CAR_Public/090713.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Monday, July 13, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 136

                           Headlines

AMERICAN NATIONAL: Still Defends Suit Over Labor Code Violations
AMERICAN NATIONAL: Suit Over Alleged Failure to Refund Dismissed
ATLAS MINING: Settles Idaho Securities Fraud Lawsuit for $1.25M
BANK OF AMERICA: Law Firm Files Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
BRAZILIAN ELECTRIC: Continues to Face Furnas' Damages Lawsuit

BRAZILIAN ELECTRIC: Lawsuits by Two Cabeco Associations Pending
BEST BUY: Faces Mo. Suit Over Battery Power of Laptop Computers
CHACHA SEARCH: Faces Ill. Litigation for Text Spamming Users
COLUMBIA NATURAL: "Tawney" Settlement Payments to be Delayed
COUNTRYWIDE HOME: Ninth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of "Vinole"

DEL MONTE: Appeals to Denied MDL Settlement Objections Pending
DEL MONTE: "Blaszkowski" Suit Over False Marketing Nixed in 2008
DEL MONTE: Plaintiff Appeals Denied Pet Food & Snack Suit Status
FACEBOOK INC: Faces "Click Fraud" Litigation in California Court
FLORIDA: Court Turns Down Appeal in Suit Over "Save Our Homes"

FX ENERGY: Suit Over Failure to State Claim Dismissed in June 26
ITALY: Lawmakers Pass First Law Establishing Class-Actions Suits
MICROSOFT CORP: Wash. Judge Favors Company in Anti-Piracy Suit
OKLAHOMA: Judge Stops Evidence Exchange in Foster Care Lawsuit
QUEBEC: Woman Seeks to File Lawsuit Over Breast-Cancer Tests

UCI HOLDCO: Bid in "Perrault" Case Pending Quebec Court Ruling
UCI HOLDCO: Bid to Junk Indirect Purchasers' Suit Still Pending
UCI HOLDCO: Motion in "Urlin" Suit Pending Ontario Court Ruling
UCI HOLDCO: "Peerali" Lawsuit v. Champion Labs Remain Pending
UCI HOLDCO: Unit Still Faces Direct Purchasers Consolidated Suit

UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH: Sued Over Forced Work During Lunch
WAL-MART STORES: Ark. Court Approves $17.5M Lawsuit Settlement
WELLS REAL: Bid to Amend REIT Securities Complaint Still Pending
WESTPORT NATIONAL: Faces Suit in Conn. Over Madoff Investments
WILLING HOLDING: Fees & Damages in "Hosking" Still Undetermined


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

BEAR STEARNS: Coughlin Stoia Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.


                           *********

AMERICAN NATIONAL: Still Defends Suit Over Labor Code Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
American National Insurance Company continues to defend a
purported class action lawsuit styled "Dulanto v. American
National Insurance Company, C.D. Cal.," alleging violations of
the California Labor Code.

American National is a defendant in a lawsuit, which proposes to
certify one or more classes of persons who contend that American
National allegedly violated various provisions of the California
Labor Code, engaged in unfair business practices, fraud and
deceit, conversion, and negligent misrepresentation with respect
to certain of its sales agents.

The plaintiff has posited that she may seek a nationwide class
for alleged violations of the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act
at some point in the future.

The plaintiff seeks statutory penalties, restitution, interest,
penalties, attorneys' fees, punitive damages and injunctive
relief in an unspecified amount.

No further updates on the matter were reported in the company's
Amendment No. 2 to Form 10 registration statement filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission dated July 1, 2009.

American National Insurance Company -- http://www.anico.com--
and its subsidiaries, operate primarily in the insurance
industry.  The company offers a line of insurance coverages,
including individual and group life, health, annuities, personal
lines property and casualty, and credit insurance.  In addition,
through non-insurance subsidiaries, American National offers
mutual funds, and invests in real estate.  It operates in seven
marketing segments: Independent Marketing Group, Career Sales &
Service Division, Multiple Line, Senior Age Marketing, Direct
Marketing, Credit Insurance Division And Health Division.


AMERICAN NATIONAL: Suit Over Alleged Failure to Refund Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class-action lawsuit against American National Insurance
Company alleging failure to refund premiums was dismissed during
2009.

The company is the defendant in a class-action lawsuit which
contends that American National allegedly failed to refund
credit life and disability insurance premiums to persons who
paid the underlying indebtedness prior to the insured loan's
maturity.

The suit is styled "Perkins, et al. v. American National
Insurance Company, M.D. Ga."

A settlement class has been certified.

In addition, American National has reached a settlement with the
State of Texas in a similar action regarding this situation.

American National has reserved $27 million for settlement of
these cases, including payment of attorneys' fees, according to
the company's Amendment No. 2 to Form 10 registration statement
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission dated
July 1, 2009.

American National Insurance Company -- http://www.anico.com--
and its subsidiaries, operate primarily in the insurance
industry.  The company offers a line of insurance coverages,
including individual and group life, health, annuities, personal
lines property and casualty, and credit insurance.  In addition,
through non-insurance subsidiaries, American National offers
mutual funds, and invests in real estate.  It operates in seven
marketing segments: Independent Marketing Group, Career Sales &
Service Division, Multiple Line, Senior Age Marketing, Direct
Marketing, Credit Insurance Division And Health Division.


ATLAS MINING: Settles Idaho Securities Fraud Lawsuit for $1.25M
---------------------------------------------------------------
     Atlas Mining Company (Pink Sheets: ALMI) announced that it
has entered into a settlement agreement settling the class
action, "In Re Atlas Mining Company Securities Litigation,"
pending in the United States District Court for the District of
Idaho, Civil Action No. 07-428-N-EJL (D. Idaho).

     Under the terms of the settlement agreement Atlas will pay
plaintiffs $1,250,000 (which includes fees to plaintiff's
counsel), to be funded by the proceeds of an insurance policy,
in exchange for release of all claims against Atlas, Nano Clay &
Technologies Inc., and the individual defendants William T.
Jacbobson, Robert Dumont, Ronald Price and Barbara Suveg.  Atlas
will also fund up to $75,000 to fund expenses in connection with
notification to class members.  The settlement agreement is the
agreement contemplated by the memorandum of understanding
entered into by Atlas and the lead plaintiffs described in the
press release issued May 4, 2009 and the terms of it are
consistent therewith.


BANK OF AMERICA: Law Firm Files Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
     Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP and Donelon, P.C. recently filed a
lawsuit against Bank of America, N.A. on behalf of bank tellers
and personal bankers for allegedly unpaid wages and overtime
worked at company bank branches across the country.  The lawsuit
was filed as a collective action, which means that other Bank of
America employees with similar job duties may join the case to
seek their allegedly unpaid wages.

     In the Complaint, the employees allege that Bank of America
failed to pay bank tellers and personal bankers for overtime
worked. In particular, employees work more than forty hours in a
work week, but instead of paying them overtime, Bank of America:
(i) gives them "comp time," (ii) tells them not to record the
hours worked over forty, and/or (iii) lowers or "modifies" the
tellers' and personal bankers' recorded hours by eliminating any
overtime hours.  Also, the lawsuit alleges that Bank of America
automatically deducts time for meal breaks; however, employees
were routinely required to perform work during unpaid meal
breaks (or were not able to take such breaks).

     The failure to pay employees their earned overtime wages is
in direct violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).  The
FLSA provides for recovery of unpaid overtime 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 and
former employees of Bank of America, N.A. may participate in the
case.

For more details, contact:

          George Hanson, Esq.
          Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP
          Phone: 866-668-9241
          Web site: http://www.stuevesiegel.com


BRAZILIAN ELECTRIC: Continues to Face Furnas' Damages Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Centrais Eletricas Brasileiras SA Eletrobras continues to face
a class action regarding environmental damages caused by Furnas
Centrais Eletricas SA's hydroelectric plant Sao Jose da Barra.

In 2001, ten municipalities of the State of Minas Gerais and a
local commerce association brought the class action regarding
environmental damages.

The claim alleges that the level of the reservoir is decreasing
because of the excessive and irregular use of water for energy
production purposes.

The claim also alleges that the low levels of water in the
reservoir are detrimental to tourism in the area and that as a
result the regional economy has been adversely affected.

The claim is for financial compensation of approximately BRL1
billion, although the majority of the municipalities originally
involved have already withdrawn from the claim.

Proceedings are currently in progress to determine the court in
which the claim will be heard, according to the company's June
30, 2009 Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

Centrais Eletricas Brasileiras SA - Eletrobras is a Brazil-based
holding company that is principally engaged in the nuclear,
hydroelectric and fossil fuel electric power industry.  The
company specializes in the developing, financing, construction
and operation of electric power plants, as well as generation,
transmission and distribution of electric power.  The company
has a number of subsidiaries, engaged in the generating and
distributing of electric power: Eletrobras Participacoes SA,
Furnas Centrais Eletricas SA and Companhia de Geracao Termica de
Energia Eletrica, among others.


BRAZILIAN ELECTRIC: Lawsuits by Two Cabeco Associations Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Class actions brought by two associations of the community of
Cabeco against Centrais Eletricas Brasileiras SA Eletrobras
are still in a preliminary phase.

In 2002 and 2003, two associations of the community of Cabeco
brought independent class actions regarding environmental
damages caused by Chesf.

The Cabeco community is located in a river island in the estuary
of the Sao Francisco River.

Both alleged that the hydroelectric plants disturbed the normal
flow of the river and resulted in a decline in fishing activity
and the gradual disappearance of the river island.

Both class actions are still in a preliminary phase and the
monetary compensation requested is BRL100 million in each case,
according to the company's June 30, 2009 Form 20-F filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Dec. 31, 2008.

Centrais Eletricas Brasileiras SA - Eletrobras is a Brazil-based
holding company that is principally engaged in the nuclear,
hydroelectric and fossil fuel electric power industry.  The
company specializes in the developing, financing, construction
and operation of electric power plants, as well as generation,
transmission and distribution of electric power.  The company
has a number of subsidiaries, engaged in the generating and
distributing of electric power: Eletrobras Participacoes SA,
Furnas Centrais Eletricas SA and Companhia de Geracao Termica de
Energia Eletrica, among others.


BEST BUY: Faces Mo. Suit Over Battery Power of Laptop Computers
---------------------------------------------------------------
Best Buy Co., Inc. and Best Buy Co. of Minnesota, Inc. are
facing a purported class-action suit accusing them of grossly
overstating the battery power of the laptop computers it sells,
Joe Harris of The Courthouse News Service reports.

The suit was filed on July 7, 2009 in St. Louis County Circuit
Court in Missouri by F. Damon Barton.  It claims that the
defendants list a maximum battery life for each laptop that is
more than twice its actual battery power, according to The
Courthouse News Service.

Defendants though do not explain how it calculates maximum
battery life, but lists it for all the brands the chain store
sells, according to the plaintiff.

Mr. Barton  -- represented by John Medler, Esq. of St. Louis --
claims the maximum battery life claims are based on a dim,
barely readable screen, a disabled Wi-Fi and an idling computer
processor - in direct contrast to Best Buy's advertisements, The
Courthouse News Service reported.

The class consists of all Missourians who bought a laptop or
notebook computer between March 2008 and the day of judgment or
settlement, and to whom Best Buy specified a maximum number of
battery hours, reports The Courthouse News Service.

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

For more details, contact:

          John F. Medler, Esq. (john@medler.com)
          The Medler Law Firm
          2 Tall Timbers Drive
          St. Louis, MO 63124
          Phone: (314) 210-2745 or (314) 210-2744
          Fax: (314) 993-6533


CHACHA SEARCH: Faces Ill. Litigation for Text Spamming Users
------------------------------------------------------------
ChaCha Search, Inc., is facing a purported class-action suit
filed by Illinois resident John Gould, who claims the company
has been sending him "unauthorized and deceptive" text messages,
according to Marian Wang of chicagonow.com.

ChaCha Search is a texting service that invites users to call or
text in questions and get answers on their phones.  While it
warns users that standard message rates may apply, it does not
inform users that they will continue to receive spam texts,
which can incur further costs from the users' cellular phone
companies, according to a posting at chicagonow.com.


COLUMBIA NATURAL: "Tawney" Settlement Payments to be Delayed
------------------------------------------------------------
About $253 million in payments to oil and gas royalty owners are
delayed in the class-action lawsuit, "Tawney, et al. v. Columbia
Natural Resources, Inc.," Pam Kasey of WOWK reports

The delay is reportedly due to the claims administrator Selby,
Epperly & Association of Hurricane has to recalculating
settlement payments with some amounts to be revised downward,
according to WOWK.
  
The West Virginia Circuit Court for Roane County is supervising
the administration of the settlement proceeds in a purported
class-action suit involving the rights of mineral owners, which
names NiSource, Inc., as a defendant (Class Action Reporter, May
15, 2009).

The suit is entitled, "Tawney, et al. v. Columbia Natural
Resources, Inc."  It alleges that the defendants underpaid
royalties on gas produced on their land by improperly deducting
post-production costs and not paying a fair value for the gas
(Class Action Reporter, Oct. 28, 2008).

In December 2004, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion to
add NiSource and Columbia Natural Resources, as defendants.

The plaintiffs, who are West Virginia landowners, also claimed
that the defendants fraudulently concealed the deduction of
post-production charges.

The court certified the case as a class action that includes any
person who, after July 31, 1990, received or is due royalties
from CNR (and its predecessors or successors) on lands lying
within the boundary of the state of West Virginia.

Although NiSource sold CNR in 2003, NiSource remains obligated
to manage this litigation and for the majority of any damages
ultimately awarded to the plaintiffs.

In November 2008, a Roane County judge gave final approval to a
deal that settles the 6-year old case.

NiSource's share of the settlement liability is up to $338.8
million.  NiSource has complied with its obligations under the
settlement agreement to fund $85.5 million in the qualified
settlement fund by Jan. 13, 2009.  NiSource has also complied
with its obligation to provide a letter of credit on Jan. 15,
2009, securing the unpaid portion of the settlement.

The trial court entered its order discharging the judgment on
Jan. 20, 2009.

The Court is supervising the administration of the settlement
proceeds.  NiSource will be required to make additional
payments, pursuant to the settlement, upon notice from the Class
Administrator, according to the company's May 1, 2009 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2009.

The suit is "Tawney, et al. v. Columbia Natural Resources,
Inc.," filed before the West Virginia Circuit Court for Roane
County, Judge Thomas Evans, III, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Marvin Masters, Esq.
         181 Summers Street
         Charleston, West Virginia 25301
         Phone: 304-342-3106
         Fax: 304-342-3189

Representing the defendants is:

         Timothy Miller, Esq.
         400 Fifth Third Center, 700 Virginia St.
         P.O. Box 1791
         Charleston, West Virginia 25326
         Phone: 304-344-5800
         Fax: 304-344-9566


COUNTRYWIDE HOME: Ninth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of "Vinole"
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the
dismissal of the purported class-action lawsuit, "Vinole v.
Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. et al. Case No. 3:2007-cv-00127,"
The Courthouse News Service reports.

The suit was filed by loan consultants Raymond Vinole and Ken
Yoder on Jan. 19, 2007 in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California.  It is accusing the lender of
ducking labor laws by misclassifying home loan consultants as
"outside salespersons."

A group of external home loan consultants said the improper
classification meant they were exempt from labor protections
under California law.  This allowed Countrywide to shirk its
duty to pay them premium overtime and other wages, the
consultants claimed, according to The Courthouse News Service.

They appealed two aspects of the district court's ruling for
Countrywide.  First, they said U.S. District Judge Dana Sabraw
abused his discretion by considering Countrywide's motion to
deny class certification before the plaintiffs had filed their
motion for certification.  Second, they challenged his
conclusion that their claims were not similar enough to merit
class-action status, reports The Courthouse News Service.

The Courthouse News Service reported that a three-judge panel of
the Pasadena, Calif.-based appeals court rejected both arguments
and upheld Judge Dana M. Sabraw's ruling.

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


DEL MONTE: Appeals to Denied MDL Settlement Objections Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Appeals filed by four class members to their denied objections
on the court approved settlement in the matter entitled "In re
Pet Food Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 1850," which
names Del Monte Foods Co. as one of the defendants, are pending.

Beginning with the pet food recall announced by Menu Foods,
Inc., in March 2007, many major pet food manufacturers,
including Del Monte, announced recalls of their own select
products.  The company currently believes there are over 90
purported class action suits relating to these pet food recalls.

The company is currently a defendant in these specific cases,
related to its pet food and pet snack recall:

       -- "Carver v. Del Monte," filed on April 4, 2007, in the
          U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
          California;

       -- "Ford v. Del Monte," filed on April 7, 2007, in the
          U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
          California;

       -- "Hart v. Del Monte," filed on April 10, 2007, before
          the state court in Los Angeles, California;

       -- "Schwinger v. Del Monte," filed on May 15, 2007, in
          the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
          Missouri; and

       -- "Tompkins v. Del Monte," filed on July 13, 2007, in
          the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado.

The named plaintiffs in these cases allege that their pets
suffered injury or death as a result of ingesting the company's
and the other defendants' allegedly contaminated pet food and
pet snack products.

By order dated June 28, 2007, the Carver, Ford, Hart, Schwinger,
and Tompkins cases were transferred to the U.S. District Court
for the District of New Jersey and consolidated with other
purported pet food class action suits under the federal rules
for multi-district litigation (In re Pet Food Products Liability
Litigation, MDL No. 1850).

The plaintiffs and the defendants in the multi-district
litigation cases, including the five consolidated cases in which
the company is a defendant, have tentatively agreed to a
settlement deal to resolve their dispute.

On May 30, 2008, the Court granted preliminary approval to the
settlement.  Pursuant to the Court's order, notice of the
settlement was disseminated to the public by mail and
publication beginning June 16, 2008.

A hearing on a final settlement approval and class certification
has been scheduled for Oct. 14, 2008.

If approved, the class will be certified and the total
settlement will aggregate $24 million.  The portion of the
company's contribution to this settlement, if approved, would be
$0.25 million.

On Nov. 19, 2008, the Court entered orders approving the
settlement, certifying the class and dismissing the complaints
against the defendants, including the company.  The total
settlement was $24.0 million.  The portion of the company's
contribution to this settlement was $250,000, net of insurance
recovery.

Four class members have filed objections to the settlement,
which objections have been denied by the Court.  On Dec. 3, 2008
and Dec. 12, 2008, these class members filed Notices of Appeal,
according to the company's July 1, 2009 Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended May 3, 2009.

Del Monte Foods Co. -- http://www.delmonte.com/-- is a
producer, distributor and marketer of branded food and pet
products for the U.S. retail market.  The segments in which the
Company operates include The Consumer Products segment and The
Pet Products segment.


DEL MONTE: "Blaszkowski" Suit Over False Marketing Nixed in 2008
----------------------------------------------------------------
A purported class-action lawsuit, captioned "Blaszkowski et al.
v. Mars Inc. et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-21221-CMA," which was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida and named Del Monte Foods Co. as one of the defendants,
was dismissed in 2008.

The suit was filed against companies having a combined
approximate 70% of the market share in the $16-billion-a-year
pet food industry (Class Action Reporter, June 8, 2008).

Aside from Del Monte, the defendants in the suit are:

          -- Mars Inc.
          -- Proctor and Gamble Co.
          -- Colgate Palmolive Company
          -- Nestle U.S.A. Inc.
          -- Nurto Procucts Inc.
          -- Menu Foods, Inc.
          -- Menu Foods Income Fund
          -- Publix Supermarkets, Inc.
          -- Winn Dixie Stores, Inc.
          -- Petco Animal Supplies, Inc.
          -- Pet Supermarket, Inc.
          -- Petsmart Inc.
          -- Target Corp.
          -- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

The plaintiffs -- Renee Blaszkowski, Amy Hollub and Patricia
Davis -- allege that the defendant-companies have spent $300
million a year in making false and misleading marketing
statements regarding the contents of their pet food to the dog
and cat loving American public.

While these defendants tout their pet food products as choice
cuts of prime beef, chunks of chicken, fish, fresh wholesome
vegetables and whole grains to induce consumers to buy them,
plaintiffs contend the food is actually made from "inedible"
slaughterhouse waste products of the human food chain such as
spines, heads, tails, hooves, hair, and blood.

The lawsuit alleges rendering companies who process this waste
have also added other inedible "waste" such as euthanized cats
and dogs from veterinarian offices and animal shelters, road
kill, zoo animals, rancid restaurant grease, toxic chemicals and
additives.  Additionally, dead animals and those declared unfit
for human consumption due to disease and illness are also placed
in the mix, the plaintiffs contend.

The lawsuit further alleges that pet food companies market their
products as wholesome, choice cuts of meat, natural and complete
and balanced diets even though they are fully aware that this
food is largely carbohydrates and sugars combined with toxic
preservatives and additives with very little to no meat at all.

The class includes all persons in the U.S. who purchase, or have
purchased, pet food produced, manufactured, advertised,
marketed, distributed and sold by any of the defendants which
lead consumers to believe that they were purchasing, including,
but not limited to, "wholesome," "gourmet," premium," "natural,"
"balanced" and "complete," pet food that was marketed as having
certain ingredients when in fact the pet food contained
ingredients that were not represented in the defendants'
marketing of the pet food and which the defendants never
disclosed to the plaintiffs or class representatives or the
class prior to purchase.

Questions of law and fact that the purported class raises,
include:

     (a) whether defendants advertised, marketed and sold pet
         food as healthy, human-like and nutritionally balanced
         when it contained, including but not limited to, toxic
         and dangerous ingredients and chemicals, including but
         not limited to, animal bones, blood, pus, intestines,
         ligaments, tongues, esophagi, cancerous meat,
         euthanized dogs and cats, sodium barbital, and
         penthobarbital and failed to fully disclose such facts
         in advertising;

     (b) whether the defendants knowingly sold pet food that
         contained toxic, dangerous and adulterated ingredients
         and chemicals and failed to disclose such facts;

     (c) whether the defendants advertised, represented or held
         itself out as producing or manufacturing pet food
         products that were, including but not limited to, safe,
         healthy balanced and complete for pets of the
         plaintiffs and class members when in fact such pet food
         was not safe, healthy, balanced or complete;

     (d) whether defendants expressly warranted these pet food
         products;

     (e) whether defendants expressly purported to disclaim any
         express warranty on these pet food products;

     (f) whether defendants purported to disclaim any implied
         warranty on these pet food products;

     (g) whether any limitation on any warranty failed to meet
         its essential purpose;

     (h) whether defendants' intended that the products be
         purchased by the plaintiffs and the class members or
         others;

     (i) whether defendants' intended that the class would feed
         the products to their pets;

     (k) whether defendants' were negligent in manufacturing or
         processing the pet food products;

     (l) whether the purchase and use of pet food to feed
         cats and dogs resulted in loss, injury, or damages to
         the plaintiffs and the class;

     (m) whether the defendants' negligence proximately caused
         loss or injury or damage to the plaintiffs and the
         class;

     (n) whether the plaintiffs and the class suffered damages;

     (o) whether the defendants were unjustly enriched be
         selling consumers pet food that was adulterated, did
         not comport with their own marketing, contained toxic
         substances, and was not nutritionally complete as
         advertised;

     (p) whether the defendants marketing and advertising was
         false and deceptive under applicable state laws; and

     (q) whether the defendants violated applicable consumer
         statutes requiring that the defendants not to commit
         deceptive or unfair trade practices to the detriment of
         the consumer.

The plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, ask the court:

     -- for an order awarding actual consequential damages;

     -- pursuant to Section 501.2075, for $10,000 for each
        violation of willfully using a method, act, or practice
        declared unlawful under Section 501.204;

     -- for pre- and post-judgment interest to the class, as
        allowed by law;

     -- for reasonable attorneys' fees;

     -- the return of wrongful, revenue, and benefits, to the
        extent, and in the amount deemed appropriate by the
        court and such other relief the court deems just and
        proper to remedy defendants' unjust enrichment;

     -- for an order awarding punitive damages; and

     -- for an order granting such other and further relief as
        allowed by law.

The company has filed various motions to dismiss the Blaszkowski
case, which requests were denied by the court.

On April 11, 2008, the plaintiffs filed their fourth amended
complaint.  The company has filed an answer to the fourth
amended complaint.

On Sept. 12, 2008 and Oct. 9, 2008, plaintiffs filed
stipulations of dismissal with respect to their complaint
against certain of the defendants, including the company.  The
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida entered
such requested dismissals on such dates, resulting in the
dismissal of all claims against the company, according to its
July 1, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended May 3, 2009.

A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at:

              http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1f36

The suit is "Blaszkowski et al. v. Mars Inc. et al., Case No.
1:07-cv-21221-CMA," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida, Judge Cecilia M. Altonaga,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Catherine J. MacIvor, Esq. (cmacivor@mflegal.com)
          Maltzman Foreman PA
          2 S Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 2300
          One Biscayne Tower
          Miami, FL 33131-1803
          Phone: 305-358-6555
          Fax: 374-9077


DEL MONTE: Plaintiff Appeals Denied Pet Food & Snack Suit Status
----------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs are appealing the denial of their motion for
class certification in a purported class-action lawsuit over Del
Monte Foods Co.'s and other defendants' recalled pet foods and
snacks.

The lawsuit, "Picus v. Del Monte," was filed on April 30, 2007,
and generally alleges that the plaintiffs' pets suffered injury
or death as a result of ingesting the company's and other
defendants' contaminated pet food and pet snack products.  It
also contains allegations of false and misleading advertising by
the company.

The plaintiffs in the matter are seeking class certification as
well as unspecified damages and injunctive relief against
further distribution of the allegedly defective products.

On Oct. 12, 2007, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
Picus case.  The state court granted in part and denied in part
the dismissal.

On Dec. 14, 2007, other defendants in the case filed a motion to
deny class certification.  The court has not issued a ruling on
that motion.

On March 16, 2009, the Court granted the motion to deny class
certification.  On March 25, 2009, the plaintiffs filed an
appeal of the Court's decision, according to the company's July
1, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended May 3, 2009.

Del Monte Foods Co. -- http://www.delmonte.com/-- is a
producer, distributor and marketer of branded food and pet
products for the U.S. retail market.  The segments in which the
Company operates include The Consumer Products segment and The
Pet Products segment.


FACEBOOK INC: Faces "Click Fraud" Litigation in California Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Facebook, Inc. is facing a purported class-action lawsuit for
click fraud, alleging that the social networking site charged
for more clicks than actually occurred, Wendy Davis of MediaPost
Publications reports.

The suit was filed by RootZoo, Inc., owner of sports site
RootZoo, on July 7, 2009 in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, under the caption, "RootZoo,
Inc v. Facebook, Inc., Case No. 5:2009-cv-03043."

RootZoo, which advertised on Facebook from November of 2007
until June of 2008, alleges that its own analytics programs
showed significant discrepancies between the data provided by
its own analytics programs and the numbers claimed by Facebook,
according to MediaPost Publications.

MediaPost Publications reported that the complaint provides
specifics for one day -- June 2, 2008.  On that date, RootZoo's
own software programs allegedly showed that 300 clicks had been
generated by Facebook, but the company was charged for 804
clicks.

RootZoo said in its complaint that it asked Facebook for its log
files and a refund, and that Facebook refused to comply with
either request, reports MediaPost Publications.

For more details, contact:

          Brian Stephen Kabateck, Esq. (bsk@kbklawyers.com)
          Kabateck Brown Kellner LLP
          Engine Company #28 Building
          644 South Figueroa Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Phone: (213) 217-5000
          Fax: (213) 217-5010

          Steven N. Berk, Esq. (steven@chavezgertler.com)
          Berk Law PLLC
          1225 Fifteenth Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20005
          Phone: 202 232-7550
          Fax: 202 232-7666

          Eric David Freed, Esq. (eric@freedweiss.com)
          Freed & Weiss LLC
          111 W Washington St
          Suite 1331
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Phone: 312-220-0000

               - and -

          Jonathan Shub, Esq. (jshub@seegerweiss.com)
          Seeger Weiss LLP
          1515 Market Street
          Suite 1380
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Phone: 215-564-2300
          Fax: 215-851-8029


FLORIDA: Court Turns Down Appeal in Suit Over "Save Our Homes"
--------------------------------------------------------------
The First District Court of Appeal tuned down an appeal for a
litigation filed by a group of Alabama residents who own
property in the Northwest Florida  challenging Florida's
property tax system, WJHG-TV reports.

The homeowners are challenging the state's "Save Our Homes"
amendment, which limits the increase in a homestead's property
tax assessment to either three percent a year, or the increase
in the cost of living index, whichever is lower, according to
WJHG-TV.

The "Save Our Homes" law shifted a lot of the tax burden to
owners of commercial, industrial, rental, and non-homestead
properties, WJHG-TV reported.

The class-action lawsuit by the Alabama residents was filed
against officials in Walton and Okaloosa counties.  It claimed
"Save Our Homes" gave Florida residents an unfair tax break.

However, the Appeal Court pointed out that Floridians who own
vacation properties in the state have to pay the same tax rate
as the out of state owners, reports WJHG-TV.

Previously, Tampa Tribune reported that Leon County Circuit
Judge John C. Cooper dismissed a lawsuit claiming the state's
"Save Our Homes" system violates constitutional provisions
(Class Action Reporter, Aug. 9, 2007).

Judge Cooper cited earlier rulings that upheld Florida's tax
laws as constitutional.  The rulings were in the case filed in
2000 by an Illinois couple who were ineligible for a $25,000
exemption on their Florida home.

According to the report, "Judge Cooper stressed that his
directive addresses the existing Save Our Homes benefit and does
not apply to a tweak of state tax law passed in the spring
legislative session or the proposed constitutional amendment
that will ask voters to allow replacing the exemption with
'superexemption.'"

The Save Our Homes amendment prevents county appraisers from
raising the value of a home for taxable purposes by more than 3
percent a year.  As a result, tax bills for many longtime
Florida homeowners were kept low while property values have
soared.  In contrast, non-homestead properties, including
Floridians' second homes, those owned by out-of-state residents,
and commercial property, are taxed at full market value.

A group of Alabama residents with second homes in Florida's
Walton and Okaloosa counties filed the purported class action
against the state.  The suit was filed in Leon County Circuit
Court.  It asked that back taxes be refunded to thousands of
Florida's non-homesteaded homeowners (Class Action Reporter,
March 1, 2007).

The plaintiffs contend that the property-assessment cap passed
by voters in 1992 unconstitutionally shifted "more than a
reasonable and fair share of the infrastructure demands of
Florida" onto them.

One of the plaintiffs is Jerome K. Lanning, a retired real-
estate lawyer from Birmingham (Alabama).  Other plaintiffs in
the suit included, Mr. Lanning's wife, Joyce, Diana Slaughter,
whose husband is a high-school classmate of Jerome Lanning, and
Marlow Reese of Montgomery (Alabama).

The suit asks the court to refund non-homesteaded homeowners for
the taxes they've been assessed since 2003 above what they would
have paid with the same Save Our Homes protection as full-time
residents.

The complaint names as defendants Okaloosa and Walton County
entities and individuals, along with Jim Zingale, director of
the state Department of Revenue.

Representing the plaintiff is William Slaughter, Esq., while the
defendants are represented by Greg Stewart, Esq.


FX ENERGY: Suit Over Failure to State Claim Dismissed in June 26
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class-action lawsuit against FX Energy, Inc., and certain
officers and directors of the company was dismissed on June 26,
2009.

According to the company's Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission dated July 1, 2009, the class
action lawsuit was filed in November 2007, against FX Energy and
certain of its officers and directors has been dismissed.

On June 26, 2009, the court granted the company's motion to
dismiss for failure to state a claim.

FX Energy, Inc. -- http://www.fxenergy.com-- is an independent
oil and gas exploration and production company with production
in the U.S. and Poland.  The Company's main exploration activity
is focused on Poland's Permian Basin where the gas-bearing
Rotliegend sandstone is a direct analog to the Southern Gas
Basin offshore England.  The Company trades on the NASDAQ Global
Market under the symbol FXEN.


ITALY: Lawmakers Pass First Law Establishing Class-Actions Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Italian lawmakers approved the country's first law establishing
class-action lawsuits after several delays, a law criticized by
several consumer groups as being unworkable, Giuseppe Fonte of
Reuters reports.

Under the law, effective from January 2010, consumers teaming up
in class actions will have to turn to the judge individually to
request compensation, exposing them to possible costs and fines
if the suit is rejected, according to Reuters.

U.S.-style class-action suits allow individuals to aggregate
claims into one lawsuit, giving consumers or shareholders an
incentive to pursue compensation even for small sums that
otherwise would have been too costly or time-consuming, reports
Reuters.

The Italian law has no retroactive effect and thus no class
actions will be possible related to the collapse of food groups
Cirio and Parmalat, airline Alitalia and U.S. bank Lehman
Brothers Holdings Inc., Reuters reported.

Reuters reported that the law is part of the so-called
development package promoted by Development Minister Claudio
Scajola, which has been before parliament for nearly a year.


MICROSOFT CORP: Wash. Judge Favors Company in Anti-Piracy Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Richard Jones of the District Court for the Western
District of Washington has held that IP addresses are not
personal information, Wendy Davis of MediaPost Publications
reports.

In a written decision for a purported class-action lawsuit
against Microsoft Corp., Judge Jones states, "In order for
'personally identifiable information' to be personally
identifiable, it must identify a person. But an IP address
identifies a computer," according to MediaPost Publications.

The class-action lawsuit was brought by consumers against
Microsoft Corp., stemming from an update that automatically
installed new anti-piracy software.  The case, which dates back
to 2006, alleged that Microsoft Corp. violated its user
agreement by collecting IP addresses in the course of the
updates, MediaPost Publications reported.

The consumers argued that Microsoft Corp.'s user agreement only
allowed the company to collect information that does not
personally identify users.

Microsoft Corp. argued that IP addresses do not identify users
because the addresses don't include people's names or addresses.
The company also said that it did not combine IP addresses with
other information that could link them to individuals, reports
MediaPost Publications.

But, in June 2009, Judge Jones sided with Microsoft Corp. and
dismissed the case before trial, MediaPost Publications reports.


OKLAHOMA: Judge Stops Evidence Exchange in Foster Care Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Gregory K. Frizzell of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Oklahoma agreed to halt the exchange of
large volumes of evidence in a lawsuit against the Oklahoma
Department of Human Services until an appeal of his decision to
grant the case class-action status has been resolved, Ginnie
Graham of Tulsa World reports.

The lawsuit was filed in February 2008 on behalf of nine
plaintiffs who were abused while in foster care.  Judge
Frizzell's granting of class-action status expanded the
plaintiffs to a class of about 11,000 children, reports Tulsa
World.

Judge Frizzell said he was taking a "practical and pragmatic
approach" in agreeing to stop the collection of evidence for the
class, according to Tulsa World.

Previously, Robert Boczkiewicz of Tulsa World reported that
fudges of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
allowed Oklahoma officials to to appeal the class-action
designation granted by Judge Gregory K. Frizzell of the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma a case
against the state in connection to its foster care system (Class
Action Reporter, June 25, 2009).

In arguing for an appeal of the ruling, officials alleged that
the strategy of the court case on behalf of Oklahoma's 10,000
foster children is to force the state into a settlement at a
staggering cost to taxpayers, according to Tulsa World.

According to state officials, "The history of child-welfare
consent decrees is replete with decades-long enforcement
litigation, at staggering cost to public treasuries," reports
Tulsa World.

State officials are also contending class-status was not
warranted because, in part, 98.2 per cent of the children in the
case were not abused.  The officials assert the condition of
foster children should be considered on the basis of individual
children, rather than as a group, Tulsa World reports.

Tulsa World reported that the officials are the members of the
Oklahoma Commission for Human Services and the director of the
state's Department of Human Services.  They recently made the
assertion to the appeals court in an effort to overturn the
ruling that designated the lawsuit as a class-action on behalf
of foster children statewide.

Marla Carter of kjrh.com reported that Judge Gregory K. Frizzell
of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma
has allowed a case against the state in connection to its foster
care system go forward as a class-action suit. (Class Action
Reporter, May 7, 2009).

Previously, the Daily Oklahoman reported that Children's Rights,
a New York-based child advocacy organization, joined several
prominent Oklahoma law firms and an international firm in filing
a class-action suit against Oklahoma's Department of Human
Services (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 18, 2008).

The suit accuses DHS of repeatedly subjecting children in state
custody to extreme abuse and neglect.  It asks the judge to
impose far-reaching reforms on the state system.

"Oklahoma has long maintained one of the most dangerous and
badly mismanaged child welfare systems in the nation, and
thousands of children have suffered under nightmarish conditions
for years as a result," said Marcia Robinson Lowry, executive
director of Children's Rights.

"It is disgraceful that we have to seek a federal court order to
force the state to begin fixing problems that it should have
addressed many years ago.  But it is clear that this is the only
way to protect Oklahoma's abused and neglected children and
that is what this lawsuit is about."

Children's Rights is asking the judge to declare the lawsuit a
class action so the attorneys can represent all of the more than
10,000 children in state care.

For more details, contact:

          Marcia Robinson Lowry
          Children's Rights
          330 Seventh Avenue
          New York, NY 10001
          Phone: 212.683.2210 or 888.283.2210
          Fax: 212.683.4015
          e-mail: info@childrensrights.org
          Web site: http://www.childrensrights.org/


QUEBEC: Woman Seeks to File Lawsuit Over Breast-Cancer Tests
------------------------------------------------------------
Marianne Tonnelier of Montreal is seeking permission to file a
class-action suit against Quebec's provincial government for its
alleged mishandling of the breast-cancer tests, including her
own, CTV.ca.

Ms. Tonnelier, diagnosed with breast cancer in July 2008, has
filed a request to initiate the lawsuit in Quebec Superior Court
on behalf of thousands of patients, according to CTV.ca.

Her lawyer, Bruce Johnston, told CTV.ca that government inaction
has put more than 2,000 Quebec women fighting breast cancer in
limbo because they don't know if they're receiving the correct
treatment.

The request alleges the Health Department knew about quality
control problems in the province's pathology departments for at
least a year and a half, CTV.ca reported.


UCI HOLDCO: Bid in "Perrault" Case Pending Quebec Court Ruling
--------------------------------------------------------------
A motion to have the matter styled "Jean-Paul Perrault v.
Champion Labs. et al.," proceed as a class action remains
pending, according to UCI Holdco, Inc.'s May 14, 2009 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2009.

Champion was named as one of five defendants in the class-action
lawsuit filed in Quebec, Canada, on April 25, 2008.

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

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

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

Evansville, Ind.-based UCI Holdco, Inc. was incorporated on
March 8, 2006 as a holding company for UCI Acquisition Holdings,
Inc. and United Components, Inc., which operates in one business
segment through its subsidiaries. United Components manufactures
and distributes vehicle parts, primarily servicing the vehicle
replacement parts market in North America and Europe.


UCI HOLDCO: Bid to Junk Indirect Purchasers' Suit Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
The motion to dismiss a consolidated putative class-action
complaint filed by indirect purchasers of aftermarket filters
against Champion Laboratories, Inc., is pending, according to
UCI Holdco, Inc.'s May 14, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March
31, 2009.

United Components, Inc. (UCI) and its wholly owned subsidiary,
Champion Laboratories, Inc., were named as two of multiple
defendants in 17 similar complaints originally filed in the
District of Connecticut, the Northern District of California,
the Northern District of Illinois and the Southern District of
New York by plaintiffs who claim to be indirect purchasers of
aftermarket filters.  Champion, but not UCI, was also named in 3
similar actions originally filed in the Eastern District of
Tennessee, the Northern District of Illinois and the Southern
District of California.

These complaints allege conspiracy violations of Section 1 of
the Sherman Act and/or violations of state antitrust, consumer
protection and unfair competition law.  They are styled as
putative class actions on behalf of all persons or entities who
acquired indirectly aftermarket filters manufactured and/or
distributed by one or more of the defendants, their agents or
entities under their control, at any time between Jan. 1, 1999
and the present.  The complaints seek damages, including
statutory treble damages, an injunction against future
violations, disgorgement of profits, costs and attorney's fees.

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

On Feb. 2, 2009, Champion and the other defendants jointly filed
a motion to dismiss the Consolidated Indirect Purchaser
Complaint.  On that same date, Champion, UCI and the other
defendants jointly filed a motion to dismiss the GASDA
complaint.

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

Pursuant to a stipulated agreement between the parties, all
defendants produced limited initial discovery on Jan. 30, 2009.
The Court has ordered that all further discovery shall be stayed
until after it rules on the motions to dismiss.

Evansville, Ind.-based UCI Holdco, Inc. was incorporated on
March 8, 2006 as a holding company for UCI Acquisition Holdings,
Inc. and United Components, Inc., which operates in one business
segment through its subsidiaries. United Components manufactures
and distributes vehicle parts, primarily servicing the vehicle
replacement parts market in North America and Europe.


UCI HOLDCO: Motion in "Urlin" Suit Pending Ontario Court Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------------
A motion to have the matter styled "Urlin Rent A Car Ltd. v.
Champion Laboratories, Inc. et al," proceed as a class action
remains pending, according to UCI Holdco, Inc.'s May 14, 2009
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009.

Champion was named as one of 14 defendants in a class-action
lawsuit filed on May 21, 2008, in Ontario, Canada.

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

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

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

Evansville, Ind.-based UCI Holdco, Inc. was incorporated on
March 8, 2006 as a holding company for UCI Acquisition Holdings,
Inc. and United Components, Inc., which operates in one business
segment through its subsidiaries. United Components manufactures
and distributes vehicle parts, primarily servicing the vehicle
replacement parts market in North America and Europe.


UCI HOLDCO: "Peerali" Lawsuit v. Champion Labs Remain Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class-action suit styled "Peerali v. Champion Laboratories,
Inc. et al., No. BC405424," remains pending, according to UCI
Holdco, Inc.'s May 14, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March
31, 2009.

On Jan. 12, 2009, United Components, Inc.'s wholly owned
subsidiary, Champion Laboratories, Inc., was named as one of ten
defendants in an action filed in the Superior Court of
California, for the County of Los Angeles on behalf of a
purported class of direct and indirect purchasers of aftermarket
filters.

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

Evansville, Ind.-based UCI Holdco, Inc. was incorporated on
March 8, 2006 as a holding company for UCI Acquisition Holdings,
Inc. and United Components, Inc., which operates in one business
segment through its subsidiaries. United Components manufactures
and distributes vehicle parts, primarily servicing the vehicle
replacement parts market in North America and Europe.


UCI HOLDCO: Unit Still Faces Direct Purchasers Consolidated Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Champion Laboratories, Inc. continues to face a consolidated
amended putative class-action complaint filed by direct
purchasers of aftermarket filters, according to UCI Holdco,
Inc.'s May 14, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009.

As of April 21, 2009, United Components, Inc. (UCI) and its
wholly owned subsidiary, Champion Laboratories, Inc., were named
as two of multiple defendants in 23 complaints originally filed
in the District of Connecticut, the District of New Jersey, the
Middle District of Tennessee and the Northern District of
Illinois alleging conspiracy violations of Section 1 of the
Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1, related to aftermarket oil,
air, fuel and transmission filters.

All of these complaints are styled as putative class actions on
behalf of all persons and entities that purchased aftermarket
filters in the U.S. directly from the defendants, or any of
their predecessors, parents, subsidiaries or affiliates, at any
time during the period from Jan. 1, 1999 to the present.  Each
case seeks damages, including statutory treble damages, an
injunction against future violations, costs and attorney's fees.

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

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

Evansville, Ind.-based UCI Holdco, Inc. was incorporated on
March 8, 2006 as a holding company for UCI Acquisition Holdings,
Inc. and United Components, Inc., which operates in one business
segment through its subsidiaries. United Components manufactures
and distributes vehicle parts, primarily servicing the vehicle
replacement parts market in North America and Europe.


UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH: Sued Over Forced Work During Lunch
------------------------------------------------------------
The University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, the West Penn
Allegheny Health System, and the former Mercy Hospital are
facing a purported class-action that claims employees were
forced to work during their lunch hours, Steve Twedt of The
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reports.

Those affected by the suit are people who work or have worked at
those entities during the past three years, attorney J. Nelson
Thomas, Esq.  of Rochester, N.Y. told The Pittsburgh Post-
Gazette.

The potential class would cover all hourly employees, including
nurses, technicians, security guards and janitors, according to
The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.

For more details, visit: http://www.hospitalovertime.com/.


WAL-MART STORES: Ark. Court Approves $17.5M Lawsuit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas
gave final approval to the proposed settlement in the matter,
"Nelson v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., et al., Case No. 2:04-cv-00171-
WRW," The Associated Press reports.

On July 8, 2009, Judge Bill Wilson, Jr. signed an order
approving the settlement, according to AP.

Previously, Bloomberg News reported Wal-Mart Stores Inc. reached
a $17.5 million settlement for a purported class-action lawsuit
that accuses it of discriminating against African Americans in
recruiting and hiring truck drivers (Class Action Reporter, Feb.
24, 2009).

The suit is captioned, "Nelson v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., et al.,
Case No. 2:04-cv-00171-WRW," and was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas back in 2004 by
Daryal T. Nelson of Coldwater, Miss., who alleged that Wal-Mart
rejects and discourages black applicants for truck-driving jobs
at the chain's distribution centers in Arkansas, Alabama,
Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North
Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia (Class
Action Reporter, June 21, 2007).

The suit had a document from the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission attached to it, saying that it found "reasonable
cause" to believe that Mr. Nelson, a 22-year veteran of driving
trucks, was discriminated against.  The EEOC said Wal-Mart hired
some white drivers with more serious driving violations and less
experience than black applicants.

In May 16, 2007, the suit was granted class-action status by
Judge William R. Wilson Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Arkansas (Class Action Reporter, May 18,
2007).

The class involved in the suit includes all black people in the
continental U.S. who applied as over-the-road truckers at Wal-
Mart since Sept. 22, 2001, but who were not hired.  It also
includes all black people in the continental U.S. during that
period who were discouraged from applying as drivers because of
Wal-Mart's practices.

In January 2008, Wal-Mart's motions to dismiss the case or
decertify the class were denied, according to Bloomberg News.

The suit is "Nelson v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., et al., Case No.
2:04-cv-00171-WRW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Arkansas under Judge William R. Wilson, Jr.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Joseph Henry Bates, III, Esq.
          (hbates@cauleybowman.com)
          Cauley Bowman Carney & Williams, LLP
          Post Office Box 25438
          Little Rock, AR 72221-5438
          Phone: (501) 312-8500

               - and -

          Lloyd W. Kitchens, III, Esq.
         (tkitchens@welchandkitchens.com)
          Welch and Kitchens, LLC
          Post Office Box 3685
          Little Rock, AR 72203-3685
          Phone: (501) 978-3030

Representing defendants are:

          Richard H. Deane, Esq. (rhdeane@jonesday.com)
          Jones Day - Atlanta
          1420 Peachtree Street, N.E., Suite 800
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Phone: (404) 581-8502

          Lawrence C. DiNardo, Esq. (lcdinardo@jonesday.com)
          Michael J. Gray, Esq. (mjgray@jonesday.com)
          Jones Day - Chicago
          77 West Wacker
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Phone: (312) 269-4306 or (312) 269-4096


               - and -

          Philip E. Kaplan, Esq. (pkaplan@kbmlaw.net)
          Kaplan, Brewer, Maxey & Haralson, P.A.
          Metro Centre Mall
          415 Main Street
          Little Rock, AR 72201-3801
          Phone: (501) 372-0400


WELLS REAL: Bid to Amend REIT Securities Complaint Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
The motion for leave to amend the complaint in the matter
captioned "In Re Wells Real Estate Investment Trust, Inc.,
Securities Litigation Case No. 1:07-cv-00862-CAP," which names
Piedmont Office Realty Trust, Inc. (Piedmont REIT) f/k/a/
Wells Real Estate Investment Trust, Inc. (Wells REIT) is pending
before the court.

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

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

The complaint alleges, among other things:

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

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

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

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

The complaint seeks, among other things:

      -- certification of the class action;

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

      -- unspecified monetary damages;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On April 13, 2009, the plaintiff moved for leave to amend the
second amended complaint to add additional defendants.  The
defendants responded to the plaintiff's motion for leave to
amend on April 30, 2009.  The plaintiff filed its reply in
support of its motion for leave to amend on May 18, 2009,
according to Wells Mid-Horizon Value-Added Fund I, LLC's
Amendment No. 2 to its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission dated July 1, 2009.

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

Representing the plaintiffs is:

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

Representing the defendants is:

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


WESTPORT NATIONAL: Faces Suit in Conn. Over Madoff Investments
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Westport National Bank in Connecticut is facing a purported
class-action lawsuit filed by holders of more than two dozen
retirement accounts in connection the bank's role in handling
their investments in Bernard L. Madoff's long-running Ponzi
scheme, Diana B. Henriques of The New York Times reports.

The lawsuit was filed on July 8, 2009 in Connecticut Superior
Court in Stamford.  It seeks to recover $60 million that the
retirement plans lost when the Madoff fraud collapsed in
December, as well as millions of dollars in fees that the bank
charged customers who maintained the accounts, according to The
New York Times.

The plaintiffs -- individual retirement accounts and the pension
plans for several small businesses and medical offices are
represented in the matter by David S. Golub of Silver Golub &
Teitell in Stamford, reports The New York Times.

The New York Times reported that they have asked the court to
designate their case as a class-action lawsuit on behalf of
others who invested in the Madoff scheme through custodian
accounts at the bank.


WILLING HOLDING: Fees & Damages in "Hosking" Still Undetermined
---------------------------------------------------------------
The amount of damages and attorney's fees in "Gary Hosking v.
New World Mortgage, Inc. and New World Capital Holdings, Inc.,
Case No. 2007cv02200," remains to be determined by the U.S.
District Court of the Eastern District of New York, according to
Willing Holding, Inc.'s July 1, 2009 Amendment No. 4 to the
Registration Statement on Form 10 filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

On July 21, 2008, a default judgment against the company's
subsidiary, New World, was entered in the Eastern District of
New York in Gary Hosking's case for failure to appear in a
class-action lawsuit under the Fair Labor Standards Act to
recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages,
allegedly unlawfully withheld wages, statutory penalties, and
damages owed to certain loan officers formerly employed by New
World.

Willing Holding, Inc. was organized in 2005, as a technology
company with a focus on the telecommunications industry.  Since
inception, the company has conducted various consulting and
other startup activities in the telecommunications sector but
have not yet generated any revenues and only incurred minimal
expenses relating to those activities.  With the acquisition of
its wholly-owned subsidiary, New World, in April 2008, a
significant portion of the company's operations has consisted of
providing mortgage and e-commerce products and services through
its Telemarketing Group and sales organization.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

BEAR STEARNS: Coughlin Stoia Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
     Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP announced that a
class action has been commenced on behalf of an institutional
investor in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of all persons or entities who
acquired the Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates ("Certificates")
of Structured Asset Mortgage Investments II Inc. ("Structured
Asset" or the "Depositor") pursuant and/or traceable to a false
and misleading Registration Statement and Prospectus Supplements
issued between March 2006 and April 2007 by Structured Asset
(collectively, the "Registration Statement").  The class
includes purchasers of Certificates in the following trusts (the
"Issuers"):

       -- Bear Stearns Alt-A Trust 2006-6     
       -- Bear Stearns ARM Trust 2006-4
       -- Bear Stearns Mortgage Funding Trust 2006-AR2
       -- Structured Asset Mortgage Investments II Trust 2006-
               AR7
       -- Structured Asset Mortgage Investments II Trust 2006-
               AR6
       -- Bear Stearns Alt-A Trust 2006-5
       -- Bear Stearns Mortgage Funding Trust 2006-AR5
       -- Bear Stearns Alt-A Trust 2006-8
       -- Bear Stearns Mortgage Funding Trust 2006-AR4
       -- Structured Asset Mortgage Investments II Trust 2006-
               AR8
       -- Bear Stearns Mortgage Funding Trust 2006-AR3
       -- Bear Stearns Alt-A Trust 2006-7
       -- Bear Stearns Alt-A Trust 2007-1
       -- Bear Stearns Mortgage Funding Trust 2007-AR1
       -- Bear Stearns ARM Trust 2007-3
       -- Bear Stearns Mortgage Funding Trust 2007-AR3
       -- Bear Stearns ARM Trust 2007-1
       -- Structured Asset Mortgage Investments II Trust 2007-
               AR1
       -- Structured Asset Mortgage Investments II Trust 2007-
               AR2    

     The complaint charges Structured Asset, certain of its
officers and directors, The Bear Stearns Companies Inc. ("BSC"),
and the Issuers and underwriters of the Certificates with
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1933.  Structured
Asset was organized for the purpose of serving as a private
secondary mortgage market conduit and is a wholly owned
subsidiary of BSC, the parent company of Bear Stearns & Co.
Inc., the underwriter of the offerings of the Certificates.

     The complaint alleges that on March 6, 2006, Structured
Asset and the Issuers caused a Registration Statement to be
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") in
connection with the issuance of the Certificates.  The
Certificates were issued pursuant to Prospectus Supplements,
each of which was incorporated into the Registration Statement.
The Certificates were supported by large pools of mortgage
loans.  The Registration Statement represented that the mortgage
pools would primarily consist of loan groups generally secured
by first liens on residential properties, including
conventional, adjustable rate and negative amortization mortgage
loans.

     According to the complaint, the Registration Statement
included false statements and/or omissions about: (i) the
underwriting standards purportedly used in connection with the
origination of the underlying mortgage loans; (ii) the maximum
loan-to-value ratios used to qualify borrowers; (iii) the
appraisals of properties underlying the mortgage loans; and (iv)
the debt-to-income ratios permitted on the loans.

     As a result of these misstatements and omissions, the
Certificates were secured by assets that had a much greater risk
profile than represented in the Registration Statement, and
defendants offered superior credit ratings on the Certificates
as a result of defendants' failure to disclose the underwriting
defects and appraisal manipulations.  However, by late 2008, the
amount of uncollectible mortgage loans securing the Certificates
began to be revealed to the public and the rating agencies began
to put negative watch labels on many Certificate classes,
ultimately downgrading many.  The delinquency and foreclosure
rates of the mortgage loans securing the Certificates has grown
both faster and in greater quantity than what would be expected
for mortgage loans of the types described in the Prospectus
Supplements.  As a result, the Certificates are no longer
marketable at prices anywhere near the price paid by plaintiff
and the Class.

     Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all
purchasers of Certificates pursuant and/or traceable to the
Registration Statement.

For more details, contact:

          Darren J. Robbins, Esq. (djr@csgrr.com)
          Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
          Phone: 800-449-4900 or 619-231-1058
          Web site:
          http://www.csgrr.com/cases/bearstearnsmortgage/


                            *********

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  * * *