY: Faces Lawsuit Over Education of Youth Offenders

SKILLED HEALTHCARE: "Bates" Suit Still Pending in Calif. Court
STAGG CAPITAL: Faces Fla. Suit Over Takeover of Smart SMS Corp.
SYNAPSE GROUP: N.J. Judge Denies Class Certification in "McNair"
ULTRAPAR HOLDINGS: Ultragaz Defends Lawsuits Over Mall Explosion
VENEZUELA: Group Notifies CITGO of Fla. Suit v. Govt. Officials


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

IBM SOUTHEAST: Law Firms File Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Fla.


                           *********

BANCOLOMBIA SA: Santa Sofia Estate Co-Owners' Suit in Discovery
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action proceedings commenced by the co-owners of the
Santa Sofia Housing Estate are at a discovery stage, according
to Bancolombia SA's June 29, 2009 Form 20-F/A filing with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2007.

A class action filed by the co-owners of the Santa Sofia Housing
Estate against the Bogota Mayor's Office, Fiducolombia S.A. (now
Fiduciaria Bancolombia S.A.) and others, claiming that the
deterioration to the property was caused by flaws in the
terrain, and therefore no building permit should have been
issued.

Fiduciaria Bancolombia S.A. Is a subsidiary of the company.

In October 2007, a "Mediation hearing" was held, but the
plaintiffs did not assist.

The management of Fiduciaria Bancolombia S.A. considered that
the probability of liability is low.

Bancolombia SA -- http://www.grupobancolombia.com/home/index.asp
-- is a Colombian banking institution.  The Bank's business is
structured in four divisions: Corporate and Government Banking,
Treasury, Mortgage Banking and Personal and Small and Medium-
Sized Enterprises (SMEs) Banking.  Its services and products
include saving and current accounts, debit and credit cards,
pension plans, deposits, mortgages, remittances delivery,
consumer and commercial loans, and other banking operations.  As
of Dec. 31, 2008, the Bank operated 717 branches located in
Colombia.  The Bank is a parent of Grupo Bancolombia, a group
which comprises a number of entities active in the financial
sector: Banagricola SA, Leasing Bancolombia SA, Renting
Bancolombia SA, Valores Bancolombia SA, Fiduciaria Bancolombia
SA, Banca de Inversion Bancolombia SA and Factoring Bancolombia
SA, among others.  Through its subsidiaries, it has operations
established in El Salvador, the United States, the Cayman
Islands, the British Virgin Islands, Panama, Peru and Puerto
Rico.


CALIFORNIA: Homosexual Activists File Suit Over Proposition 8
-------------------------------------------------------------
A suit has been filed against Proposition 8, California's voter-
approved amendment defining marriage as between a man and a
woman, Charlie Butts of OneNewsNow reports.

The class-action lawsuit was filed in state court claiming a
constitutional right to homosexual "marriage," according to
OneNewsNow.


CASEY'S GENERAL: Continues to Defend "Hot Fuel" Cases in Kansas
---------------------------------------------------------------
Casey's General Stores, Inc. continues to defend "hot fuel"
cases that were consolidated for coordinated or consolidated
pretrial proceedings in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Kansas.

Initially, Casey's General Stores, Inc. was named as a defendant
in five lawsuits brought in the federal courts in Kansas and
Missouri against a variety of gasoline retailers.

The complaints generally allege that the Company, along with
numerous other retailers, has misrepresented gasoline volumes
dispensed at its pumps by failing to compensate for expansion
that occurs when fuel is sold at temperatures above 60F.  Fuel
is measured at 60F in wholesale purchase transactions and
computation of motor fuel taxes in Kansas and Missouri.

The complaints all seek certification as class actions on behalf
of gasoline consumers within those two states, and one of the
complaints also seeks certification for a class consisting of
gasoline consumers in all states.

The actions generally seek recovery for alleged violations of
state consumer protection or unfair merchandising practices
statutes, negligent and fraudulent misrepresentation, unjust
enrichment, civil conspiracy, and violation of the duty of good
faith and fair dealing; several seek injunctive relief and
punitive damages.

These actions are part of a number of similar lawsuits that have
been filed in recent weeks in at least 21 states against a wide
range of defendants that produce, refine, distribute, and/or
market gasoline products in the United States.

On June 18, 2007, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
ordered that all of the pending hot fuel cases be transferred to
U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas and assigned to
the Judge Kathryn H. Vratil for coordinated or consolidated
pretrial proceedings, including rulings on discovery matters,
various pretrial motions, and class certification.

Discovery efforts by both sides are being pursued, according to
the company's June 29, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
April 30, 2009.

Casey's General Stores, Inc. -- http://www.caseys.com/--
operates convenience stores under the name Casey's General Store
in nine Midwest states, primarily Iowa, Missouri and Illinois.


CASEY'S GENERAL: Oct. 9 Settlement Hearing Set for Iowa Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
An Oct. 9, 2009 final approval hearing has been set for the
settlement of two purported collective and class actions against
Casey's General Stores, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Iowa.

In April 2009, the company and five individual directors or
officers entered into settlement agreements with plaintiffs in
two purported collective and class actions pending in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Iowa:

   -- Kristina Jones, et al. v. Casey's General Stores, Inc.,
      Robert J. Myers, Ronald M. Lamb, Terry W. Handley, Robert
      C. Ford, and Julia L. Jackowski, individually ("Jones
      action"); and

   -- Connie Wineland, et al. v. Casey's General Stores, Inc.,
      Robert J. Myers, Ronald M. Lamb, Terry W. Handley, Robert
      C. Ford, and Julia L. Jackowski ("Wineland action").

The two actions are brought by plaintiffs seeking to represent
approximately 7,800 current and former assistant managers (Jones
action) and approximately 76,000 current and former non-
management-level store employees (Wineland action).

The plaintiffs generally sought back wages, liquidated damages,
penalties, attorneys' fees and costs, and equitable relief
pursuant to various federal and state wage and hour laws and
related common law causes of action.

Under the settlement agreements, the company has agreed to pay
all putative plaintiffs and their counsel in both actions a
total of $11.7 million (inclusive of plaintiffs' attorneys fees
and costs); the company's directors and officers insurance
carrier has agreed to pay $3.0 million of that amount on behalf
of all defendants.  The company also has agreed to pay up to
$400,000 in related settlement administration expenses.  In
exchange, the company will be released from the state law claims
of all putative plaintiffs who do not opt-out of the settlement
for any covered claims arising since May 7, 2005 in the Jones
action and since Jan. 10, 2006 in the Wineland action.  In
addition, any plaintiffs who previously opted in to the putative
collective actions will be releasing FLSA claims arising since
Nov. 1, 2004 in the Jones action and since April 15, 2005 in the
Wineland action.  Pursuant to the settlement agreements, the
company expressly denies any and all liability to the
plaintiffs.

The settlement agreements have been filed with the Court as
attachments to the parties' joint motions for approval of the
settlements, and a hearing on the joint motions was held last
May 18, 2009.  Following the hearing, the Court entered Orders
granting preliminary approval of the settlement, approving the
Notices of Class Action and Claim Forms to be distributed to
class members, and setting Oct. 9, 2009 as the date for a
hearing on final approval of the settlement, according to the
company's June 29, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
April 30, 2009.

Casey's General Stores, Inc. -- http://www.caseys.com/--
operates convenience stores under the name Casey's General Store
in nine Midwest states, primarily Iowa, Missouri and Illinois.


CGD INC: S.C. Court Gives Final OK to "Salmonsen" Suit Agreement
----------------------------------------------------------------
     In a Fairness Hearing on June 30, 2009, Justin Lucey of the
Lucey Law firm and Mary Leigh Arnold, P.A., received final
approval to proceed with a Class Action settlement on behalf of
Plaintiff Charles Salmonsen and others similarly situated versus
CGD, Inc., formerly known as Charleston Gypsum Dealers & Supply
Co. (CGD).

     The action, approved in the Court of Common Pleas for the
Ninth Judicial Circuit (CASE NO: 2000-CP-10-4870) in Charleston
County, South Carolina, allows this $1.5 million settlement for
homeowners impacted by allegedly faulty construction materials,
particularly the Exterior Insultation and Finish System (EIFS)
or synthetic stucco, for water intrusion damage based on breach
of implied warranty, breach of express warranty, negligence, and
strict liability.

     On October 23, 2002, Salmonsen filed an Amended Complaint
in the Ninth Judicial Circuit (CASE NO: 2000-CP-10-4870,
Charleston County, SC) on behalf of himself and other similarly
situated homeowners, which named CGD, Inc., f/k/a Charleston
Gypsum Dealers & Supply Co., Inc. (CGD), and each of its former
shareholders as defendants.  In the Amended Complaint, Salmonsen
alleged products liability claims against CGD for breach of
implied warranty, negligence, and strict liability.  As to the
former shareholders, Salmonsen alleged they were personally
liable for the distribution of the corporation's assets in lieu
of paying the corporate liabilities.

     This week's Fairness Hearing and approval will allow
homeowners impacted by synthetic stucco product Parex EIFS,
which has been alleged to be defective in that it traps water
and causes walls to rot from the inside out, to join this class
action and benefit from the settlement.  To be eligible to
participate in the settlement, the Parex EIFS must have been
sold by Charleston Gypsum & Supply, located in N. Charleston,
SC, between 1991 and May 15, 1995.

     Homeowners within Charleston County and in other counties
in South Carolina can find more information on how to
participate in the Class Action lawsuit at http://www.lucey-
law.com.

For more details, contact:

          Justin O'Toole Lucey, P.A.
          415 Mill Street
          Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464
          Phone: (843) 849-8400
          Web site: http://www.lucey-law.com/


CPFL ENERGY: Awaits Ruling on Suit by Caxias do Sul Public Atty.
----------------------------------------------------------------
A ruling on the class action by the federal public attorney's
office of the Municipality of Caxias do Sul against CPFL Energia
SA is pending

The company is subject to legal proceedings relating to the
authorization of certain of our hydroelectric plants, including
a class action proposed by the federal public attorney's office
of the Municipality of Caxias do Sul challenging the validity of
the environmental licensing of the Rio das Antas Hydroelectric
Complex, and requesting injunctive relief against the
construction of these plants.

The federal public attorney's injunction request was denied in
the lower courts and the district attorney moved against the
denial, requesting a new injunction from the higher courts.  The
higher courts denied the injunction relief.

No decision on the merits has been taken by the lower courts to
date, according to the company's June 29, 2009 Form 20-F filing
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Dec. 31, 2008.

CPFL Energia SA -- http://www.cpfl.com.br/-- is a Brazil-based
holding company engaged, through its subsidiaries, in the
distribution, generation and commercialization of electricity in
Brazil.  The company also provides electricity-related services
to its affiliates, as well as unaffiliated parties.  The company
holds a direct participation in the distributing companies,
Companhia Paulista de Forca e Luz and Companhia Piratininga de
Forca e Luz, among others; a direct participation in the
generation company, CPFL Geracao de Energia SA, and a direct
participation in the commercialization company, CPFL
Comercializacao Brasil SA.  In addition, the company also has a
number of indirect investments in other electricity generation,
distribution and commercialization companies.


DELL INC: Taiwan Consumers Consider Lawsuit Over Monitor Prices
---------------------------------------------------------------
     Taiwan consumers prepared to file a class action lawsuit
against Dell, Inc. as the computer giant continued to refuse to
sell monitors to shoppers who had ordered them at a misquoted
price.  The private Taiwan Consumers' Foundation called on
consumers to send a legal attest letter to Dell (Taiwan),
demanding Dell to deliver the ordered goods or face legal action
within two days.

     It is believed that the foundation and the Cabinet's
Consumer Protection Commission will assist Taiwan consumers to
file the case.

     "Many consumers are angry because the way Dell handles (the
issue) is not like the attitude of a large international
company.  We hope Dell will respond to the Consumer Protection
Commission settlement proposal," Hsieh Tien-jen, chairman of the
foundation, told reporters.

     He was referring to the commission's proposal that Dell
should complete orders to customers who had only ordered one
monitor, and those who had ordered more than one should receive
diminishing discounts on the second and further monitors.

     Last Thursday Dell advertised two sizes of liquid-crystal
display monitors at around one-tenth of their normal price.

     A 19-inch monitor was listed at 500 Taiwan dollars (15 US
dollars), rather than the usual 7,500 Taiwan dollars, while a
20-inch monitor was listed as 999 Taiwan dollars (30 US
dollars), when it should be 8,500 Taiwan dollars.  But Dell
later said the prices had been incorrectly advertised.

     News of the offers spread quickly via e-mail, blogs and
sites like Twitter.  In the eight hours before Dell corrected
the prices Friday morning, 26,000 Taiwanese had placed orders
online for 140,000 LCD monitors.

     On Thursday, Dell (Taiwan) continued to refuse to deliver
the ordered goods at misquoted prices, agreeing only to give
each buyer a discount coupon worth 1,000 Taiwan dollars,
triggering another wave of protest from clients.

     Dell (Taiwan) said it might make more statements and
contact individual clients on Friday.


ELRON ELECTRONIC: Oct. Hearing Set for Elscint Shareholders Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A hearing has been set for October 2009, on a class action on
behalf of public shareholders of Elscint Ltd. against Elron
Electronic Industries Ltd., according to the company's June 29,
2009 Form 20-F filing with the Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

During September 1999, the company received a copy of a claim
and a request to approve such claim as a class action on behalf
of public shareholders of Elscint Ltd. (formerly an affiliated
company) against the company and others.

The allegation raised by the plaintiff related to the decision
regarding the sale of Elscint's substantial assets.

The purported class action claim, also known as the Gesser
claim, is for an amount of approximately $158 million, or
alternatively, $123 million.

The claim alleges that the defendants, by their decisions
regarding the sale of Elscint's assets, caused damage to Elscint
and its minority shareholders.

The plaintiff seeks a court order requiring Elscint, or the
other defendants, to purchase from each of the members of the
alleged represented class all shares held by them at a price of
$27.46 per share.

The claim has been stayed pursuant to an arrangement reached by
the parties pending the outcome of the appeal in the "Investors'
Claim."  The arrangement provides that if the appeal is
accepted, then the proceedings to recognize the lawsuit as a
class action will proceed.  Otherwise, the application to
recognize the claim as a class action suit will be dismissed.
Following the decision on the said appeal by the Supreme Court,
the plaintiff requested the Court to resume the hearing of this
lawsuit.

On March 31, 2009 the Court approved the defendant's application
to dismiss certain claims while others still remain.

Elron Electronic Industries Ltd. -- http://www.elron.com-- is a
technology operational holding company that operates through its
group companies.  The company is engaged primarily in the fields
of medical devices, information communications, technology,
semiconductors and clean technology.


ELRON ELECTRONIC: Plaintiffs' Personal Claims Pending in Haifa
--------------------------------------------------------------
The personal claims of the plaintiffs for monetary damages and
their request to treat certain of it as a derivative action
remain pending in the Haifa District Court, according to Elron
Electronic Industries Ltd.'s June 29, 2009 Form 20-F filing with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2008.

In November 1999, a claim against Elscint Ltd., Elbit Medical
Imaging Ltd. ("EMI"), the parent company of Elsicnt, and various
other defendants, including the company and certain of its
former officers, was filed in the Haifa District Court together
with a request to approve certain causes of action set out in
the claim, as a class action on behalf of some institutional
investors, others and those who held shares in Elscint on Sept.
6, 1999 and a request for certain casues of action to be treated
as a derivative action.

The allegations raised in the claim relate, among others, to the
period prior to the sale of our holdings in Elbit Imaging Ltd.
(formerly known as Elbit Medical Imaging Ltd.), or EI (the
parent company of Elscint and formerly an affiliated company).

The plaintiffs sought a court order pursuant to which EI would
be compelled to effect a tender offer.

In August 2000, the Haifa District Court decided to strike out
the application for approval of the claim as a class action.
Subsequent to that decision the plaintiffs submitted an amended
statement of claim which is similar to the initial claim but is
designated as a personal claim and partly as a derivative action
rather than as a purported class action.  In addition, some of
the plaintiffs appealed to the Supreme Court in Israel against
the District Court's decision.  In December 2006, the Supreme
Court reversed that decision and returned the matter back to the
Haifa District Court in order to decide whether the claim should
be recognized as a class action.

In June 2007, in accordance with the directions of the Haifa
District Court the plaintiffs submitted an updated statement of
claim and request to approve the claim as a class action.
Pursuant to the updated claim, the plaintiffs are no longer
seeking an order compelling the tender offer but instead are
claiming compensation for damages sustained due to the alleged
failure of EI to effect the tender offer, as well as due to
other allegations.  The updated statement of claim does not
specify the monetary amount claimed, but does include various
allegations relating to the manner of determining the damages
claimed, which depends, amongst other things, upon verification
of the specific circumstances with regard to each shareholder of
Elscint separately and the substance of each damage claimed.

In January 2009, the Haifa District Court dismissed the
plaintiffs' request to approve the claim as a class action.  On
March 26, 2009, the plaintiffs appealed the Haifa Distric
Court's decision.

Elron Electronic Industries Ltd. -- http://www.elron.com-- is a
technology operational holding company that operates through its
group companies.  The company is engaged primarily in the fields
of medical devices, information communications, technology,
semiconductors and clean technology.


FRANKLIN ELECTRONIC: Faces Suit by Capgrowth Group in New Jersey
----------------------------------------------------------------
Franklin Electronic Publishers, Incorporated faces a class
action complaint by Capgrowth Group in the Superior Court of New
Jersey, Burlington County.

On June 8, 2009, Capgrowth Group filed the class action
complaint purportedly on its behalf and on the behalf of others
similarly situated against the company and the members of its
Board of Directors.

The Complaint alleges, among other things, that Saunders
Acquisition Corporation's non-binding offer to purchase all of
the outstanding shares of the company's stock was unfair to the
company's shareholders, inadequate and not the result of an
arm's length negotiation.

The company has notified its insurance provider of the filing of
such complaint, according to its June 29, 2009 Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended March 31, 2009.

Franklin Electronic Publishers, Incorporated --
http://www.franklin.com-- designs, develops, publishes and
distributes electronic information on handheld devices, memory
media cards and via Internet downloads.  Franklin also designs,
develops and licenses to third parties, linguistic technology,
such as spelling error and detection software in 36 languages,
for use in application software, electronic products and on the
Internet.  The company owns or has licenses to publish in
electronic format more than 100 reference titles, including
monolingual and bilingual dictionaries, such as Merriam-
Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, the Holy Bible, entertainment-
oriented publications (such as The Official Scrabble Dictionary)
and its own multi-language speaking and non-speaking
translators. In addition, it owns or has licenses to distribute
in electronic format, either directly or through third parties,
more than 52,000 titles, including reference works and general
literature, via Internet download.


GROUPE AEROPLAN: Served With Motion for Authorization in Quebec
---------------------------------------------------------------
     Groupe Aeroplan Inc. has been served on July 2, 2009 with a
Motion for Authorization to Institute a Class Action and to
Obtain the Status of Representative in the Superior Court of
Quebec.

     No class action has yet been filed.  This Motion is the
first procedural step before any such action can be instituted.
Petitioners seek court permission to sue Aeroplan on behalf of
program members in Canada to obtain reinstatement of expired
miles, reimbursement of any amounts already expended by Aeroplan
members to reinstate their expired miles, $50 in compensatory
damages and an undetermined amount in exemplary damages on
behalf of each class member, all in relation to changes made to
the Aeroplan program concerning accumulation and expiry of
Aeroplan Miles as announced October 16th, 2006.

     Aeroplan is of the view that there are good grounds for
opposing the Motion for Authorization and will vigorously defend
any class action, should one be authorized by the court.

Groupe Aeroplan Inc. -- http://www.groupeaeroplan.com-- is a
leading international loyalty management corporation.  Groupe
Aeroplan owns Aeroplan, Canada's premier loyalty program and
Nectar, the United Kingdom's leading coalition loyalty program.
In the Gulf Region, Groupe Aeroplan owns 60 per cent of Rewards
Management Middle East, the operator of Air Miles programs in
the United Arab Emirates, Qatar and Bahrain.  Groupe Aeroplan
also operates LMG Insight & Communication, a customer-driven
insight and data analytics business offering international
services to retailers and their suppliers.


H&R BLOCK: Appeal to Junked Securities Fraud Suit Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs' appeal from the dismissal of their case against
H&R Block Inc. entitled, "In re H&R Block Securities
Litigation," remains pending.

On April 6, 2007, a putative class action styled, "In re H&R
Block Securities Litigation," was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Missouri against the company
and certain of its officers.

The complaint alleged, among other things, deceptive, material
and misleading financial statements, failure to prepare
financial statements in accordance with generally accepted
accounting principles and concealment of the potential for
lawsuits stemming from the allegedly fraudulent nature of the
company's operations.  It sought unspecified damages and
equitable relief.

On Oct. 5, 2007, the court dismissed the complaint and granted
the plaintiffs leave to re-file the portion of the complaint
pertaining to the Company's financial statements.

On Nov. 19, 2007, the plaintiffs re-filed the complaint,
alleging, among other things, deceptive, material and misleading
financial statements and failure to prepare financial statements
in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles.

At the defendant's behest, the court dismissed the re-filed
complaint on Feb. 19, 2008.  On March 11, 2008, the plaintiffs
appealed the dismissal.

No updates on the matter were reported in the company's June 29,
2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended April 30, 2009.

The suit is "In Re H&R Block Securities Litigation, Case No. 06-
0236-CV-W-ODS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Missouri.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Charles F. Speer, Esq. (cspeer@speerlawfirm.com)
          Speer Law Firm
          104 West 9th Street, Suite 305
          Kansas City, MO 64105
          Phone: 816-472-3560
          Fax: 816-421-2150

               - and -

          Jeffrey P. Campisi, Esq. (jcampisi@kaplanfox.com)
          Kaplan, Fox & Kilsheimer, LLP
          805 Third Avenue, 22nd Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: 212-687-1980
          Fax: 212-687-7714

Representing the defendants are:

          Sameer Advani, Esq. (sadvani@willkie.com)
          Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP
          787 7thAvenue
          New York, NY 10019-6099
          Phone: 212-728-8000
          Fax: 212-728-8111

               - and -

          Jerome F. Birn, Jr., Esq. (jbirn@wsgr.com)
          Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, P.C.
          650 Page Mill Road
          Palo Alto, CA 94304
          Phone: 650-320-4858
          Fax: 650-565-5100


H&R BLOCK: Defending Remaining Refund Anticipation Loan Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
H&R Block, Inc. continues to defend the remaining putative class
action regarding the company's refund anticipation loan (RAL)
programs.

The sole remaining RAL Case is a putative class action entitled,
"Sandra J. Basile, et al. v. H&R Block, Inc., et al., April Term
1992 Civil Action No. 3246" in the Court of Common Pleas, First
Judicial District Court of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia County,
instituted on April 23, 1993.

The court decertified the class in December 2003, and the
Pennsylvania appellate court subsequently reversed the trial
court's decertification decision.

In September 2006, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court reversed the
appellate court's reversal of the trial court's decertification
decision.

In June 2007, the appellate court affirmed its earlier decision
to reverse the trial court's decertification decision.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has granted the company's request
to review the appellate court ruling, according to the company's
June 29, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended April 30, 2009.

H&R Block, Inc. -- http://www.handrblock.com/-- is a financial
services company with subsidiaries providing tax, investment,
mortgage, and accounting and business consulting services and
products.


H&R BLOCK: Lawsuits v. Unit Over Peace of Mind Program Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
H&R Block Tax Services, Inc., a unit of H&R Block, Inc.,
continues to face purported class actions in Illinois and Texas
in relation to the its Peace of Mind (POM) Program, according to
the company's June 29, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
April 30, 2009.

                      Illinois Litigation

One of the cases is the purported class action, "Lorie J.
Marshall, et al. v. H&R Block Tax Services, Inc., et al., Civil
Action 2003L000004," which was filed in the Circuit Court of
Madison County, Illinois.

The suit was filed on Jan. 18, 2002 and granted class-action
status on Aug. 27, 2003.  The plaintiffs' claims consist of five
counts relating to the POM Program under which the applicable
tax return preparation subsidiary assumes liability for
additional tax assessments attributable to tax return
preparation error.

The plaintiffs allege that the sale of POM guarantees
constitutes:

      -- statutory fraud by selling insurance without a license;

      -- an unfair trade practice, by omission and by "cramming"
         (i.e., charging customers for the guarantee even though
         they did not request it or want it); and

      -- a breach of fiduciary duty.

In August 2003, the court certified the plaintiff classes
consisting of all persons who from Jan. 1, 1997 to final
judgment:

      -- were charged a separate fee for POM by "H&R Block" or a
         defendant H&R Block class member;

      -- reside in certain class states and were charged a
         separate fee for POM by "H&R Block" or a defendant H&R
         Block class member not licensed to sell insurance; and

      -- had an unsolicited charge for POM posted to their bills
         by "H&R Block" or a defendant H&R Block class member.

Persons who received the POM guarantee through an H&R Block
Premium office and persons who reside in Alabama are excluded
from the plaintiff class.

The court also certified a defendant class consisting of any
entity with names that include "H&R Block" or "HRB," or are
otherwise affiliated or associated with H&R Block Tax Services,
Inc., and that sold or sells the POM product.

The trial court subsequently denied the defendants' motion to
certify class certification issues for interlocutory appeal.
Discovery is proceeding.  No trial date has been set (Class
Action Reporter, Oct. 14, 2008).

On Aug. 5, 2008, the court decertified the defendant class and
reduced the geographic scope of the plaintiff classes from 48
states to 13 states.

On Aug. 19, 2008, the company removed the case from state court
in Madison County, Illinois to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Illinois.  The plaintiff's motion to remand
the case back to state court is pending.

In December 2008, the U.S. District Court remanded the case back
to state court.

On April 3, 2009, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh
Circuit reversed the decision to remand the case back to state
court, ruling that the case had been properly removed to federal
court.  The plaintiffs have filed a petition for rehearing of
this decision with the Seventh Circuit.

                       Texas Litigation

There is one other putative class-action lawsuit pending against
the company in Texas that involves the POM guarantee.

This case involves the same plaintiffs' attorneys that are
involved in the Marshall litigation, and contains similar
allegations.  No class has been certified in this case.

H&R Block, Inc. -- http://www.handrblock.com/-- is a financial
services company with subsidiaries providing tax, investment,
mortgage, and accounting and business consulting services and
products.


H&R BLOCK: SCC Still Faces Suits Over Pre-Termination Activities
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sand Canyon Corporation (SCC) remains subject to class action
lawsuits pertaining to its loan origination and servicing
activities that occurred prior to its termination and sale,
according to H&R Block, Inc.'s June 29, 2009 Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended April 30, 2009.

H&R Block, Inc.'s subsidiary, SCC, was formerly known as Option
One Mortgage Corporation.

Although mortgage loan origination activities were terminated
and the loan servicing business was sold during fiscal year
2008, SCC remains subject to investigations, claims and lawsuits
pertaining to its loan origination and servicing activities that
occurred prior to such termination and sale.

These investigations, claims and lawsuits include actions by
state attorneys general, other state regulators, municipalities,
individual plaintiffs, and cases in which plaintiffs seek to
represent a class of others alleged to be similarly situated.
Among other things, these investigations, claims and lawsuits
allege discriminatory or unfair and deceptive loan origination
and servicing practices, public nuisance, fraud, and violations
of the Truth in Lending Act, Equal Credit Opportunity Act and
the Fair Housing Act.

In the current non-prime mortgage environment, the number of
these investigations, claims and lawsuits has increased over
historical experience and is likely to continue at increased
levels.

The amounts claimed in these investigations, claims and lawsuits
are substantial in some instances, and the ultimate resulting
liability is difficult to predict.

In the event of unfavorable outcomes, the amounts SCC may be
required to pay in the discharge of liabilities or settlements
could be substantial and, because SCC's operating results are
included in the company's consolidated financial statements,
could have a material adverse impact on H&R's consolidated
results of operations.

H&R Block, Inc. -- http://www.handrblock.com/-- is a financial
services company with subsidiaries providing tax, investment,
mortgage, and accounting and business consulting services and
products.


H&R BLOCK: Unit Appeals "Do Right's Plant Growers" Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
RSM EquiCo, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of H&R Block, Inc.,
is appealing class certification in a lawsuit regarding its
business valuation services pending in the California Superior
Court, Orange County.

The suit is "Do Right's Plant Growers v. RSM EquiCo, Inc., RSM
McGladrey, Inc., H&R Block, Inc. and Does 1-100, inclusive, Case
No. 06 CC00137," filed on July 11, 2006.

The complaint contains allegations regarding business valuation
services provided by RSM EquiCo, Inc., including fraud,
negligent misrepresentation, breach of contract, breach of
implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, breach of
fiduciary duty and unfair competition and seeks unspecified
damages, restitution and equitable relief.

On March 17, 2009, the court granted plaintiffs' motion for
class certification on all claims.  The class consists of all
RSM EquiCo U.S. clients who signed platform agreements and for
whom RSM EquiCo did not ultimately market their business for
sale.  RSM EquiCo has filed an appeal of this certification
ruling and intends to defend this case, according to the
company's June 29, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
April 30, 2009.

H&R Block, Inc. -- http://www.handrblock.com/-- is a financial
services company with subsidiaries providing tax, investment,
mortgage, and accounting and business consulting services and
products.


LIVE NATION: Faces N.J. Litigation Over Inflated Ticket Prices
--------------------------------------------------------------
Live Nation, Inc. is facing a purported class-action that
accuses the company, which manages the PNC Bank Arts Center, of
violating state consumer protection laws by padding ticket
prices for events at the Holmdel, New Jersey amphitheater, Peggy
McGlone of The Star-Ledger reports.

The suit was filed by Michael Katz of Freehold in Superior Court
in Mercer County.   It claims that Live Nation uses deceptive
pricing practices, including charging a mandatory parking fee
(typically $6 a ticket) regardless of the ticket holder's intent
to park a car at the venue, and a "charity fee" of between 25
cents and $1.25 without identifying any organization benefiting
from the fee, according to The Star-Ledger.

Additionally, the lawsuit claims that Live Nation's recent "No
Service Fee Wednesday" promotion was deceptive because the
promoter raised the base price of tickets that were sold during
the service fee moratorium, thus negating any promised discount.

According to Henry Wolfe, Esq., an attorney at Galex Wolf LLC in
North Brunswick who filed the complaint, "Instead of just
charging an admission price, they have these fees that seem to
be elastic that they can change to fit their needs.  The fees
seem pretty artificial. Essentially, this is price padding,"
reports The Star-Ledger.

According to the complaint, Mr. Katz of Freehold purchased 16
tickets for lawn seating for next month's Blink 182 concert at
the arts center.  He purchased nine tickets on June 6, 2009,
then bought seven more on June 10, 2009.

The Star-Ledger reported that for the first batch, Mr. Katz paid
$20 a ticket.  The base price for each ticket was $7.75, but he
was charged a $6-per-ticket "parking fee" and a $6.25 "ticket
fee," the complaint states.

On June 10, 2009, during a "No Service Fee Wednesday" promotion,
he purchased seven more tickets for $35.25 each.  Despite
advertising that no fees would be charged, Live Nation still
assessed a $6 parking fee for each ticket, which had a base
price of $29, or $21.25 more than the base price of the original
tickets he purchased days earlier, according to the complaint, a
copy of which was obtained by The Star-Ledger.

The lawsuit seeks damages for all consumers who paid the service
fees or who paid inflated base prices during the no-fee
promotion.  It also seeks to stop Live Nation from continuing
its pricing practices at the state-owned facility, The Star-
Ledger reported.

For more details, contact:

          Galex Wolf LLC
          1520 U.S. Hwy 130, Ste. 101
          North Brunswick, NJ 08902
          Phone: 732-257-0550
          Fax: 732-257-5654
          e-mail: info@galexwolf.com
          Web site: http://www.galexwolf.com/


LOS ANGELES: Court Interpreter Files Racial Discrimination Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Los Angeles Superior Court is facing a purported class-
action lawsuit filed by a court interpreter who is claiming it
subjects her and other interpreters to racial discrimination,
saying their foreign national origins are "highlighted by the
nature of their work," Karina Brown of The Courthouse News
Service reports.

The suit was filed on June 30, 2009 in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California, under the caption,
"Alicia Grubic v. The Los Angeles Superior Court et al., Case
No. 2:2009-cv-04729."

It was filed by Alicia Grubic, who sued the court, presiding
Judge Stephen Czuleger and head clerk John Clarke, claiming the
court pays interpreters less than other court employees and
keeps them from advancing, because interpreters are
"overwhelmingly non-native-born members of minority
national/ethnic groups," according to The Courthouse News
Service.

Ms. Grubic claims that the court supervisors associate and
identify interpreters with the "foreign-born monolingual
criminal defendants" they work with.

In 2003, Superior Court interpreters finally won the right to be
classified as employees, rather than contractors without
benefits, according to the complaint, a copy of which was
obtained by The Courthouse News Service.

However, the complaint states that the court allegedly refuses
to treat interpreters to the same employment policies as other
court employees.  Interpreters do not have salary "steps," or
structured raises based on seniority, as other employees do, it
states.

In addition, the complaint claims that the court allegedly
promotes white employees with no interpreting experience to
supervise the court's 400 interpreters, rather than promoting
the interpreters themselves.  It also claims that interpreters
are also barred from transferring to administrative positions
within the court, the plaintiffs claim, and from taking
management classes and exams available to other court employees,
The Courthouse News Service reported.

Ms. Grubic says Superior Court judges often ignore interpreters
when introducing court staff to a jury and when asking staff if
they mind working late.  Judges allegedly begin proceedings
without waiting for interpreters to reach their clients, even
when an interpreter is "racing" across a courtroom to reach a
monolingual defendant.  In contrast, the lawsuit says, judges
will "always delay court proceedings for as a court reporter
needs."

The plaintiff wants a declaratory judgment forcing the Superior
Court to grant interpreters salary "steps" and mandate
sensitivity training for Superior Court judges, along with
treble damages, reports The Courthouse News Service.

A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at:
              http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?3ea6

For more details, contact:

          Jon E. Drucker, Esq. (jdrucker@lawyers.com)
          Law Offices of Jon E. Drucker
          8306 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 638
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Phone: 323-931-6363
          Fax: 310-861-5480


LUXOTTICA GROUP: Bid to Dismiss Texas LensCrafters' Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Luxottica Group S.p.A.'s motion to dismiss a class action on
behalf of all current and former LensCrafters sub-lease
optometrists for lack of personal jurisdiction is still pending.

In May 2008, two individual optometrists commenced an action
against LensCrafters, Inc. and Luxottica Group S.p.A. in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, alleging
violations of the Texas Optometry Act ("TOA") and the Texas
Deceptive Trade Practices Act and tortious interference with
customer relations.

The suit alleges that LensCrafters has attempted to control the
optometrists' professional judgment and that certain terms of
the optometrists' sub-lease agreements with LensCrafters violate
the TOA.

The suit seeks recovery of a civil penalty of up to US$1,000 for
each day of a violation of the TOA, injunctive relief, punitive
damages and attorneys' fees and costs.

In August 2008, plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint,
adding claims for fraudulent inducement and breach of contract.

In October 2008, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint
seeking to certify the case as a class action on behalf of all
current and former LensCrafters sub-lease optometrists.

Luxottica Group S.p.A. filed a motion to dismiss for lack of
personal jurisdiction in October 2008.  That motion is currently
pending.

The case was transferred to the Western District of Texas,
Austin Division, in January 2009, pursuant to the defendants'
motion to transfer venue.

According to the company's June 25, 2009 Form 20-F filing with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2008, although it believes that its operational
practices in Texas comply with Texas law, if this action results
in an adverse decision, LensCrafters may have to modify its
activities in Texas.  Further, LensCrafters and Luxottica Group
might be required to pay statutory damages, the amount of which
may have a material adverse effect on the company's operating
results, financial condition and cash flow.

Luxottica Group S.p.A. -- http://www.luxottica.com-- is engaged
in the designing, manufacturing and distribution of fashion,
luxury and sports eyewear.  Luxottica Group operates in two
industry segments: manufacturing and wholesale distribution, and
retail distribution.  Through its manufacturing and wholesale
distribution operations, Luxottica Group is engaged in the
design, manufacturing, wholesale distribution and marketing of
house and designer lines of prescription frames and sunglasses.
The company operates its retail segment principally through its
retail brands, which include, among others, LensCrafters,
Sunglass Hut, Pearle Vision, ILORI, The Optical Shop of Aspen,
OPSM, Laubman & Pank, Budget Eyewear, Bright Eyes, Oakley O
Stores and Vaults, David Clulow and its licensed Brands (Sears
Optical and Target Optical).


LUXOTTICA GROUP: Settlement of Consumer Suit v. Cole OK in March
----------------------------------------------------------------
A settlement of a consumer class-action lawsuit against
Luxottica Group S.p.A.'s subsidiary, Cole National Corporation,
became final in March 2009.

In June 2006, Cole and its subsidiaries were sued by a consumer
in a class action that alleged various statutory violations
related to the operations of Pearle Vision, Inc. and Pearle
VisionCare, Inc. in California.

The claims and remedies sought are similar to those asserted in
the LensCrafters and EYEXAM case.

The parties entered into a settlement agreement, which provides
for a store voucher at Pearle Vision or LensCrafters for each
class member and the payment of attorneys' fees and costs.

On Dec. 19, 2008, the court granted final approval of the
settlement and entered final judgment.  The settlement became
final on March 17, 2009, according to the company's June 25,
2009 Form 20-F filing with the Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

Luxottica Group S.p.A. -- http://www.luxottica.com-- is engaged
in the designing, manufacturing and distribution of fashion,
luxury and sports eyewear.  Luxottica Group operates in two
industry segments: manufacturing and wholesale distribution, and
retail distribution.  Through its manufacturing and wholesale
distribution operations, Luxottica Group is engaged in the
design, manufacturing, wholesale distribution and marketing of
house and designer lines of prescription frames and sunglasses.
The company operates its retail segment principally through its
retail brands, which include, among others, LensCrafters,
Sunglass Hut, Pearle Vision, ILORI, The Optical Shop of Aspen,
OPSM, Laubman & Pank, Budget Eyewear, Bright Eyes, Oakley O
Stores and Vaults, David Clulow and its licensed Brands (Sears
Optical and Target Optical).


LUXOTTICA GROUP: Stockholders' Appeals Remain Pending in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Pipefitters Local No. 636 Defined Benefit Plan's appeal to
rulings in its class action lawsuit against Luxottica Group
S.p.A.'s subsidiary, Oakley, Inc., remains pending.

On June 26, 2007, the Pipefitters Local No. 636 Defined Benefit
Plan filed a class action complaint, on behalf of itself and all
other stockholders of Oakley, against Oakley and its Board of
Directors in California Superior Court, County of Orange.

The complaint alleged, among other things, that the defendants
violated their fiduciary duties to stockholders by approving
Oakley's merger with Luxottica and claimed that the price per
share fixed by the merger agreement was inadequate and unfair.
The defendants filed demurrers to the complaint, which the Court
granted without prejudice.

On Sept. 14, 2007, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint
containing the same allegations as the initial complaint and
adding purported claims for breach of the duty of candor.  On
Oct. 9, 2007, the defendants filed a demurrer to the amended
complaint.  Rather than respond to that demurrer, the plaintiff
admitted that its claims were moot and on Jan. 4, 2008 filed a
motion for attorneys' fees and expenses.  The hearing for this
motion took place on April 17, 2008.

On May 29, 2008, the Court issued a ruling denying the
plaintiff's motion for attorneys' fees and expenses in its
entirety.  The court did not rule on the defendants' demurrer to
the amended complaint.

On July 11, 2008, the Court entered an order dismissing the
action with prejudice and denying the plaintiff's motion for
attorneys' fees and expenses.

The plaintiff has appealed the Court's May 29, 2008 ruling and
the July 11, 2008 order, according to the company's June 25,
2009 Form 20-F filing with the Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

Luxottica Group S.p.A. -- http://www.luxottica.com-- is engaged
in the designing, manufacturing and distribution of fashion,
luxury and sports eyewear.  Luxottica Group operates in two
industry segments: manufacturing and wholesale distribution, and
retail distribution.  Through its manufacturing and wholesale
distribution operations, Luxottica Group is engaged in the
design, manufacturing, wholesale distribution and marketing of
house and designer lines of prescription frames and sunglasses.
The company operates its retail segment principally through its
retail brands, which include, among others, LensCrafters,
Sunglass Hut, Pearle Vision, ILORI, The Optical Shop of Aspen,
OPSM, Laubman & Pank, Budget Eyewear, Bright Eyes, Oakley O
Stores and Vaults, David Clulow and its licensed Brands (Sears
Optical and Target Optical).


MATRIXX INITIATIVES: Faces Mo. Lawsuit Over Nasal Sprays, Swabs
---------------------------------------------------------------
Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. f/k/a Gumtech International, Inc., and
Zicam, KKC f/k/a Gel Tech, LLC faces a purported class-action
suit in St. Louis County Circuit Court in Missouri that accuses
them of failing to warn consumers that use of their nasal sprays
and nasal swabs could lead to a loss of smell, Joe Harris of The
Courthouse News Service reports.

The suit was filed by Gwendolyn West.  According to her, Zicam's
Web site states that the only side effect from its nasal sprays
and nasal swabs is a temporary discomfort, such as burning,
stinging or increased nasal discharge.

However, the suit contends that since Zicam's introduction in
1999, the defendants have received numerous reports that the
over-the-counter homeopathic affected users' sense of smell and
ability to detect flavor.

Ms. West claims the defendants paid $12 million in 2006 to
settle lawsuits filed by Zicam users who experienced a loss of
smell.  In May 2008, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
discovered that the defendants had received more than 800
reports related to loss of smell from Zicam products, according
to the suit.

On June 16, 2009, the FDA allegedly advised the public to stop
taking Zicam products because of the association with
potentially permanent olfactory damage.

The class consists of all St. Louis County residents who bought
Zicam Cold Remedy Nasal Gel, Cold Remedy Nasal Swabs and Cold
Remedy Swabs, Kids Size in St. Louis County between July 1 and
June 15.  They seek actual and punitive damages, and is
represented by Kenneth Brennan of Collinsville, Ill.

For more details, contact:

          The Kenneth Brennan Firm, PC
          115A West Main Street
          Collinsville, IL 62234
          Phone: (618) 343-4222 or (877) 943-4222
          Fax: (866) 314-6780
          Web site: http://www.kbrennanlaw.com
          e-mail: kbrennan@kbrennanlaw.com


NEBRASKA: Judge Favors Plaintiffs in Medicaid-Related Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Karen Flowers of Lancaster County District Court has ruled
that the State of Nebraska wrongfully terminated Medicaid
benefits for more than 400 people, The Associated Press reports.

The Omaha World-Herald previously reported that the Nebraska
Department of Health and Human Services is seeking the dismissal
of a purported class-action suit that claims the state
improperly denied Medicaid coverage to some welfare recipients
(Class Action Reporter, July 10, 2008).

The state had argued they didn't work enough hours under a
welfare-to-work rule, according to The Associated Press.

The purported class-action lawsuit was filed in the Lancaster
County District Court in May 2008 by the Nebraska Appleseed
Center for Law in the Public Interest.  It was brought on behalf
of Jennifer Davio and several hundred other parents who lost
benefits.  Ms. Davio is the single parent of two children and is
pregnant with a third.

The lawsuit is challenging the State of Nebraska's authority to
take medical assistance away from low-income families.  It also
asserted that the Nebraska Department of Health and Human
Services has overstepped its bounds by removing vital Medicaid
health care coverage from struggling families who have already
received penalties from another assistance program.  Medicaid is
the state's health insurance program for low-income families.

Specifically, the suit challenges a Department of Health and
Human Services policy that removes Medicaid assistance from
families who fail to fully meet work requirements under
Nebraska's welfare-to-work program known as Employment First.

"This policy prevents parents from receiving the health care
they need to remain healthy enough to care for their children.
It can result in emergency room visits that are more costly in
the long run, and it runs contrary to state law," states Erin
Ching, Staff Attorney, citing the State Welfare Reform Act in
which the Nebraska Legislature declared that only cash
assistance should be removed as a penalty for failure to
participate in the Employment First program.

Ms. Ching adds, "The removal of health care is an important
policy decision that should only be made by the legislature, and
the legislature did not authorize Health and Human Services to
remove adult Medicaid."

Nebraska Appleseed estimates that, since 1997, there have been
several hundred parents whose Medicaid has been removed due to
an Employment First sanction.

The lawsuit seeks to stop the state from removing Medicaid from
adults in families that have received a sanction for failure to
participate in the Employment First program, and to require that
the program's regulations be modified to bring them in line with
the intent of the Nebraska Legislature and the Welfare Reform
Act (WRA).

Named as defendants in the matter are the Nebraska Department of
Health and Human Services, the state administrative agency
charged with implementing the WRA, Christine Peterson, CEO of
Health and Human Services, Todd Landry, Director of the Division
of Children and Family Services, and Vivianne Chaumont, Director
of the Division of Medicaid and Long-Term Care.

In seeking the dismissal of the litigation, the Nebraska
Department of Health and Human Services contended that state law
authorizes it to cut off both Medicaid and Aid to Dependent
Children cash assistance when recipients don't comply with the
work requirements of Nebraska's welfare-to-work program,
according to Omaha World-Herald.

Todd Landry, children and family services director of the
Department of Health and Human Services, called the lawsuit
frivolous and said the agency would fight it.

For more details, contact:

        Nebraska Appleseed Center for Law in the Public Interest
        941 'O' Street, Suite 920
        Lincoln, NE 68508
        Phone: 402-438-8853
        Fax: 402-438-0263
        e-mail: info@neappleseed.org
        Web site: http://www.neappleseed.org/


NEILMED PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Calif. Labor Law Violations Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
NeilMed Pharmaceuticals, Inc. faces a purported a class-action
lawsuit in Sonoma County Superior Court alleging it violated
California's labor laws, Steve Hart of The Press Democrat
reports.

The suit was filed last month by Miriam Aquino Ruelas and Aidee
Gamboa of Santa Rosa, who were hourly workers at NeilMed until
February.

The suit alleges that workers were denied overtime, vacation
pay, promised bonuses, meal and rest breaks, reimbursement of
expenses and other employment rights.  It also alleges that
workers were required to work "off the clock" and given false
wage statements, according to The Press Democrat.

According to the complaint, at least 250 hourly workers were
denied their rightful wages and other benefits between 2005 and
this year.  It also said that employees were routinely asked to
work before they clocked in and after they clocked out,
resulting in underpayment of regular and overtime hours.

In addition, the suit states that the company altered records to
show fewer hours than employees actually worked.  Workers who
were required to buy uniforms and supplies weren't reimbursed,
it said, reports The Press Democrat.

The complaint also states that employees didn't get accrued
vacation pay, promised bonuses, required meal and rest breaks or
accurate wage statements.

The plaintiffs -- represented by Mark Talamantes, Esq. -- seek
an audit of the company's payroll records and restitution of
workers' lost wages, The Press Democrat reported.

For more details, contact:

          Mark Talamantes, Esq.
          Talamantes Villegas Carrera, LLP
          San Francisco, California 94103
          1550 Bryant Street, Suite 725
          Phone: 415-861-9600 or 866-737-7386
          Fax: 415-861-9622
          Web site: http://www.talamantes.org/


NORTH DAKOTA: Eight Circuit Dismisses Female Inmates' Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
     The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eight Circuit dismissed a
class action lawsuit filed in 2003 against the state by female
inmates.  The inmates had alleged discriminatory conditions in
the programs and facilities operated by the Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation (DOCR).

     The 8th Circuit found there was no evidence to suggest that
any differences in programs or facilities for male and female
inmates was caused by gender discrimination, concluding that any
differences were based on the much smaller female prison
population, the greater number of female inmates in a minimum
custody classification, and the need for female inmates to have
a separate prison facility.

     The inmates had further claimed gender-based inequality in
the prison industries and vocational programs provided by DOCR,
in violation of Title IX.  Title IX requires that no person can
be excluded from an education program on the basis of gender.
The court also dismissed this claim, concluding that the
differences were not based on gender but location.

     Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem noted that the court
adopted the state’s argument that the difficult problems of
prison administration and reform are not for the courts but
instead are for the executive and legislative branches of
government.

     "The Circuit has affirmed that the DOCR's decisions
regarding housing and programming for female inmates are based
on sound correctional policies for a growing female inmate
population," said Stenehjem.  The Attorney General's office
provides general counsel services to the DOCR.

     The inmates filed their complaint in 2003 and were later
granted class action status.  During the six years of
litigation, the state's Risk Management fund paid out almost
$112,000 for attorney fees and $22,000 in expenses.  The case
was argued in the 8th Circuit by Assistant Attorney General Jean
Mullen, who has since retired.


NPC INT'L: Law Firms File FLSA Violations Lawsuit in Missouri
-------------------------------------------------------------
     Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP in Kansas City, Mo. and Weinhaus &
Potashnick in St. Louis, Mo. recently filed suit against NPC
International, Inc., the largest Pizza Hut franchisee operating
more than 1,100 stores in 28 states.  The plaintiff alleges NPC
is in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act by failure to
pay minimum wage to delivery drivers by their refusal to
adequately reimburse drivers for automobile costs and other job
related expenses.

     Pizza companies require their delivery drivers to maintain
operable, safe and legally-compliant vehicles.  To do so, the
drivers must purchase their own gasoline, vehicle parts, fluids,
repairs, maintenance services and insurance.  Meanwhile, their
vehicles depreciate rapidly while driving on the job.  Some
employees commonly drive more than 100 miles per shift.  AAA
Auto Club calculates the average 2009 annual cost of operating a
vehicle at $8,095 for 15,000 miles.  This equates to a per mile
cost of $0.54.  Costs of operating sport utility vehicles and
minivans are even higher.

     The pizza delivery industry maintains a practice of paying
its drivers a fixed amount per delivery, regardless of whether a
delivery is one block from the restaurant or eight miles away in
the next town.  Reimbursement rates vary amongst chains from
about $0.75 to $1.25 per delivery.  However, there appears to be
no correlation between the size of the delivery area or average
delivery mileage and the amount of delivery reimbursement.  This
"one-size-fits-all" approach, rather than reimbursing drivers
based on their actual mileage, fails to adequately compensate
drivers for the actual cost of using their own vehicles to
deliver their employers' pizzas.

     The lawsuit further alleges NPC has failed to reimburse its
delivery drivers for cell phone charges incurred for job-related
purposes, uniform purchases including pants and shoes, dry
cleaning and laundering services, maps, flashlights and
batteries.  These are all expenses incurred by drivers for the
primary benefit of NPC.

     Under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and certain
state laws, wages are calculated by subtracting unreimbursed job
expenses from hourly wages.  The result of NPC's failures to
reimburse drivers for automobile costs and other job related
expenses is payment of wages below the federal minimum.

     The Fair Labor Standards Act provides for recovery of
unpaid minimum wages, an equal amount for liquidated damages,
attorney's fees and litigation costs.  Back wages can be sought
over either a two- or three-year period from the date the
employee joins the case, depending on whether the violation is
deemed willful.  Both present employees and former employees of
NPC may participate.

For more details, contact:

          Jack McInnes, Esq.
          Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP

          Phone: (816) 714-7100
          Web site: http://www.stuevesigel.com


               - and -

          Mark Potashnick, Esq.
          Weinhaus & Potashnick
          11500 Olive Blvd., Suite 133
          St. Louis, Missouri 63141
          Phone: (314) 997-9150
          Fax: (314) 997-9170


ON TRACK INNOVATIONS: Still Faces Motion on Excessive Charges
-------------------------------------------------------------
On Track Innovations Ltd. continues to face a motion to approve
a class action for excessive charges at the Tel Aviv District
Court.

In October 2007, a plaintiff filed against one of the company's
subsidiaries, and other third parties a motion to approve a
class action at the Tel Aviv District Court, at the sum of
approximately NIS2 million (US$526,000).

According to the plaintiff, the subsidiary and the other
defendants charged via the subsidiary's product, an amount per
hour which exceeds the amount that they are authorize to charge.

On Jan. 15, 2008, the company's subsidiary submitted to court a
notice in which it joins to the other defendants' application to
dismiss the motion.

On a preliminary hearing conducted on Sept. 14, 2008, the court
accepted such defendants' arguments that the motion should be
dismissed.  In addition, the court instructed the parties to
submit their summaries only with respect to the consideration to
be paid to the plaintiff and his legal counsel.

According to its June 29, 2009 Form 20-F filing with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2008, at this stage, based on legal advice, the company
is unable to estimate the chances of the motion and, therefore,
no provision has been made in the financial statements in
respect of this motion.

On Track Innovations Ltd. -- http://www.oti.co.il/-- designs,
develops and markets secure contactless microprocessor-based
smart card technology to address the needs of a variety of
markets.  The company offers three lines of solutions, each of
which constitutes a complete system, as well as components (such
as smart cards and readers) that it sells to original equipment
manufacturers (OEMs) for incorporation into their own products.
OTI's three vertical markets are Payment Solutions, Petroleum
Systems and SmartID Solutions.


ON TRACK INNOVATIONS: Suit on Unit's Product Performance Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
One of On Track Innovations Ltd.'s subsidiaries continue to face
a class action lawsuit regarding certain device product's
performance.

In September 2007, a plaintiff filed against one of the
company's subsidiaries, a motion to approve a class action at
the Tel Aviv District Court, at the sum of NIS67.1 million
(US$17.6 million).

The lawsuit was based on claims regarding the performance of
certain device product of the subsidiary.

Based on the court's recommendation at the preliminary hearing,
on Jan. 21, 2009, the plaintiff had filed an application to
remove the motion.  The court had accepted this application and
the motion was removed, according to its June 29, 2009 Form 20-F
filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

On Track Innovations Ltd. -- http://www.oti.co.il/-- designs,
develops and markets secure contactless microprocessor-based
smart card technology to address the needs of a variety of
markets.  The company offers three lines of solutions, each of
which constitutes a complete system, as well as components (such
as smart cards and readers) that it sells to original equipment
manufacturers (OEMs) for incorporation into their own products.
OTI's three vertical markets are Payment Solutions, Petroleum
Systems and SmartID Solutions.


ORACLE CORP: Expects Appeal to Dismissal of Securities Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Oracle Corp. expects the plaintiffs will appeal the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California's
dismissal of the consolidated class-action lawsuit, captioned,
"In Re: Oracle Corp. Securities Litigation, Case No. 01-CV-
0988."

Initially, stockholder class actions were filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California against
the company and its chief executive officer on and after March
9, 2001 (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 16, 2008).

Between March 2002 and March 2003, the court dismissed the
plaintiffs' consolidated complaint, first amended complaint and
a revised second amended complaint.  The last dismissal was with
prejudice.

On Sept. 1, 2004, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit reversed the dismissal order and remanded the case for
further proceedings.

The revised second amended complaint named the company's chief
executive officer, its then chief financial officer (who
currently is chairman of the company's board of directors) and a
former executive vice president as defendants.

This complaint was brought on behalf of purchasers of the
company's stock during the period from Dec. 14, 2000, through
March 1, 2001.

The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants made false and
misleading statements about the company's actual and expected
financial performance and the performance of certain of the
company's applications products, while certain individual
defendants were selling Oracle stock in violation of federal
securities laws.

They further alleged that certain individual defendants sold
Oracle stock while in possession of material non-public
information.  In addition, they also allege that the defendants
engaged in accounting violations.

The suit seeks unspecified damages plus interest, attorneys'
fees and costs, and equitable and injunctive relief.

On July 26, 2007, the defendants filed a motion for summary
judgment, and the plaintiffs filed a motion for partial summary
judgment against all defendants and a motion for summary
judgment against the company's CEO.

In August 2007, the plaintiffs filed amended versions of these
motions.  The parties' summary judgment motions are fully
briefed.

On Oct. 5, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a motion seeking a default
judgment against the defendants or various other sanctions
because of the defendants' alleged destruction of evidence.  The
motion is fully briefed.

A hearing on all these motions was held on Dec. 20, 2007.  The
court has not yet ruled on any of these motions.

On April 7, 2008, the case was reassigned to a new judge, who
has scheduled a status conference for July 18, 2008.

On June 27, 2008, the court ordered supplemental briefing on the
plaintiffs' sanctions motion.

On Sept. 2, 2008, the court issued an order denying plaintiffs'
motion for summary judgment against all defendants.  The order
also denied in part and granted in part plaintiffs' motion for
sanctions.  The court denied plaintiffs' request that judgment
be entered in plaintiffs' favor due to the alleged destruction
of evidence, and the court found that no sanctions were
appropriate for several categories of evidence.  The court found
that sanctions in the form of adverse inferences were
appropriate for two categories of evidence:

       -- e-mails from the company's Chief Executive Officer's
          account, and

       -- materials that had been created in connection with a
          book regarding the company's Chief Executive Officer.

The court then denied defendants' motion for summary judgment
and plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment against the
company's Chief Executive Officer and directed the parties to
revise and re-file these motions to clearly specify the precise
contours of the adverse inferences that should be drawn, and to
take these inferences into account with regard to the propriety
of summary judgment.

The court also directed the parties to address certain legal
issues in the briefing.  A briefing scheduled for these revised
summary judgment motions has not yet been set.

On Oct. 13, 2008, the parties participated in a court-ordered
mediation, which did not result in a settlement.  On Oct. 20,
2008, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, and
plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment against the
company's Chief Executive Officer.  The parties also filed
several motions challenging the admissibility of the testimony
of various expert witnesses.  Opposition briefs were filed on
Nov. 17, 2008, and reply briefs were filed on Dec. 12, 2008.  A
hearing on all these motions was held on Feb. 13, 2009.

On June 16, 2009, the court issued an order granting defendants'
motion for summary judgment and denying plaintiffs' motion for
summary judgment against the company's Chief Executive Officer,
and it entered a judgment dismissing the entire case with
prejudice.

Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages plus interest, attorneys'
fees and costs, and equitable and injunctive relief, according
to the company's June 29, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
May 31, 2009.

The suit is "In Re: Oracle Corp. Securities Litigation, Case No.
01-CV-0988," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, Judge Susan Illston, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Jennie Lee Anderson, Esq. (jennie@libertylawoffice.com)
         Andrus Liberty & Anderson LLP
         1438 Market Street
         San Francisco, CA 94102
         Phone: 415-896-1000
         Fax: 415-896-2249

Representing the defendants is:

         Dorian Daley, Esq.
         500 Oracle Parkway
         Redwood City, CA 94065
         Phone: 650-506-5200
         Fax: 650-506-7114


PIERCE COUNTY: Faces Lawsuit Over Education of Youth Offenders
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pierce County, Washington is facing a purported class-action
suit in the Superior Court of the State of Washington in and for
the County of Pierce alleging that youth offenders in the county
jail are denied access to any form of education, Nick Mccann of
The Courthouse News Service reports.

The suit was filed on June 17, 2009 by the guardians of a jailed
juvenile who say that the state Constitution grants all minors
the right to a free public education, according to The
Courthouse News Service.

Aside from the county, other defendants named in the suit are
Tacoma Public Schools a.k.a. Tacoma School District No. 10, and
Randy Dorn, superintendent of public instruction.

The guardians, who filed suit on behalf of other incarcerated
youth, say they have repeatedly pestered Pierce County and the
Tacoma Public Schools to provide teachers, classes, books and
other educational services and materials for their children,
reports The Courthouse News Service.

The county allegedly ignored these demands, "in spite of its
knowledge that such services were mandated by state and federal
law."  To this day, the defendants "have provided no actual
instruction" to the incarcerated kids, the lawsuit claims.

The Courthouse News Service reported that the plaintiffs --
represented by Gavin Thornton with Columbia Legal Services --
seek an order forcing the schools and county to comply with the
state Constitution's education requirement.

A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at:
              http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?3ea4

For more details, visit: http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?3ea5.


SKILLED HEALTHCARE: "Bates" Suit Still Pending in Calif. Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint entitled "Bates v. Skilled Healthcare
Group, Inc. and twenty-three of its companies," remains pending
in the Superior Court of California, Humboldt County.

On May 4, 2006, three plaintiffs filed a complaint against the
company alleging, among other things, that certain California-
based facilities operated by the company's wholly owned
operating companies failed to provide an adequate number of
qualified personnel to care for their residents and
misrepresented the quality of care provided in their facilities.
Plaintiffs allege these failures violated, among other things,
the residents' rights, the California Health and Safety Code,
the California Business and Professions Code and the Consumer
Legal Remedies Act.

Plaintiffs seek, among other things, restitution of money paid
for services allegedly promised to, but not received by,
facility residents during the period from Sept. 1, 2003 to the
present.  The complaint further sought class certification of in
excess of 18,000 plaintiffs as well as injunctive relief,
punitive damages and attorneys' fees.

In response to the complaint, the company filed a demurrer.  On
Nov. 28, 2006, the Humboldt Court denied the demurrer.

On Jan. 31, 2008, the Humboldt Court denied the company's motion
for a protective order as to the names and addresses of
residents within the facility and on April 7, 2008, the Humboldt
Court granted plaintiffs' motion to compel electronic discovery
by the company.

On May 27, 2008, plaintiffs' motion for class certification was
heard, and the Humboldt Court entered its order granting
plaintiffs' motion for class certification on June 19, 2008.
The company subsequently petitioned the California Court of
Appeal, First Appellate District, for a writ and reversal of the
order granting class certification.  The Court of Appeal denied
the company's writ on Nov. 6, 2008 and the company accordingly
filed a petition for review with the California Supreme Court.

On Jan. 21, 2009, the California Supreme Court denied the
company's petition for review.  The order granting class
certification accordingly remains in place, and the action is
proceeding as a class action.  Primary professional liability
insurance coverage has been exhausted for the policy year
applicable to this case.  The excess insurance carrier issuing
the policy applicable to this case has issued its reservation of
rights to preserve an assertion of non-coverage for this case
due to the lack of any allegation of injury or harm to the
plaintiffs.  Given the uncertainty of the pleadings and facts at
this juncture in the litigation, an assessment of potential
exposure is uncertain at this time, according to the company's
June 29, 2009 Form 10-Q/A filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2009.

California-based Skilled Healthcare Group, Inc. --
http://www.skilledhealthcaregroup.com/-- is a provider of
integrated long-term healthcare services through its nursing
companies and rehabilitation therapy business.  The company also
provides other related healthcare services, including assisted
living care and hospice care.


STAGG CAPITAL: Faces Fla. Suit Over Takeover of Smart SMS Corp.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Several hedge funds are facing a purported class-action lawsuit
filed by shareholders who claim that they staged a hostile
takeover of Smart SMS Corp. and "guided Smart toward financial
ruin through a series of nefarious and foolish acts that could
lead to only one result: the insolvency of Smart and destruction
of any shareholder value," Marimer Matos of The Courthouse News
Service reports.

The suit was filed on June 24, 2009 in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Florida by Steaphan Weir, Chad
Needy, Michael D'Ambrose and Layne Bednar, under the caption,
"Weir et al v. Stagg et al., Case No. 1:2009-cv-21745."

Listed as defendants in the matter are Scott A. Stagg, Stagg
Capital Group, LLC, Distressed High Yield Trading Opportunities
Fund, LTD., SV Special Situations Fund, LLC, SV Special
Situations Master Fund LTD., Amir Khan and Brian Trainor.

The plaintiffs -- represented by Richard N. Friedman, Esq. --
say the "greedy and self-serving" managers loaned them $26
million at "usurious and commercially unreasonable" rates,
acquired a significant ownership in the company and then assumed
absolute control of it before running it into the ground,
according to The Courthouse News Service.

The lawsuit states, "While it is not unusual for lenders to
assume one or more positions on the board of directors of a
debtor corporation to which they advance funds; the defendants
have misbehaved in a manner demonstrating a complete disregard
for their fiduciary duties, committing gross negligence contrary
to the business judgment rule."

The Courthouse News Service reported that hedge fund directors
Scott A. Stagg and Amir Khan allegedly allowed the former owners
of Smart's subsidiaries to run the companies with no supervision
and without a formal management agreement.  One of the former
owners was a convicted felon who used an alias and fake Social
Security number on his job application, according to
shareholders.

The managers also renegotiated Smart's joint ventures without
CEO approval and denied shareholders opportunities to gain
equity in the company by making equity financing impossible with
inflated stock prices.

The shareholders cite several other ways in which the defendants
drained company resources, including paying ghost employees;
entering into contracts motivated by a desire to take over
Smart, such as hiring their own director of finance as Smart's,
even though he worked from the defendants' offices and acted in
their interests; appointing Brian Trainor as the board's "sole
officer," despite shareholder objections; withholding funding;
and eventually firing all of Smart's employees, The Courthouse
News Service reported.

They are seeking  an order blocking the hedge fund managers from
illegally negotiating in Smart's name or withholding access to
capital, and directing Smart's subsidiaries to halt payments of
accounts receivable.  In addition, they demand actual and
punitive damages, reports The Courthouse News Service.

A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at:
              http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?3ea3

For more details, contact:

          The Law Offices of Richard N. Friedman
          8925 SW 148th St., Ste. 200
          Miami, 33176
          Phone: (305) 666-2747
          Fax: (305) 666-2748


SYNAPSE GROUP: N.J. Judge Denies Class Certification in "McNair"
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey denied
class certification to magazine subscribers who claim Synapse
Group, Inc., a Time Warner subsidiary charged for renewals
without their authorization, Charles Toutant of The New Jersey
Law Journal reports.

The lawsuit, entitled, "McNair v. Synapse Group, Inc., Case No.
2:2006-cv-05072," was filed on Oct. 20, 2006 and is being
presided by Judge Jose Linares.

In general, the suit claims that Synapse Group of Stamford,
Conn., used overly complex automated telephone systems and
confusingly worded mailings to prevent cancellations after 90-
day free subscription periods, according to The New Jersey Law
Journal.

Synapse offers trial subscriptions to more than 1,000
publications, which are typically billed to subscribers' credit
cards and subject to automatic renewal.  Subscribers who don't
want to renew may call a voice-recognition telephone system, but
the system's options are misleading, making consumers think they
have canceled when they have not, according to the suit, a copy
of which was obtained by The New Jersey Law Journal.

The suit sought certification on behalf of Synapse subscribers
in New Jersey, New York and Washington, D.C., who were charged
after trying to cancel.

It charged Synapse Group with violating New Jersey's Consumer
Fraud Act and comparable laws in New York and Washington, as
well as breach of contract and breach of the covenant of good
faith and fair dealing, The New Jersey Law Journal reported.

The five named plaintiffs said that shortly before they were
charged for an unwanted renewal, they received a mailing from
Synapse announcing the account was coming up for renewal.  Each
of the five called an automated Synapse telephone line, selected
an option for cancellation and did not get a refund. But other
details varied.

However, in a June 29, 2009 ruling, Judge Linares denied class-
action status for the case, writing that the five named
plaintiffs' varied experiences with Synapse Group obviate class
certification because common issues of law and fact are
overshadowed by individual ones, reports The New Jersey Law
Journal.

The judge further wrote, "Even assuming that there is a common
course of deceptive conduct by Synapse, which this Court does
not so find, the Court agrees with Synapse that a presumption of
causation on the facts of this case is inappropriate, and that,
without such a presumption, individual issues of causation will
predominate," Judge Linares wrote.

The New Jersey Law Journal reported Judge Linares also said the
plaintiffs did not indicate why the company's alleged conduct
was likely to affect each class member the same way.  The
plaintiffs argue that their reaction to the telephone system was
uniform because each initially sought an option to cancel, but
that disregards the evidence that their experiences varied
significantly thereafter, Judge Linares continued.

For more details, contact:

          Paul Diamond, Esq. (pdiamond@innovationequity.com)
          Diamond Law Office, LLC
          1605 John Street
          Suite 102
          Fort Lee, NJ 07024
          Phone: (201) 242-1110

          Michael Scott Green, Esq. (mglaw@aol.com)
          Green & Pagano
          86 Washington Avenue
          Milltown, NJ 08850
          Phone: (732) 390-0480

          Gary S. Graifman, Esq. (ggraifman@kgglaw.com)
          Kantrowitz, Goldhamer & Graifman, Esqs.
          210 Summit Avenue
          Montvale, NJ 07645
          Phone: (201) 391-7000

               - and -

          Geoffrey W. Castello, III, Esq.
          (gcastello@kelleydrye.com)
          Kelley Drye & Warren LLP
          200 Kimball Drive
          Parsippany, NJ 07054
          Phone: (973) 503-5900


ULTRAPAR HOLDINGS: Ultragaz Defends Lawsuits Over Mall Explosion
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ultrapar Participacoes SA's subsidiary, Companhia Ultragaz S.A.,
remains a defendant in legal proceedings for damages arising
from an explosion in 1996 in a shopping mall located in the City
of Osasco, State of Sao Paulo.

Such proceedings involve:

   (i) individual proceedings brought by victims of the
       explosion seeking compensation for loss of income and
       pain and suffering;

  (ii) request for compensation for expenses of the shopping
       mall administrator and its insurer; and

(iii) class action seeking economic and non-economic damages
       for all victims injured and dead.

According to the company's June 29, 2009 Form 20-F filing with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2008, the subsidiary believes that it produced evidence
that the defective gas pipelines in the shopping mall caused the
accident, and Ultragaz's local LPG storage facilities did not
contribute to the explosion.

Out of the 62 actions decided to date, 61 were favorable, of
which 25 are already shelved; only 1 was adverse in the second
instance, which can still be appealed, and if such decision is
upheld, the value is BRL0.017 million.  There are 3 actions yet
to be decided.  The subsidiary has insurance coverage for these
legal proceedings, and the value not insured is BRL16.5 million.

Ultrapar Participacoes SA -- http://www.ultra.com.br--
incorporated on Dec. 20, 1953, is a Brazil-based company
operating in three sectors: gas and fuel distribution, which is
conducted by Ultragaz Participacoes Ltda, (Ultragaz) and
Ipiranga; production of chemicals, which is conducted by Oxiteno
SA (Oxiteno), and integrated logistics solutions for special
bulk cargo, which is conducted by Ultracargo Operacoes
Logisticas e Participacoes Ltda (Ultracargo).  In addition, the
company operates in the oil refining industry through its
participation in Refinaria de Petroleo Riograndense SA.  The
company has operations in Brazil, Mexico, Argentina, the United
States and Venezuela.


VENEZUELA: Group Notifies CITGO of Fla. Suit v. Govt. Officials
---------------------------------------------------------------
Freedom Watch, a U.S. non-governmental organization (NGO),
announced that it has formally notified the Venezuelan-run oil
company CITGO Petroleum Corp. about the class-action lawsuit
filed against Venezuelan President, Hugo Chavez, for alleged
acts of terrorism and violation of human rights, El Universal
reports.

Larry Klayman, founder and President of Freedom Watch, said that
the Venezuelan government has 20 days to respond the lawsuit,
which was filed in April 2009.  Back then Freedom Watch
announced is seeking a $5 billion compensation for punitive
damages, El Universal reported.

The Associated Press previously reported that Freedom Watch
filed for a purported class-action lawsuit against Venezuelan
President Hugo Chavez for alleged acts of terrorism and human
rights violations, including conspiring with Colombian
guerrillas, al-Qaida and the Taliban (Class Action Reporter,
April 20, 2009).

The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida on April 15, 2009 on behalf of Venezuelan
journalist Ricardo Guanipa, according to the AP report.

Captioned, "Guanipa et al v. Chavez et al., Case No. 1:2009-cv-
20999," the suit also listed as defendants, Nicolas Maduro
Moros, Tarek El Assaimi, Ramon Rodriguez Chacin, Hugo Carvajal
Barrios, Henry Rangel Silva, and Venezuelan Vice-President Ramon
Alonso Carriale Rengifo.

According to the complaint, Mr. Guanipa worked for Radio Marti
in Venezuela and received death threats after investigating
government corruption.  Radio Marti is the U.S. Government's
broadcast to Cuba, with the stated goal of providing an
alternative to the communist island's government-run media.  Mr.
Guanipa fled Venezuela and received political asylum in the U.S.
in 2005.  He now lives in Miami, reported The Associated Press.

The Associated Press reported that Freedom Watch is seeking
class-action status for the case in order to include other
individuals whom it alleges were also forced to flee Venezuela.

For more details, contact:

          Larry Elliot Klayman, Esq. (leklayman@yahoo.com)
          Klayman Law Firm
          3415 SW 24th Street
          Miami, FL 33145
          Phone: 305-447-1091
          Fax: 305-447-1548


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

IBM SOUTHEAST: Law Firms File Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Fla.
--------------------------------------------------------------
     The law firms of Blum & Silver, LLP, Dimond Kaplan
Rothstein, P.A., and Sallah & Cox, LLC announced that they have
commenced a class action in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Florida against the IBM Southeast
Employees' Federal Credit Union ("Credit Union") and certain
individuals.  The Complaint alleges that the Credit Union and
its representatives negligently solicited and referred its
members to Wellstone Securities, LLP, a now-defunct broker-
dealer.  Wellstone Securities recommended and sold bonds issued
by Cornerstone Ministries Investments, Inc. to the Credit Union
members.  Cornerstone is now in bankruptcy and Credit Union
members who purchased the Cornerstone securities have lost
millions of dollars.

     The complaint alleges that the Credit Union acted as a
feeder for Wellstone Securities.  A Cornerstone board member has
testified in other legal proceedings that the Credit Union
entered into a business relationship to refer its members to
Wellstone Securities.  According to Plaintiff's counsel, this
case highlights the problem with respected financial
institutions referring their clients to other firms without
doing the necessary due diligence or closing their eyes to
obvious red flags.  The law firms also suggest that this case is
similar to the feeder funds that sent their clients' money to
Madoff.

     There are believed to be hundreds of victims in South
Florida and Georgia who collectively have lost millions of
dollars.

     The class period is currently identified as running from
July 30, 2004 through September 5, 2008.

     The complaint charges the Credit Union, its Chief Executive
Officer, and three financial service representatives with
negligent violations of the Securities Act of 1933, the Georgia
Securities Act, and common-law negligence.  The Credit Union is
a federally-chartered organization providing banking, lending,
and other financial services to its members, most of whom are
current or former IBM employees.

     The complaint alleges that defendants negligently
recommended and referred its members to Wellstone Securities,
LLP, where members purchased worthless bonds and other
securities issued by Cornerstone Ministries Investments, Inc.

     Additionally, the complaint alleges that the Credit Union's
financial services representatives aided and abetted violations
of the Georgia Securities Act, perpetrated by Wellstone
Securities, LLC and Cornerstone.

     According to the complaint, the Credit Union, its CEO, and
financial service representatives actively solicited members to
purchase Cornerstone securities through Wellstone Securities.
In the course of such active solicitation, the Credit Union
negligently misstated and omitted to state material facts,
including Cornerstone's past adverse regulatory history, as well
as facts about the creditworthiness of Cornerstone and its
securities.

     Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all Credit
Union members who purchased the Cornerstone securities pursuant
and/or traceable to the Registration Statement issued in
connection with the Company's Offering.

For more details, contact:

          Scott L. Silver, Esq. (silver@stockattorneys.com)
          Blum & Silver, LLP
          12540 West Atlantic Blvd.
          Coral Springs, FL  33071
          Phone: 877/STOCK-LAW


          Jeffrey Kaplan, Esq. (jkaplan@dkrpa.com)
          Scott Dimond, Esq. (sdimond@dkrpa.com)
          Dimond Kaplan & Rothstein, P.A.
          Offices at Grand Bay Plaza
          2665 South Bayshore Drive
          Penthouse 2B
          Miami, Florida 33133
          Phone: 888.578.6255
          Web site: http://www.dkrpa.com/

               - and -

          James Sallah, Esq. (jds@sallahcox.com)
          Sallah & Cox, LLC
          2101 NW Corporate Boulevard
          Suite 218
          Boca Raton, Florida 33431
          Phone: 561.989-9080


                            *********

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  * * *