CAR_Public/090716.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Thursday, July 16, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 139

                           Headlines

AKIYAMA SUSHI: Former Employees File Colorado Lawsuit Over Tips
AMAZON.COM LLC: Faces Wash. Litigation Over Kindle Cracking
ASPECT MEDICAL: Brief on Appeal to Dismissed Suit Due on July 27
BEACON ASSOCIATES: Faces N.Y. Litigation Over Madoff Investments
BLUE POINT: Faces Minn. Suit Over Money Lost in $3B Ponzi Scheme

CALAMP CORP: Pursuing Dismissal of Misrepresentation Lawsuit
CARMAX INC: Units Face Remaining Claims in Consolidated Lawsuit
COMMONWEALTH OF ANTIGUA: Faces RICO Violations Lawsuit in Texas
CROWN MEDIA: Investor Files Del. Suit v. Restructuring Proposal
EASTMAN KODAK: Settles Race Discrimination Lawsuits for $21M

INDYMAC BANCORP: Ex-Officials, Others Face Securities Fraud Suit
KERR-MCGEE CORP: Faces N.Y. Litigation Over Tronox Inc. Spin-Off
KPMG LLP: Fifth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Licensing Lawsuits
LANDAMERICA COMMONWEALTH: Simon Law Firm Files Overtime Pay Suit
LENNAR CORP: Suits Over Defective Chinese Drywall Still Pending

MSC SOFTWARE: Levi & Korsinsky Files Lawsuit Over Merger Deal
NATURAL HEALTH: July 19 Final Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
NEW MEXICO: Keller Rohrback Files Suit for College Savings Plans
OLIVE GARDEN: Ill. Court Approves FACTA Litigation Settlement
PAYDAY LOAN: Faces Customer's Suit in Ill. Over Payment of Loans

PLAINS CAPITAL: FSH Faces Amended Civil Complaint in New York
SAFECO INSURANCE: Ill. Judge Remands Suit Back to Madison County
SOUTHERN SUN: Former Employee Files Colorado Lawsuit Over Tips
SOUTHWEST WATER: Continues to Face Securities Lawsuits in Calif.
SUPERVALU INC: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in New York

TICKETMASTER ENTERTAINMENT: 5 Canadian Consumer Lawsuits Pending
TICKETMASTER ENTERTAINMENT: "Campbell" Action Pending in Calif.
TICKETMASTER ENTERTAINMENT: Demurrer to "Schlessinger" Pending
TICKETMASTER ENTERTAINMENT: "Diamond" Consumer Lawsuit Pending
TICKETMASTER ENTERTAINMENT: Faces Consumer Fraud Actions in N.J.

TICKETMASTER ENTERTAINMENT: Securities Suits Over Merger Pending
TICKETMASTER ENTERTAINMENT: "Wenzel" Consumer Suit Still Pending
WAL-MART STORES: Court Affirms Dismissal of Suit Over Sweatshops
WARNER CHILCOTT: N.Y. Court Approves $16.5M Securities Suit Deal
WD-40 CO: Appeal to Denial of "Drimmer" Class Remains Pending

                   New Securities Fraud Cases

AMBASSADORS GROUP: Coughlin Stoia Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
AMBASSADORS GROUP: Howard G. Smith Announces Stock Suit Filing
COMTECH TELECOMMUNICATIONS: Coughlin Stoia Files N.Y. Stock Suit
COMTECH TELECOMMUNICATIONS: Kendall Law Group Files Stock Suit


                           *********

AKIYAMA SUSHI: Former Employees File Colorado Lawsuit Over Tips
---------------------------------------------------------------
Former employees of Akiyama Sushi Bar & Grill in Gunbarrel,
Colorado filed a class-action suit in December over allegations
of improperly apportioned tips, John Aguilar of The Colorado
Daily reports.

Attorney Brian Gonzales, Esq. is representing the plaintiffs in
the case.  He told The Colorado Daily that the suit against
Akiyama is still working its way through the system.

For more details, contact:

          The Law Offices of Brian D. Gonzales, PLLC
          123 North College Avenue, Suite 200
          Fort Collins, Colorado 80524
          Phone: 970-212-4665
          Fax: 970-212-4739
          e-mail: Bgonzales@ColoradoWageLaw.com
          Web site: http://coloradowagelaw.com/


AMAZON.COM LLC: Faces Wash. Litigation Over Kindle Cracking
-----------------------------------------------------------
Amazon.com LLC and Amazon Fulfillment Services, Inc. are facing
a purported class-action lawsuit over cracks caused by Kindle
electronic book's protective cover, Brier Dudley of Seattle
Times reports.

The suit was filed on July 14, 2009 in the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Washington, under the caption,
"Geise v. Amazon.com LLC et al., Case No. 2:2009-cv-00982."

Mr. Geise, executive director of a Seattle property management
firm, bought a $359 Kindle 2 in February for his wife's
birthday, plus one of the official Amazon Kindle covers,
according to Seattle Times.

After about three months the Kindle started cracking around the
points where the $30 protective cover attaches with metal clips.
The cracks grew and on July 6, 2009, the screen froze and the
device stopped working, according to Mr. Geise's complaint ,
which seeks refunds, treble damages and legal costs.

According to the lawsuit, a copy of which was obtained by
Seattle Times, when Mr. Geise called Amazon to make a warranty
claim on July 7, 2009, a customer-service representative said
the company would cover the screen freeze but not the cracks,
contending they were caused by improperly opening the cover
backwards.  That damage isn't covered by the warranty, Mr. Geise
was told, and he would have to pay $200 for the repairs.

A supervisor told Mr. Geise's wife, Alisa Brodkowitz, that the
cracks are a "common problem" but reiterated that the couple
would have to pay $200 to get a replacement unit.  The
supervisor told them the cracked one may end up being repaired
and offered as refurbished, the lawsuit states.

The lawsuit states that the value of the "matter in controversy"
exceeds $5 million.  It said the proposed class would include
buyers of Kindle 2 and Kindle DX models "installed in a Kindle
Cover designed by Amazon," Seattle Times reported.

For more details, contact:

          Beth E. Terrell, Esq. (bterrell@tmdlegal.com)
          Terrell Marshall & Saudt PLLC
          3600 Fremont Ave N
          Seattle, WA 98103
          Phone: 206-816-6603
          Fax: 206-350-3528


ASPECT MEDICAL: Brief on Appeal to Dismissed Suit Due on July 27
----------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiff's opening brief in an appeal to the dismissal of a
class action complaint against Aspect Medical Systems, Inc., is
due on July 27, 2009, according to the company's May 14, 2009
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended April 4, 2009.

On Oct. 10, 2007, a purported holder of the company's common
stock (the plaintiff), filed suit in the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Washington against Morgan Stanley and
Deutsche Bank AG, the lead underwriters of the company's 2000
initial public offering, alleging violations of Section 16(b) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The complaint alleges that the combined number of shares of the
company's common stock beneficially owned by the lead
underwriters and certain of the company's unnamed officers,
directors, and principal stockholders exceeded ten percent of
the company's outstanding common stock from the date of its
initial public offering on Jan. 28, 2000, through at least Jan.
27, 2001.  The complaint further alleges that those entities and
individuals were subject to the reporting requirements of
Section 16(a) of the Exchange Act and the short-swing trading
prohibition of Section 16(b) of the Exchange Act, and failed to
comply with those provisions.

The complaint seeks to recover from the lead underwriters any
"short-swing profits" obtained by them in violation of Section
16(b) of the Exchange Act.

The company was named as a nominal defendant in the action, but
has no liability for the asserted claims.  None of its directors
or officers serving in such capacities at the time of its
initial public offering (many of whom still serve as officers or
directors of the company) was named as defendants in this
action.

On Feb. 25, 2008, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint
asserting substantially similar claims as those set forth in the
initial complaint.

On July 25, 2008, the company joined with 29 other issuers to
file the Issuer Defendants' Joint Motion to Dismiss.  The
plaintiff filed her opposition on Sept. 8, 2008, and the company
and the other Issuer Defendants filed their Reply in Support of
Their Joint Motion to Dismiss on Oct. 23, 2008.  Oral argument
on the Joint Motion to Dismiss was held on Jan. 16, 2009.

On March 12, 2009, the Court granted the Issuer Defendants'
Joint Motion to Dismiss, dismissing the complaint without
prejudice on the grounds that the plaintiff had failed to make
an adequate demand on the company prior to filing her complaint.

In its order, the Court stated it would not permit the plaintiff
to amend her demand letters while pursuing her claims in the
litigation.  Because the Court dismissed the case on the grounds
that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction, it did not
specifically reach the issue of whether the plaintiff's claims
were barred by the applicable statute of limitations.  However,
the Court also granted the Underwriters' Joint Motion to Dismiss
with respect to cases involving non-moving issuers, holding that
the cases were barred by the applicable statute of limitations
because the issuers' shareholders had notice of the potential
claims more than five years prior to filing suit.

The plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal on April 10, 2009.  The
plaintiff's opening brief in the appeal is due on July 27, 2009,
with the company and the underwriters' responses due on Aug. 25,
2009.  The plaintiff may file a reply brief on Sept. 8, 2009.

Aspect Medical Systems, Inc. -- http://www.aspectmedical.com/--
is engaged in developing, manufacturing, and marketing an
anesthesia monitoring system named BIS system.  The BIS system
is based on the Bispectral Index (BIS Index) technology.


BEACON ASSOCIATES: Faces N.Y. Litigation Over Madoff Investments
----------------------------------------------------------------
Beacon Associates Management Corp. is facing a purported class-
action suit filed by John Cacoulidis, president of Grand Metro
Builders of New York Corp., who is trying to recover an
estimated $2 million invested indirectly with the now-defunct
company managed by Bernard Madoff, Tux Turkel of The Portland
Press Herald reports.

The suit was filed on Jan. 27, 2009 in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York was filed by John
Cacoulidis and Phyllis Cacoulidis under the caption, "Cacoulidis
et al v. Beacon Associates Management Corp. et al., Case No.
1:2009-cv-00777."

Aside form Beacon Associates, others listed as defendants in the
matter are: Joel Danziger, Harris Markhoff, Ivy Asset Management
Corp., The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation, Friedberg Smith
& Co. P.C. and several John Does.

Mr. Cacoulidis -- represented by attorney Demet Basar, Esq. of
New York -- claims that an investment firm overseeing money for
his company's retirement plan improperly invested it with
Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC, according to The
Portland Press Herald.

He and his wife served as trustees of the retirement plan and
were the plan's dominant beneficiaries.  The fund was forced
into liquidation, and most of the money was lost.

In the lawsuit, Mr. Cacoulidis argues that he and other fund
investors were misled by Beacon Associates and its principals,
beginning in 2004.  They were given an offering memorandum
stating that their money would be conservatively invested and
monitored by Beacon Associates, The Portland Press Herald
reported.

In fact, the lawsuit alleges, the vast majority of the assets
were given to Mr. Madoff's firm to manage, with no oversight.
Beacon and the other defendants ignored numerous warning signs,
the suit says, that Madoff's operation was suspicious.

The Portland Press Herald reports that the plaintiffs are asking
for compensation and punitive damages.  They also want a jury
trial.

For more details, contact:

          Demet Basar, Esq. (basar@whafh.com)
          Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz
          270 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Phone: 212.545.4664
          Fax: 212.545.4677


BLUE POINT: Faces Minn. Suit Over Money Lost in $3B Ponzi Scheme
----------------------------------------------------------------
Blue Point Management Ltd., a Bermuda investment management
company, is facing a purported class-action lawsuit over money
lost in relation to an alleged $3 billion Ponzi scheme, Jonathan
Kent of The Royal Gazette.

The suit was filed on July 7, 2009 in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Minnesota by Tradex Global Master Fund SPC
LTD. and The ABL Segregated Portfolio, under the caption,
"Tradex Global Master Fund SPC LTD. et al v. Blue Point
Management LTD. et al., Case No. 0:2009-cv-01736."

Aside from Blue Point, others listed as defendants are: James N.
Fry, Metro II LLC, Arrowhead Capital Management LLC and
Pricewaterhousecoopers.

The case was brought by shareholders of ArrowHead, who are
accusing Blue Point, its principal James Fry, and ArrowHead of
handing over money to Minnesota businessman Tom Petters, who
faces charges of running an elaborate Ponzi scheme involving the
allegedly fictitious trading of electronic goods, according to
The Royal Gazette.

It alleges that Mr. Fry took $24 million in fees, while he
"literally handed over hundreds of millions of dollars to
Petters with no investigation or supervision whatsoever."  The
plaintiffs' investments are now "entirely worthless", according
to the complaint, a copy of which was obtained by The Royal
Gazette.

Mr. Fry, through his companies, promised "advantageous rates of
return through investments in short-term secured notes," though
in practice he just handed it over to Mr. Petters, the suit
states.

According to the complaint, "For the years 2003-2006, Blue Point
and Fry earned approximately $13 million in management fees and
over $11 million in incentive fees," The Royal Gazette reported.

For more details, contact:

          Gregg M. Fishbein, Esq. (gmfishbein@locklaw.com)
          Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP
          100 Washington Ave S Ste 2200
          Mpls, MN 55401-2179
          Phone: (612) 339-6900
          Fax: (612) 339-0981


CALAMP CORP: Pursuing Dismissal of Misrepresentation Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
CalAmp Corp. pursues the dismissal of a class action lawsuit
filed against the company, the former owner of the company's
Aercept business unit and one of Aercept's distributors.

The class has not been certified in the lawsuit filed in
November 2008.

The lawsuit alleges that Aercept made misrepresentations when
the plaintiff purchased analog vehicle tracking devices in 2005,
which was prior to CalAmp's acquisition of Aercept in an asset
purchase.

The tracking devices ceased functioning in early 2008 due to
termination of analog service by the wireless network operators.

The Company is seeking dismissal of the lawsuit on the basis
that the assertion of successor liability is not supported by
the law or the facts, according to the company's July 9, 2009
Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended May 30, 2009.

CalAmp Corp. -- http://www.calamp.com/-- is a provider of
wireless communications solutions that enable anytime/anywhere
access.  The company has two segments: Wireless DataCom Division
and Satellite Division.  CalAmp's Wireless DataCom Division
services the public safety, industrial monitoring and controls,
and mobile resource management market segments with wireless
solutions built on communications technology platforms that
include licensed narrowband, unlicensed broadband and cellular
networks.  CalAmp's Satellite Division supplies outdoor customer
premise equipment to the United States Direct Broadcast
Satellite (DBS) market.


CARMAX INC: Units Face Remaining Claims in Consolidated Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
CarMax Auto Superstores California, LLC and CarMax Auto
Superstores West Coast, Inc. continue to face the remaining
claims in a consolidated lawsuit regarding the sales consultant
putative class, according to CarMax, Inc.'s July 9, 2009 Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended May 31, 2009.

On April 2, 2008, Mr. John Fowler filed a putative class-action
lawsuit against CarMax Auto Superstores California, LLC and
CarMax Auto Superstores West Coast, Inc. in the Superior Court
of California, County of Los Angeles.

Subsequently, two other lawsuits, "Leena Areso et al. v. CarMax
Auto Superstores California, LLC," and "Justin Weaver v. CarMax
Auto Superstores California, LLC," were consolidated as part of
the Fowler case.

The allegations in the consolidated case involve:

   (1) failure to provide meal and rest breaks or compensation
       in lieu thereof;

   (2) failure to pay wages of terminated or resigned employees
       related to meal and rest breaks and overtime;

   (3) failure to pay overtime;

   (4) failure to comply with itemized employee wage statement
       provisions; and

   (5) unfair competition.

The putative class consists of sales consultants, sales
managers, and other hourly employees who worked for the company
in California from April 2, 2004, to the present.

The lawsuit seeks compensatory and special damages, wages,
interest, civil and statutory penalties, restitution, injunctive
relief and the recovery of attorneys' fees.

On May 12, 2009, the court dismissed all of the class claims
with respect to the sales manager putative class.  On June 16,
2009, the court dismissed all claims related to the failure to
comply with the itemized employee wage statement provisions.
The court also granted CarMax's motion for summary adjudication
with regard to CarMax's alleged failure to pay overtime to the
sales consultant putative class.  The plaintiffs have indicated
that they will appeal the court's ruling regarding the sales
consultant overtime claim.

In addition to the plaintiffs' overtime claim, the claims
currently remaining in the lawsuit regarding the sales
consultant putative class are: (1) failure to provide meal and
rest breaks or compensation in lieu thereof; (2) failure to pay
wages of terminated or resigned employees related to meal and
rest breaks; and (3) unfair competition.

On June 16, 2009, the court entered a stay of these claims
pending the outcome of a California Supreme Court case involving
related legal issues.

The lawsuit seeks compensatory and special damages, wages,
interest, civil and statutory penalties, restitution, injunctive
relief and the recovery of attorneys' fees.

CarMax, Inc. -- http://www.carmax.com/-- is a holding company
and its operations are conducted through its subsidiaries.  The
company is a retailer of used cars.


COMMONWEALTH OF ANTIGUA: Faces RICO Violations Lawsuit in Texas
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Commonwealth of Antigua and Barbuda is facing a purported
class-action lawsuit alleging violations of the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act.

The suit was filed on July 13, 2009 in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Texas by Joan Gale Frank, Jon A.
Bell, Samuel Bukrinsky, Jaime Alexis Arroyo Bornstein, Peggy
Roif Rotstain, Juan C. Olano, and John Wade, under the caption,
"Frank v. The Commonwealth of Antigua and Barbuda, Case No.
4:2009-cv-02217."

The suit claims that the Commonwealth of Antigua and Barbuda
aided and abetted Robert Allen Stanford's $8 billion Ponzi
scheme by providing his Stanford International Bank a safe haven
in exchange for kickbacks, according to a report by Cameron
Langford of The Courthouse News Service.

The proposed class includes people who invested money in
Certificates of Deposit issued by the Stanford International
Bank in Antigua, also known as Antigua and Barbuda.

According to the 74-page complaint, a copy of which was obtained
by The Courthouse News Service, "Antigua is a sovereign but not
above the law.  It became a full partner in Stanford's fraud,
and reaped enormous financial benefits from the scheme.
Stanford stuffed Antigua's coffers - and its officials' pockets
- with money stolen from customers."

The complaint states that as a member of the British
Commonwealth of Nations, Antigua helped Stanford's bank portray
itself as a legitimate provider of financial services.  This,
according to the complaint, provided a pretext for the transfer
of criminal proceeds from Stanford to Antigua.

The plaintiffs -- represented by Lackey Hershman LLP of Dallas
-- are seeking at least $8 billion in damages, The Courthouse
News Service reported.

A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at:
              http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?3f39

For more details, contact:

          Jamie R. Welton, Esq. (jrw@lhlaw.net)
          Lackey Hershman LLP
          3102 Oak Lawn Ave
          Ste. 777
          Dallas, TX 75219-4241
          Phone: 214-560-2201
          Fax: 214-560-2203


CROWN MEDIA: Investor Files Del. Suit v. Restructuring Proposal
---------------------------------------------------------------
S. Muoio & Associates, a minority shareholder of Crown Media
Holdings, parent of the Hallmark Channel, filed a class-action
lawsuit to block a restructuring proposal from the company's
largest shareholder, Mike Farrell of Multichannel News reports.

The New York based investment firm, which owns about 5% of Crown
stock, filed the lawsuit in Delaware Chancery Court on July 13,
2009, claiming that the restructuring will unfairly dilute
minority shareholders practically into oblivion.

On May 28, 2009, Crown received a recapitalization proposal from
its largest shareholder -- Hallmark Cards -- to swap $1.1
billion in debt for $500 million in loans and $550 million in
preferred equity, according to Multichannel News.

Hallmark Cards asked Crown to make a decision whether to approve
the plan before it files its next 10-Q quarterly statement with
the Securities and Exchange Commission.  That decision is
expected sometime in late July or early August.

Hallmark Cards, which is also Crown's largest debt holder, said
the deal would erase more than half of Crown's debt and put the
business on firmer ground.  Others saw the deal as a way to push
other equity holders out of the picture, reports Multichannel
News.

S. Muoio & Associates has been a vocal opponent of the deal,
claiming that it would give Hallmark 95% of Crown's equity,
leaving 5% to be split among remaining shareholders.

In the suit, S. Muoio & Associates claims Crown has breached its
fiduciary duties to shareholders and that its current financial
situation is the result of a series of one-sided transactions
that were favorable to Hallmark Cards and its subsidiaries, but
detrimental to Crown and its shareholders, Multichannel News
reported.

"The crux of Hallmark's plan is to cause Crown to engage in a
facially unfair, self-interested, highly dilutive
recapitalization that Hallmark is presenting as Crown's only
alternative to bankruptcy," according to the suit.

The suit is asking for a judge to enjoin Hallmark Cards and
Crown from consummating the recapitalization deal and for costs
and expenses incurred in the class-action case, including
attorneys' fees, according to Multichannel News.


EASTMAN KODAK: Settles Race Discrimination Lawsuits for $21M
------------------------------------------------------------
Eastman Kodak Co. reached a $21.4 million settlement for a pair
of race discrimination lawsuits filed by current and former
African-American workers, Matthew Daneman of The Rochester
Democrat and Chronicle reports.

The settlement, which still needs final approval by a judge,
would end two class-action lawsuits pending against the company
in federal court in Rochester -- one filed in 2004 by a group
calling itself Employees Committed for Justice and one in 2007
by a separate group of Kodak workers.

In the lawsuits, the company was accused of discriminatory
practices in pay and promotions, according to The Rochester
Democrat and Chronicle.

Under the terms of the tentative agreement, the company would
pay $75,000 each to a core group of 12 plaintiffs, while 15
others would receive $5,000 each.

According to court papers, obtained by The Rochester Democrat
and Chronicle, a larger pool of African Americans who worked for
Kodak between 1999 and 2006 -- potentially more than 3,000
people -- would receive monetary awards ranging from $500 to
upwards of $3,000.

A hearing is scheduled for Sept. 15, 2009 before U.S. Magistrate
Judge Jonathan W. Feldman of U.S. District Court for the Western
District of New York for final approval of the proposed
settlement, The Rochester Democrat and Chronicle reported.


INDYMAC BANCORP: Ex-Officials, Others Face Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The former executives and institutions associated with mortgage-
backed securities sold by the failed savings and loan IndyMac
Bancorp, Inc. are facing a purported securities fraud class-
action lawsuit filed by Wyoming state Treasurer Joseph B. Meyer
and the $4.7 billion Wyoming Retirement System, Cheyenne,
Timothy Inklebarger of Pensions & Investments reports.

The suit was filed on June 29, 2009 in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York, under the caption,
"Wyoming State Treasurer et al v. Olinski et al., Case No.
1:2009-cv-05933"

It names as defendants former IndyMac Chairman and CEO John
Olinski and former Executive Vice President S. Blair Abernathy,
among others.  Also named as defendants were: Lynette Antosh,
Raphael Bostic, Samir Grover, Simon Heyrick, Victor H.
Woodworth, Indymac Indx Mortgage Loan Trust Series 2006-AR11,
Indymac Indx Mortgage Loan Trust Series 2006-AR29, Indymac Indx
Mortgage Loan Trust Series 2006-AR35, Indymac Indx Mortgage Loan
Trust Series 2006-FLX1, Indymac Indx Mortgage Loan Trust Series
2006-AR14, Indymac Indx Mortgage Loan Trust Series 2006-AR3,
Indymac Indx Mortgage Loan Trust Series 2006-AR15, Indymac Indx
Mortgage Loan Trust Series 2006-AR2, Indymac Indx Mortgage Loan
Trust Series 2006-AR4, Residential Asset Securitization Trust
Series 2006-A2, Indymac Indx Mortgage Loan Trust Series 2006-
R7, Indymac Residential Mortgage Backed Trust Series 2006-L2,
Indymac Inda Mortgage Loan Trust Series 2007-AR7, Indymac
Residential Asset Backed Trust Series 2006-D, Indymac Inda
Mortgage Loan Trust Series 2006-AR2, Bank of America
Corporation, Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, J.P. Morgan
Securities Inc., Greenwich Capital Markets, Inc., Morgan Stanley
& Co., Inc., UBS Securities LLC, Moody's Investors Service,
Inc., Fitch Rating Ltd. and The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.

The lawsuit claims that IndyMac sold asset-backed securities
without regard to risk.  It cites a June 30, 2008, report by the
Center for Responsible Lending that concluded that the company
"encouraged its employees to approve loans regardless of the
borrower's ability to repay," Pensions & Investments reported.

The amount of damages sought was not specified in the lawsuit,
according to Pensions & Investments.

For more details, contact:

          Jeffrey Craig Block, Esq. (jblock@bermanesq.com)
          Berman DeValerio
          One Liberty Square, 8th Floor
          Boston, MA 02109
          Phone: (617) 542-8300
          Fax: (617)-542-1194


KERR-MCGEE CORP: Faces N.Y. Litigation Over Tronox Inc. Spin-Off
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kerr-McGee Corp. and its successor Anadarko Petroleum Corp. are
facing a purported class-action lawsuit alleging that Kerr-McGee
dumped hundreds of millions of dollars of environmental and tort
liabilities on former subsidiary Tronox Inc. and concealed the
scope of those liabilities before spinning off the now-bankrupt
Tronox, Law360 reports.

The suit was filed on July 10, 2009 in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York by Alaska Electrical
Pension Fund, under the caption, "Alaska Electrical Pension Fund
et al v. Kerr-McGee Corporation et al., Case No. 1:2009-cv-
06220."

Listed as defendants are Kerr-McGee Corp., Anadarko Petroleum
Corp., Luke R. Corbett, Gregory Pilcher, Robert M. Wohleber, J.
Michael Rauh, Thomas W. Adams, Mary Mikkelson and Marty J.
Rowland.

For more details, contact:

          Samuel Howard Rudman, Esq. (srudman@csgrr.com)
          Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP (LI)
          58 South Service Road
          Suite 200
          Melville, NY 11747
          Phone: 631-367-7100
          Fax: 631-367-1173


KPMG LLP: Fifth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Licensing Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has affirmed the
dismissal of two purported class-action lawsuits claiming
accounting giant KPMG LLP did not have the licensing it needed
to practice in Texas between 1984 and 1999, The Courthouse News
Service reports.

The dismissed lawsuits are captioned, "NAB Asset Venture I L.P.
et al v. KPMG, LLP et al., Case No. 5:07-cv-00108-FB," filed on
Feb. 5, 2007 by NAB Asset Venture II L.P., NAB Asset Venture III
L.P., NAB Asset Venture IV L.P. and Desert Eagle Distributing of
El Paso, Inc.; and "Little et al v. KPMG LLP et al., Case No.
5:07-cv-00621-FB," filed on July 26, 2007 by Douglas Alan Little
and Little, Roberts & Co., P.C.

Both were previously dismissed by the U.S. Distirct Court for
the Western District of Texas.  A decision that the New Orleans-
based appeals court affirmed saying that the claims for injury,
brought by competing accountants and KPMG's Texas clients, are
"too speculative" to establish standing, The Courthouse News
Service reported.

Writing on behalf of the Fifth Circuit panel, Judge E. Grady
Holly called the competitors' claims "too speculative to
confer ... standing" and said the clients "failed to plead
actual, concrete injury sufficient to survive dismissal,"
according to The Courthouse News Service.

A copy of the ruling is available free of charge at:
              http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?3f4a


LANDAMERICA COMMONWEALTH: Simon Law Firm Files Overtime Pay Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
     The Simon Law Firm announces that a class action lawsuit
has been filed in Jackson County against Virginia-based
LandAmerica Commonwealth Title seeking unpaid overtime on behalf
of closing agents in Missouri.

     Filed on July 14, 2009 by Kansas City closing agent Travis
Richards and Mary Lagud Haas, an Independence closing agent, the
suit alleges that LandAmerica violated Missouri common law and
public policy by:

       -- Instituting a policy in August of 2006 that required
          agents to work 40 hours or more per week but only paid
          them for 36 hours.

       -- Instituting a subsequent policy that reduced the
          number of hours for which they would be paid to 32
          hours.

     According to the suit, LandAmerica set unrealistic quota
goals for closing agents and pressured employees to work "off
the clock."  LandAmerica was allegedly notified that employees
were working overtime but did nothing to ensure that accurate
records were kept and instead threatened the job security of
employees.

     LandAmerica employed approximately 100 closing agents in
Missouri who were paid, on average, $18 per hour.  The suit
seeks injunctive relief, attorneys' fees and monetary damages.

     St. Louis-based lawyers John G. Simon, Erich Vieth and John
E. Campbell of The Simon Law Firm represent the plaintiffs.

     Says Campbell, "When a company puts profit before people,
it hurts workers and their families.  Thankfully, the law can
help us right that wrong; it is the Simon Law Firms' privilege
to represent hard-working people who just want to be paid what
they have already earned."

For more information, contact:

          John Campbell (jcampbell@simonlawpc.com)
          The Simon Law Firm, P.C.
          701 Market Street, Suite 1450
          St. Louis, Missouri 63101
          Phone: 314-241-2929 or 1-877-767-3108
          Fax: 314-241-2029
          Web site: http://simonlawpc.com/


LENNAR CORP: Suits Over Defective Chinese Drywall Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lennar Corp. continues to face lawsuits over defective Chinese
drywall, according to the company's July 10, 2009 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended May 31, 2009.

As of July 10, 2009, the company is aware of 41 Florida state
court lawsuits and two federal class action lawsuits that have
been filed against Lennar by homeowners and their family members
in connection with defective Chinese drywall.

There are other related state and federal cases in which the
company is not a party.

All federal cases have been consolidated for discovery and pre-
trial purposes in the Eastern District of Louisiana pursuant to
the multi-district litigation ("MDL") procedure.

The company has sued in Miami-Dade Circuit Court the entire
supply chain, including the Chinese and German manufacturers of
the defective drywall.

Lennar has moved to abate all 41 state court actions pursuant to
Florida,s law allowing builders to repair.  Lennar is attempting
to perfect service of its complaint on the Chinese defendants.

Based in Miami, Fla., Lennar Corp. -- http://www.lennar.com/--
builds affordable, move-up and retirement homes primarily under
the Lennar brand name.  Lennar's Financial Services segment
provides primarily mortgage financing, title insurance and
closing services for both buyers of the company's homes and
others.


MSC SOFTWARE: Levi & Korsinsky Files Lawsuit Over Merger Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
     Levi & Korsinsky announces that a class action lawsuit has
been filed in the Superior Court of the State of California
challenging the proposed acquisition of MSC Software Corporation
(NASDAQ: MSCS).

     The complaint arises out of an announcement by MSC Software
stating that it had entered into a definitive merger agreement
with Symphony Technology Group and Elliott Management Corp.
Under the terms of the agreement, MSC Software shareholders will
receive $7.63 in cash for each share of MSC Software they own
for a total transaction value of approximately $360 million.

     The price is unfair given that:

       -- the Company's shares traded at $7.73 as recently as
          June 1, 2009 and over $10.70 per share in the fourth
          quarter of 2008;

       -- the Company has $149 million in cash (or $3.27 per
          share) with no debt and a book value in excess of
          $7.00 per share; and

       -- analysts set a median price target for MSC Software
          stock at $8.75 per share with a high target of $10.00
          per share.

     The companies expect to consummate the transaction in the
third quarter, subject to customary closing conditions,
including all necessary regulatory and stockholder approvals.

If you own common stock in MSC.Software and wish to obtain
additional information, please contact us at the number listed
below or visit.

Levi & Korsinsky has expertise in prosecuting investor
securities litigation and extensive experience in actions
involving financial fraud and represents investors throughout
the nation, concentrating its practice in securities and
shareholder litigation.

For more details, contact:

          Eduard Korsinsky, Esq.
          Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
          Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
          30 Broad Street - 15th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Phone: (212) 363-7500
          Fax: (212) 363-7171
          Web site: http://www.zlk.com/mscs1.html


NATURAL HEALTH: July 19 Final Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
-------------------------------------------------------------
A final settlement fairness hearing has been set for July 19,
2009, for a securities fraud class action lawsuit against
Natural Health Trends Corp. in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Texas.

On Sept. 11, 2006, The Rosen Law Firm P.A. filed a putative
class action suit purportedly on behalf of certain purchasers of
the company's common stock to recover damages caused by alleged
violations of federal securities laws.

The lawsuit names the company and certain current and former
officers and directors as defendants.

On Dec. 20, 2006, the court granted an unopposed motion to
designate The Rosen Law Firm P.A. as lead counsel.

On Feb. 20, 2007, the named plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint.

On March 26, 2008, the District Court denied the defendants'
motions to dismiss the amended complaint.

The company and the other defendants have signed a definitive
settlement agreement with the plaintiffs, pursuant to which the
shareholder class will receive a total payment of $2.75 million.
Of that amount, the company's directors and officers insurance
carriers have agreed in principal to pay $2.5 million, and the
company has agreed in principal to pay $250,000.  The settlement
is subject to final court approval following completion of a
fairness hearing, which has been set for July 19, 2009,
according to the company's May 14, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2009.

The suit is "Zagami v. Natural Health Trends Corp et al., Case
No. 3:06-cv-01654," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Texas, Judge Sidney A. Fitzwater,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Thomas E. Bilek, Esq. (tbilek@hb-legal.com)
         Hoeffner & Bilek
         1000 Louisiana St., Suite 1302
         Houston, TX 77002
         Phone: 713-227-7720
         Fax: 713-227-9404

         Christopher S. Hinton, Esq.
         The Hinton Law Firm
         350 Fifth Ave., Suite 5508
         New York, NY 10118
         Phone: 646-723-3377
         Fax: 212-202-3827

              - and -

         Phillip Kim, Esq.
         Laurence Rosen, Esq.
         The Rosen Law Firm
         350 Fifth Ave., Suite 5508
         New York, NY 10118
         Phone: 212-686-1060
         Fax: 214-202-3827


NEW MEXICO: Keller Rohrback Files Suit for College Savings Plans
----------------------------------------------------------------
     Keller Rohrback L.L.P. announces that it has filed a class
action Complaint against the Education Trust Board of New Mexico
and the Education Plan Trust of New Mexico for breach of
contract involving its 529 college savings plans: "Education
Plan"; and "Scholar'sEdge Plan."

     The Complaint was filed in Santa Fe County First Judicial
District Court on behalf of a class of all persons that entered
into or maintained an Education Plan Participation Agreement
from June 25, 2007 through the present and who suffered losses
in the 529 Plans related to the Trust's fixed-income assets.
Santa Fe attorney John Bienvenu is co-counsel in the case.

     The Complaint alleges that the State breached its contract
with participants in the New Mexico 529 Plans regarding its
management of certain "fixed-income" assets in the Trust.

     Specifically, the Board invested the vast majority of the
fixed-income portion of the Trust's assets in the Oppenheimer
Core Bond Fund, the Oppenheimer Limited Term Government Fund and
the Oppenheimer Strategic Income Fund, all of which in turn were
heavily invested in commercial mortgage-backed securities, non-
agency prime ("jumbo") mortgages, and financial sector corporate
bonds, all of which performed extremely poorly throughout 2008.

     Additionally, the 529 Plans were significantly over-
leveraged in an attempt to off-set the poor performance of the
investments once the market began to suffer, thus magnifying the
risk in what were supposed to be conservative and/or
ultraconservative investment options.  The Complaint seeks
compensation of losses suffered by Class Members.

For more details, contact:

          Amy Williams-Derry, Esq.
          David Copley, Esq.
          Lynn Sarko, Esq.
          Phone: 800-776-6044
          e-mail: investor@kellerrohrback.com
          Web site: http://www.krclassaction.com


OLIVE GARDEN: Ill. Court Approves FACTA Litigation Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
given final approval to a proposed settlement in a purported
class-action lawsuit against Olive Garden, a restaurant concept
owned and operated by Darden Restaurants, Inc., United Press
International reports.

Sandra Pedicini of The Associated Press previously reported that
Olive Garden is settling a federal lawsuit over credit card
privacy (Class Action Reporter, May 21, 2009).

The settlement has already received preliminary approval from
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
and a final hearing is set for July, according to the AP report.

It stems from a class-action lawsuit filed in 2007, which
accused Olive Garden of printing the last six digits of
customers' credit card numbers on receipts.  The limit under the
Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act is five, reports The
Associated Press.

The lead plaintiff in the case was Mary Dudzienski of Illinois,
who was represented by Thomas A. Zimmerman Jr., Esq.

Diners who used debit or credit cards between Dec. 4, 2006, and
Aug. 10, 2007, are eligible for the settlement, The Associated
Press reported.

For more details, contact:

          Thomas A. Zimmerman, Jr.
          Chicago, Illinois
          Phone: 1-866-890-4862 or (312) 440-0020
          Fax: (312) 440-4180
          Web site: http://www.attorneyzim.com/


PAYDAY LOAN: Faces Customer's Suit in Ill. Over Payment of Loans
----------------------------------------------------------------
Payday Loan Stores of Illinois, Inc. faces a purported class-
action lawsuit accusing it of victimizing customers by demanding
300 percent interest and flipping loans with balloon payments,
Bridget Freeland of The Courthouse News Service reports.

The suit was filed on July 10, 2009 in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois by Dominginho Powell,
under the caption, "Powell v. Payday Loan Stores of Illinois,
Inc., Case No. 1:2009-cv-04146."

The suit is alleging violations of  the Equal Opportunity Credit
Act 15 U.S.C. Section 1691, the Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C.
Section 1602 et seq., the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47
U.S.C. Section 227, and the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act, 815
ILCS 505/2 et seq.

According to Mr. Powell, who is represented by attorney
Alexander Burke, Esq., he has paid nearly $5,000 on a $2,265
loan and Payday has reduced the principal by only $30.  He
claims that the company sets up its customers to fail, making
"the first payment affordable, and the second payment
unaffordable," reports The Courthouse News Service.

A small initial payment is followed by a balloon payment a month
later, and when customers, as expected, cannot make the balloon
payment, the company flips the loan, Mr. Powell claims.

Mr. Powell says the company flipped his loan nine times,
typically charging him around $550 for his first payment and
$2,800 for the second one - plus finance charges of more than
$1,100, according to The Courthouse News Service.

After borrowing $2,265 for a car loan in June 2008, Mr. Powell
says, he paid nearly $5,000 in the next 10 months, and still
owes $2,235 in principal.

Mr. Powell says the company forced him to refinance his loan
every month after the first payment, as well "before the
maturity of the original loans," and that it sought "to collect
much more in finance charges," without disclosing the true
nature of each loan, The Courthouse News Service reported.

He says that all of his loan documents were virtually identical,
however, the company treated each loan as separate, with finance
charges of more than $1,000 each time he refinanced.

The plaintiff claims that the company harassed him about the
final loan agreement, which he says he never signed, and
continued to call his cell phone with an automatic telephone
dialing system after he told them to stop.

The suit seeks actual and punitive damages, and statutory
damages of $500 to $1500 for each phone call, The Courthouse
News Service reports.

A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at:
              http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?3f3a

For more details, contact:

          Alexander Holmes Burke, Esq. (ABurke@BurkeLawLLC.com)
          Burke Law Offices, LLC
          155 N. Michigan Ave.
          Suite 9020
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Phone: (312) 729-5288


PLAINS CAPITAL: FSH Faces Amended Civil Complaint in New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
First Southwest Holdings, LLC (FSH) continues to face a second
amended class action complaint in a federal court in New York,
according to Plains Capital Corporation's July 10, 2009
Amendement No. 2 to its Form 10 filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission.

Plains Capital owns 100% of the outstanding stock of
PlainsCapital Bank (PCB), who has a 100% interest in First
Southwest Holdings, LLC (FSH). One of the principal subsidiaries
of FSH is First Southwest Company (FSC).

As a result of the SEC and Department of Justice investigations
into industry-wide practices, FSC was named as a co-defendant in
a series of civil lawsuits filed during 2008 in several
different federal courts by various state and local governmental
entities suing on behalf of themselves and a purported class of
similarly situated governmental entities.

A similar set of lawsuits were filed in California state courts
by various local governmental entities.  The California suits
were removed to federal court, and all of the cases have been
consolidated in federal court in New York.

On April 29, 2009, the judge in the consolidated cases dismissed
all claims asserted against FSC and nearly all other defendants
from the lawsuit.

The court granted plaintiffs until June 18, 2009, to re-plead
the case to cite specific instances of alleged anti-competitive
behavior by specific individuals at specific defendants.

On June 18, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a second amended class
action complaint.  While FSC is not named as a defendant in this
second amended complaint, it is identified as an alleged co-
conspirator with the named defendants.

Plains Capital Corporation is a Dallas-based financial holding
company registered under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 and
a bank holding company registered under the Bank Holding Company
Act of 1956.  Its wholly-owned bank subsidiary, PlainsCapital
Bank,  provides business and consumer banking services from
offices located throughout central, north and west Texas.  In
addition to the Bank, the company has various other subsidiaries
with specialized areas of expertise that allow it to provide a
wide array of financial products and services.  Through these
other subsidiaries, the company offers financial products and
services such as mortgage origination, financial advisory,
public finance, investment banking, asset management and capital
equipment leasing.


SAFECO INSURANCE: Ill. Judge Remands Suit Back to Madison County
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge G. Patrick Murphy of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Illinois remanded on July 8, 2009 a class-
action lawsuit against Safeco Insurance Company of America and
Safeco Insurance Company of Illinois back to Judge Barbara
Crowder of Madison County Circuit Court, Steve Korris of The St.
Clair Record reports.

The St. Clair Record previously reported that an attorney for
Safeco Insurance Company of America is seeking for
reconsideration of a lawsuit against the company that was
certified as a class-action case by Judge Barbara Crowder of
Madison County Circuit Court  (Class Action Reporter, June 12,
2009).

Safeco lawyer Mark Arnold of St. Louis had removed the suit to
federal court in East St. Louis in April, claiming Judge Crowder
started a new case for purposes of federal class action law.

Mr. Arnold argues that Judge Crowder's March 25 certification
order turned a suit against two Safeco affiliates into a suit
against 11 affiliates.  He further argues, "The record shows
that this was a purposeful expansion of the case."

Thus, Mr. Arnold is asking Judge G. Patrick Murphy of the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Illinois to
reconsider Judge Crowder's order.

"Bill review cases like this are unsuited for class
adjudication," according to Mr. Arnold, who further argued, "As
courts across the country have repeatedly held, a carrier's
liability to a first party claimant or medical provider for
unpaid medical expenses under a property or casualty can be
tried only on a case by case basis, by examining the facts of
each class member's claim."

According to Mr. Arnold, Judge Crowder's trial plan would award
damages without proof of liability and would postpone liability
determination until after trial.  He argues "On this ground
alone, the certification order should be vacated."

Previously, it was reported that an Illinois Circuit Court
certified a class-action case against Safeco Insurance Company
of America and Safeco Insurance Company of Illinois (Class
Action Reporter, April 3, 2009).

The case covers medical providers and policyholders who accuse
the company of implementing a third-party biased computer
auditing program to reduce payouts under the medical payments
coverage of property and casualty insurance.

The case is pending in the Third Judicial Circuit, Madison
County, Illinois (Cause No. 05-L-152).  The Court certified the
following class:

All persons insured by Safeco property and casualty insurance
companies in the states of Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut,
Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Mississippi, New Hampshire, New Mexico,
Ohio, South Dakota, Texas, Wisconsin and West Virginia (and
their assignee medical providers), who:

       -- during the period from January 1, 1997 to the date of
          this Order, submitted one or more claims for payment
          of medical expenses pursuant to an automobile policy's
          medical payments coverage;

       -- had their claim(s) adjusted and reviewed by computer
          bill review software incorporating Ingenix "MDR
          modules;" and

       -- received or were tendered payment in an amount less
          than the submitted medical expenses due to charges
          purportedly exceeding the usual, customary or
          reasonable amount, based on the Ingenix "MDR modules."

Jonathan Piper, Attorney for LakinChapman, LLC, said, "This is
the first step to successfully litigating this case.  This
lawsuit challenges Safeco's targeting of medical providers, and
their legitimate billing practices, by utilizing a computer
program that unilaterally and improperly reduces bills to a pre-
determined arbitrary cap that Safeco selects."

LakinChapman, LLC regularly represents medical providers and
consumers in class action litigation.  "Unfortunately, Safeco
and other carriers in the industry use computer programs to cut
legitimate bills of medical providers which leads to substantial
financial losses for medical providers and out of pocket
expenses for Safeco's own policyholders.  In return, the
insurance company profits," said Brad Lakin, Managing Partner of
LakinChapman, LLC.

The firm is pursuing similar cases against other insurance
companies in the industry.  LakinChapman, LLC regularly
represents medical providers and consumers in class action
litigation.

For more details, contact:

          LakinChapman, LLC
          300 Evans Ave.
          P.O. Box 229
          Wood River, Illinois 62095
          Phone: 618-208-4240 or 866-839-2021
          Web site: http://www.lakinlaw.com/


SOUTHERN SUN: Former Employee Files Colorado Lawsuit Over Tips
--------------------------------------------------------------
A former employee at the Southern Sun Brewery and Restaurant is
suing the popular Boulder, Colorado pub and eatery, claiming
managers unlawfully kept tips meant for servers and also
distributed proceeds from gratuities to cooks and other workers
not eligible for the money, John Aguilar of The Colorado Daily
reports.

The class-action suit, filed earlier this month by Russell
Braun, states that there are more than 50 former and current
employees who have been shorted by Southern Sun's tip-
distribution system.

In general the suit alleges violations of the Colorado Wage
Claim Act and the Colorado Minimum Wage Act, according to The
Colorado Daily.

According to Brian Gonzales, Esq., who is representing Mr. Braun
in the case, "The lawsuit alleges that they are violating state
law in the way that they use and distribute employee tips.
They're violating the law, and I think they've been doing it for
several years."

"Southern Sun is liable for, among other things, paying a sub-
minimum wage to current and former employees and for all tips
diverted improperly," the suit states, reports The Colorado
Daily.

The suit also accuses Southern Sun of failing to provide meal
and rest breaks to its employees as required by law, The
Colorado Daily reported.

For more details, contact:

          The Law Offices of Brian D. Gonzales, PLLC
          123 North College Avenue, Suite 200
          Fort Collins, Colorado 80524
          Phone: 970-212-4665
          Fax: 970-212-4739
          e-mail: Bgonzales@ColoradoWageLaw.com
          Web site: http://coloradowagelaw.com/


SOUTHWEST WATER: Continues to Face Securities Lawsuits in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
SouthWest Water Company continues to face securities class
action lawsuits in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California.

On Nov. 26, 2008, an alleged purchaser of the company's stock
filed an alleged securities class action lawsuit in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California.

The class action suit is styled, "Perring v. SouthWest Water
Company, et al., Case No. CV 08-07844."

The complaint generally alleges that from May 10, 2005 through
Nov. 9, 2008, the company made false statements or omitted to
state facts necessary to make its disclosures not misleading.

Five additional and substantially similar cases were filed in
the same court.

On Jan. 26, 2009, motions for consolidation and for the
appointment of lead plaintiff and lead counsel were filed by the
plaintiffs.

On Feb. 12, 2009, the court granted the motion for consolidation
and for the appointment of lead plaintiff and lead counsel.

Pursuant to stipulation, the lead plaintiff has up to and
including the later of 60 days after the appointment of lead
plaintiff or the filing of the restated financial statements to
file a consolidated complaint.

The company will have 60 days to answer or move to dismiss the
consolidated complaint, according to its July 9, 2009 Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

SouthWest Water Company -- http://www.southwestwater.com-- is
engaged in providing a range of services, including water
production, treatment and distribution; wastewater collection
and treatment; utility operations and maintenance services; and
utility infrastructure construction.  The subsidiaries are
segmented into two operating groups, which include the Utility
Group and the Services Group.  In January 2009, the company sold
of its wholesale wastewater business in Texas.


SUPERVALU INC: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in New York
------------------------------------------------------------
     An investor has filed a proposed securities class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of Supervalu, Inc. (NYSE: SVU)
investors, who purchased common stock of the company during the
period from April 23, 2009 through June 23, 2009, over alleged
violations of the federal securities laws.

     Roy Jacobs & Associates announces that it has filed a class
action in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York alleging the violation of the federal
securities laws on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of
Supervalu Inc. (NYSE: SVU) during the period from April 23, 2009
through June 23, 2009 (Class Action Reporter, July 15, 2009).

     The Complaint alleges that the Company disseminated
unreasonable highly positive guidance for the Company's
financial performance for fiscal 2010, in order to close a $1
billion note offering in May 2009.  Indeed, positive guidance on
April 23 generated such interest in the Company it was able to
offer $500 million in new notes and almost immediately increased
the offering to $1 billion.  On May 7, 2009, the Company
announced the completion of its $1 billion note offering, which
was needed to retire existing outstanding indebtedness of the
Company which was shortly coming due.

     Then, after the refinancing was complete, on June 24, 2009,
the Company revealed that first quarter 2010 earnings would be
substantially below expectations, and that the previous fiscal
2010 guidance would be updated in light of an unexpectedly poor
first quarter.  As a result, Supervalu shares dropped almost 12%
on very heavy trading volume.

     A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain
criteria and be made on or before Sept. 11, 2009.

For more details, contact:

          Roy L. Jacobs, Esq. (rjacobs@jacobsclasslaw.com)
          Roy Jacobs & Associates
          Phone: 1-888-884-4490
          Web site: http://www.jacobsclasslaw.com


TICKETMASTER ENTERTAINMENT: 5 Canadian Consumer Lawsuits Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ticketmaster Entertainment, Inc. and several of its subsidiaries
continue to face putative consumer class-action complaints filed
in Canada.

In February 2009, five putative consumer class-action complaints
were filed in Canada against TNow Entertainment Group, Inc.,
Ticketmaster Entertainment, Inc., Ticketmaster Canada Ltd., and
Premium Inventory, Inc.

All of the cases allege essentially the same set of facts and
causes of action: each plaintiff purports to represent a class
consisting of all persons who purchased a ticket from
Ticketmaster Entertainment, Ticketmaster Canada or TicketsNow
from early February 2007 to the present.

Each proposed class purports to extend to United States as well
as Canadian consumers.

The complaints allege in essence that Ticketmaster Entertainment
and Ticketmaster Canada conspired to divert a large number of
tickets for resale through the TicketsNow website at prices
higher than face value in violation of Ontario's Ticket
Speculation Act, the Amusement Act of Manitoba, the Amusement
Act of Alberta, and the Quebec Consumer Protection Act.

Each lawsuit seeks $500 million in compensatory damages and $10
million in punitive damages on behalf of the class.

The Ontario case contains the additional allegation that
Ticketmaster Entertainment and TicketsNow's service fees run
afoul of anti-scalping laws, according to the company's May 13,
2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009.

Ticketmaster Entertainment, Inc., formerly Ticketmaster, --
http://www.ticketmaster.com-- is a live ticketing and marketing
company.  It operates in approximately 20 countries worldwide,
providing ticket sales, ticket resale services, marketing and
distribution through www.ticketmaster.com, one of the largest e-
commerce sites on the internet, and related proprietary internet
and mobile channels, approximately 7,100 independent sales
outlets and 17 call centers worldwide.


TICKETMASTER ENTERTAINMENT: "Campbell" Action Pending in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
A purported class-action complaint against Ticketmaster
Entertainment, Inc. and TicketsNow.com, Inc., asserting causes
of action under California's Business and Professions Code and
the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, remains pending.

The class-action complaint was filed on March 23, 2009, against
Ticketmaster Entertainment and TicketsNow is styled, "Campbell
v. Ticketmaster Entertainment, Inc. and TicketsNow.com, Inc.,
Case No. CV09-1968 (PSG) (United States District Court, Central
District of California)."

The lawsuit alleges that Ticketmaster and TicketsNow committed
unfair business practices by, among other things, "redirecting"
consumers from Ticketmaster.com to TicketsNow.com.

Plaintiff purports to represent a nationwide class consisting of
"all persons who were redirected from Ticketmaster.com to
TicketsNow.com and purchased tickets above face value from
TicketsNow.com."

Plaintiff seeks disgorgement and restitution on behalf of the
class and attorneys fees and costs, according to the company's
May 13, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009.

Ticketmaster Entertainment, Inc., formerly Ticketmaster, --
http://www.ticketmaster.com-- is a live ticketing and marketing
company.  It operates in approximately 20 countries worldwide,
providing ticket sales, ticket resale services, marketing and
distribution through www.ticketmaster.com, one of the largest e-
commerce sites on the internet, and related proprietary internet
and mobile channels, approximately 7,100 independent sales
outlets and 17 call centers worldwide.


TICKETMASTER ENTERTAINMENT: Demurrer to "Schlessinger" Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
A demurrer to the second amended complaint in "Curt Schlessinger
et al. v. Ticketmaster, No. BC304565," is pending, according to
the company's May 13, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March
31, 2009.

On Oct. 21, 2003, a purported representative action was filed in
California state court, challenging Ticketmaster Entertainment's
charges to online customers for UPS ticket delivery.

The complaint alleged in essence that it is unlawful for
Ticketmaster Entertainment not to disclose on its website that
the fee it charges to online customers to have their tickets
delivered by UPS contains a profit component.

The complaint asserted a claim for violation of Section 17200 of
the California Business and Professions Code and sought
restitution or disgorgement of the difference between (i) the
total UPS delivery fees charged by Ticketmaster Entertainment in
connection with online ticket sales during the applicable
statute of limitations period, and (ii) the amount Ticketmaster
Entertainment paid to UPS for that service.

On Aug. 31, 2005, the plaintiffs filed an amended class-action
and representative-action complaint alleging (i) as before, that
Ticketmaster Entertainment's website disclosures in respect of
its charges for UPS ticket delivery violate Section 17200 of the
California Business and Professions Code, and (ii) for the first
time, that Ticketmaster Entertainment's website disclosures in
respect of its ticket order-processing fees constitute false
advertising in violation of Section 17500 of the California
Business and Professions Code.  On this latter claim, the
amended complaint seeks restitution or disgorgement of the
entire amount of order-processing fees charged by Ticketmaster
Entertainment during the applicable statute of limitations
period.

On Aug. 14, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification, which Ticketmaster Entertainment opposed.  On
Sept. 25, 2006, Ticketmaster Entertainment filed a motion for
judgment on the pleadings, which the plaintiffs opposed.  On
Nov. 21, 2006, Ticketmaster Entertainment requested that the
court stay the case pending the California Supreme Court's
decisions in two cases (In re Tobacco II Cases, 142 Cal. App.
4th 891, and Pfizer Inc. v. Superior Court (Galfano), 141 Cal.
App. 4th 290) that present issues concerning the interpretation
of Proposition 64 that are directly pertinent to both of the
pending motions.  The plaintiffs opposed Ticketmaster
Entertainment's request.  On Nov. 29, 2006, the court ordered
that the case be stayed pending the California Supreme Court's
ruling on the two cases.

On July 11, 2007, the court lifted its stay of the action for
the limited purpose of allowing the plaintiffs to proceed with
their motion for class certification.  The parties thereafter
submitted supplemental briefing in support of their respective
positions and argued the motion at a September 20 hearing.

On Dec. 19, 2007, the court issued an order denying the
plaintiffs' motion for class certification without prejudice.
The court also issued an order staying the action for an
additional 180 days or until the California Supreme Court issues
a ruling in the Tobacco II and Pfizer appeals.  Oral argument in
the Tobacco II case took place on March 3, 2009.

On Feb. 20, 2009, plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a
second amended complaint, which purports to add the allegation
that Ticketmaster Entertainment's order processing fees are
unconscionably high.  Ticketmaster Entertainment opposed the
motion on March 16, 2009.

On March 3, 2009, the California Supreme Court heard oral
argument in the Tobacco II case.  The company expects a ruling
in May or June 2009.

On April 1, 2009, the Court granted plaintiff's motion for leave
to file a Second Amended Complaint that clarifies plaintiff's
California Business and Professions Code claims and adds the
allegation that Ticketmaster's order processing fees are
unconscionable as a matter of law.  The case is otherwise stayed
pending the Tobacco II ruling.  Ticketmaster Entertainment filed
a demurrer to the Second Amended Complaint on May 8, 2009.

Ticketmaster Entertainment, Inc., formerly Ticketmaster, --
http://www.ticketmaster.com-- is a live ticketing and marketing
company.  It operates in approximately 20 countries worldwide,
providing ticket sales, ticket resale services, marketing and
distribution through www.ticketmaster.com, one of the largest e-
commerce sites on the internet, and related proprietary internet
and mobile channels, approximately 7,100 independent sales
outlets and 17 call centers worldwide.


TICKETMASTER ENTERTAINMENT: "Diamond" Consumer Lawsuit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ticketmaster Entertainment, Inc. and Ticketsnow.com, Inc. still
faces a purported consumer class-action complaint in California,
according to the company's May 13, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2009.

On Feb. 6, 2009, a purported class-action complaint asserting
several causes of action under the federal antitrust laws as
well as California and New York consumer protection laws was
filed against Ticketmaster Entertainment and TicketsNow.

The complaint is styled, "Diamond v. Ticketmaster Entertainment,
Inc. and Ticketsnow.com, Inc., Case No. CV 09-0912 (CBM) (United
States District Court, Central District of California)."

The lawsuit alleges that Ticketmaster and TicketsNow unlawfully
attempted to monopolize and/or have monopolized the market for
secondary tickets and deceived consumers by, among other things,
selling large quantities of tickets to TicketsNow's ticket
brokers, either prior to or at the time that tickets for an
event go on sale, thereby forcing consumers to purchase tickets
at significantly marked-up prices on TicketsNow instead of
Ticketmaster.com.

The plaintiff seeks actual damages or restitution in an amount
to be determined at trial and attorneys fees and costs.

Ticketmaster Entertainment, Inc., formerly Ticketmaster, --
http://www.ticketmaster.com-- is a live ticketing and marketing
company.  It operates in approximately 20 countries worldwide,
providing ticket sales, ticket resale services, marketing and
distribution through www.ticketmaster.com, one of the largest e-
commerce sites on the internet, and related proprietary internet
and mobile channels, approximately 7,100 independent sales
outlets and 17 call centers worldwide.


TICKETMASTER ENTERTAINMENT: Faces Consumer Fraud Actions in N.J.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ticketmaster Entertainment, Inc., faces two purported class
action complaints alleging causes of action for violation of the
New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, among others, according to the
company's May 13, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009.

On May 5 and May 8, two purported class action complaints were
filed against Ticketmaster Entertainment, Inc. and
TicketsNow.com, Inc.

The complaints allege that Ticketmaster Entertainment has been
unlawfully and knowingly rerouting customers from its website to
defendant TicketsNow.com, a secondary resale ticket broker
website which the complaints allege artificially inflates the
price of event tickets.

The complaints further allege that Ticketmaster Entertainment
claims that face value tickets are sold out or unavailable
within minutes of the tickets going on sale and redirects its
customers to TicketsNow.

Plaintiffs seek disgorgement and restitution on behalf of the
class and attorneys fees and costs.

Ticketmaster Entertainment, Inc., formerly Ticketmaster, --
http://www.ticketmaster.com-- is a live ticketing and marketing
company.  It operates in approximately 20 countries worldwide,
providing ticket sales, ticket resale services, marketing and
distribution through www.ticketmaster.com, one of the largest e-
commerce sites on the internet, and related proprietary internet
and mobile channels, approximately 7,100 independent sales
outlets and 17 call centers worldwide.


TICKETMASTER ENTERTAINMENT: Securities Suits Over Merger Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Two putative securities class-action lawsuits filed against
Ticketmaster Entertainment, Inc. and and its Board of Directors
are pending in California Superior Court, according to the
company's May 13, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009.

The suits are captioned:

   -- McBride v. Ticketmaster Entertainment, Inc., Case No.
      BC407677 (Superior Court of California, Los Angeles
      County), filed on Feb. 13, 2009; and

   -- Police & Fire Retirement System of the City of Detroit v.
      Ticketmaster Entertainment, Inc. et al., Case No. BC408228
      (Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County), filed
      on Feb. 20, 2009.

The plaintiff in the McBride case alleges that the Live Nation
transaction (the "Transaction") delivers insufficient value to
Ticketmaster Entertainment stockholders; that the board failed
to adequately consider alternative transactions; and that
Ticketmaster Entertainment insiders benefit disproportionately
from the Transaction.  Among other things, the complaint seeks
an injunction against the consummation of the Transaction and
compensatory damages for Ticketmaster Entertainment
stockholders.

The second putative class-action suit, Police & Fire Retirement
System of the City of Detroit, was filed against Ticketmaster
Entertainment and the members of its Board of Directors in the
same Los Angeles court in which the McBride complaint was filed.
The focus of this case is the alleged failure of Ticketmaster
Entertainment to obtain the highest price and on alleged
insufficiencies in the deal protections.  Also included is a
disclosure claim, which alleges that Ticketmaster Entertainment
wrongfully failed to disclose certain antitrust-related
schedules with the merger agreement, which the plaintiff alleges
makes it difficult for stockholders to assess certain provisions
of the merger agreement.

Ticketmaster Entertainment, Inc., formerly Ticketmaster, --
http://www.ticketmaster.com-- is a live ticketing and marketing
company.  It operates in approximately 20 countries worldwide,
providing ticket sales, ticket resale services, marketing and
distribution through www.ticketmaster.com, one of the largest e-
commerce sites on the internet, and related proprietary internet
and mobile channels, approximately 7,100 independent sales
outlets and 17 call centers worldwide.


TICKETMASTER ENTERTAINMENT: "Wenzel" Consumer Suit Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
The putative class-action lawsuit styled "Wenzel v. Ticketmaster
Entertainment, Inc., Case No. CV 09-01234 (GHK)," remains
pending in the U.S. District Court, Central District of
California, according to the company's May 13, 2009 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2009.

On Feb. 20, 2009, a putative class action lawsuit was filed
against Ticketmaster Entertainment, Inc. in the Central District
of California. Plaintiff purports to represent a nationwide
class of consumers consisting of "all persons who inadvertently
purchased tickets from TicketsNow.com as a result of deceptive
and unfair business practices engaged in by Ticketmaster
Entertainment between Jan. 1, 2005 to the present and who were
damaged thereby."

The plaintiff claims that Ticketmaster Entertainment violated
California's Business and Professions code by redirecting
consumers from Ticketmaster.com to Ticketsnow.com, thereby
engaging in false advertising and an unfair business practice by
deceiving consumers into inadvertently purchasing tickets from
TicketsNow for amounts greater than face value.

The plaintiff claims Ticketmaster Entertainment has been
unjustly enriched by this conduct and seeks compensatory
damages, a refund to every class member of the difference
between face value and the amount paid to TicketsNow, an
injunction preventing Ticketmaster Entertainment from engaging
in further unfair business practices with TicketsNow, and
attorney fees and costs

Ticketmaster Entertainment, Inc., formerly Ticketmaster, --
http://www.ticketmaster.com-- is a live ticketing and marketing
company.  It operates in approximately 20 countries worldwide,
providing ticket sales, ticket resale services, marketing and
distribution through www.ticketmaster.com, one of the largest e-
commerce sites on the internet, and related proprietary internet
and mobile channels, approximately 7,100 independent sales
outlets and 17 call centers worldwide.


WAL-MART STORES: Court Affirms Dismissal of Suit Over Sweatshops
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has affirmed the
dismissal of a class-action lawsuit, "Jane Doe I, et al. v. Wal-
Mart Stores, Inc., Case No. 2:05-cv-07307-AG-MAN," which was
brought by employees of foreign Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. suppliers,
who said the retail giant ignored poor working conditions and
even pressured suppliers to violate local laws on pay, hours,
forced labor, child labor and discrimination, Annie Youderian of
The Courthouse News Service reports.

Originally, the International Labor Rights Fund initiated a
class action against Wal-Mart in state court in Los Angeles,
which asserts that the Arkansas-based retailer violated its
contractual obligations by not enforcing its code of conduct for
overseas contractors (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 19, 2006).

In the suit, the workers from Bangladesh, China, Indonesia,
Nicaragua and Swaziland assert that the codes of conduct were
violated in dozens of ways.

They alleged they were often paid less than the minimum wage and
did not receive time-and-a-half for overtime, and some are even
claiming that they were beaten by managers and were locked in
their factories.

The suit, which was transferred to the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California in October 2005, specifically
alleged Wal-Mart broke a promise to enforce its "Standards for
Suppliers" demanding foreign companies obey local labor laws and
treat workers fairly.

It also alleged Wal-Mart misled Californians by promoting the
standards policy as reason to shop at its stores.  Thus it seeks
for injunctions to protect the workers and enforce the
standards.

One allegation in the lawsuit is that Wal-Mart violated the 1789
Alien Tort Claims Act by allowing suppliers to withhold pay from
foreign workers.

The suit seeks damages for thousands of workers that could
amount to "perhaps millions of dollars," according to
plaintiffs' attorney Anne K. Richardson.

The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
would later grant Wal-Mart's motion to dismiss, saying Wal-Mart
has no legal duty to the plaintiffs, according to The Courthouse
News Service.

The workers then appealed the ruling.  They tried to establish
standing on four theories: foreign workers are third-party
beneficiaries of Wal-Mart's supply contracts; Wal-Mart is their
joint employer; Wal-Mart breached its duty to monitor suppliers
and protect foreign workers; Wal-Mart was unjustly enriched by
the workers' mistreatment, reports The Courthouse News Service.

The Courthouse News Service reported that Judge Ronald M. Gould
of the San Francisco-based federal appeals court dismissed each
argument in turn.  Writing for the panel, Judge Gould stated,
"Wal-Mart had no legal duty under the standards and common law
negligence principles to monitor its suppliers or protect
plaintiffs from the suppliers alleged substandard labor
practices."

The judge pointed out, "Wal-Mart is not plaintiffs' employer,
and the relationship between Wal-Mart and plaintiffs is too
attenuated to support restitution under an unjust enrichment
theory," The Courthouse News Service reports.

A copy of the ruling is available free of charge at:
              http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?3f4b

  
WARNER CHILCOTT: N.Y. Court Approves $16.5M Securities Suit Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
granted final approval to a $16.5 million settlement reached in
a securities fraud class-action lawsuit against Warner Chilcott
Ltd., Law360 reports.

In November 2006, the company and certain of its officers were
named as defendants in the matter, "Albano v. Warner Chilcott
Limited et al.," a class-action suit filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York.  Subsequently,
similar purported class action lawsuits were filed (Class Action
Reporter, Sept. 17, 2008).

The complaints asserted claims under the U.S. Securities Act of
1933 on behalf of a class consisting of all those who were
allegedly damaged as a result of acquiring the company's common
stock in connection with its IPO between Sept. 20, 2006, and
Sept. 26, 2006.

All cases were eventually consolidated.  A consolidated amended
complaint, which added as defendants the lead underwriters for
the IPO, was filed on May 4, 2007.  The consolidated amended
complaint alleges, among other things, that the Company omitted
and misstated certain facts concerning its planned transition
from the sale of OVCON 35 to the sale of its new patented
product, OVCON 35 FE (now FEMCON FE).

The company and the individual defendants answered the complaint
on June 18, 2007.  The District Court certified the plaintiff
class on Feb. 4, 2008.

On April 25, 2008, the company reached an agreement in principle
to settle the class-action lawsuit.  The terms of the
settlement, which are subject to negotiation of definitive
documentation and must be approved by the court, include a cash
payment of $16,500,000, which is expected to be made to the
plaintiffs during 2008.  The majority of the settlement will be
funded by insurance proceeds and it will not have a material
adverse impact on the company's financial position, results of
operations or cash flows.

The tentative settlement resolves all claims asserted against
the company and the other defendants in this case.

The company reported no further development in the matter in its
Aug. 8, 2008 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

The suit is "Angelo Albano, et al. v. Warner Chilcott Limited,
et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-11515-WHP" filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge William H.
Pauley III, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Mario Alba, Jr., Esq. (malba@csgrr.com)
          Coughlin, Stoia, Geller, Rudman & Robbins, LLP(LIs)
          58 South Service Road, Suite 200
          Melville, NY 11747
          Phone: 631-367-7100
          Fax: 631-367-1173

               - and -

          Lawrence Donald Levit, Esq. (llevit@aftlaw.com)
          Abraham Fruchter & Twersky LLP
          One Penn Plaza, Suite 1910
          New York, NY 10119
          Phone: 212-279-5050
          Fax: 212-279-3655

Representing the defendants are:

          Daniel Shay Kirschbaum, Esq.
          (dkirschbaum@paulweiss.com)
          Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP
          1285 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10019
          Phone: 212-373-3000 x3072
          Fax: 212-492-0072

               - and -

          Mary Jane Eaton, Esq. (maosdny@willkie.com)
          Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP
          787 Seventh Avenue
          New York, NY 10019
          Phone: 212-728-8000
          Fax: 212-728-8111


WD-40 CO: Appeal to Denial of "Drimmer" Class Remains Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiff's appeal to an order entered by the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of California denying class-
action status to a purported class-action lawsuit against WD-40
Co. remains pending, according to the company's July 9, 2009
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended May 31, 2009.

James Drimmer filed the suit on April 19, 2006, alleging fraud
in the company's marketing of automatic toilet bowl cleaners.
After several of the plaintiff's factual claims were dismissed
by way of motion, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint on
Sept. 20, 2006.

The amended complaint sought class-action status.  It alleged
that the company misrepresented that its 2000 Flushes Bleach and
2000 Flushes Blue Plus Bleach automatic toilet bowl cleaners are
safe for plumbing systems and unlawfully omitted to advise
consumers regarding the allegedly damaging effect the use of the
ATBCs has on toilet parts made of plastic and rubber.

On Aug. 24, 2007, the company successfully defeated the
plaintiff's attempt to have the case certified as a class-
action.

The plaintiff then petitioned for permission to appeal the
District Court's decision and the company has opposed this move.

The plaintiff has been granted permission to appeal the District
Court's decision.

The suit is "Drimmer v. WD-40 Co., Case No. 3:06-cv-00900-W-
AJB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of California, Judge Thomas J. Whelan, presiding.

Representing the plaintiff is:

         Robert L. Kenny, Esq. (rkenny@kennylaw.net)
         The Law Offices of Robert L. Kenny
         401 West A Street, Suite 2300
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Phone: 619-234-1616
         Fax: 619-234-1650

Representing the company is:

         Shannon Sweeney, Esq.
         Baker and McKenzie
         101 West Broadway, Suite 1200
         San Diego, CA 92101-8213
         Phone: 619-236-1441
         Fax: 619-236-0429


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

AMBASSADORS GROUP: Coughlin Stoia Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
     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 Eastern
District of Washington on behalf of purchasers of Ambassadors
Group Inc. (NASDAQ: EPAX) common stock during the period between
February 8, 2007 and October 23, 2007.

     The complaint charges Ambassadors Group and certain of its
officers and directors with violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

     Ambassadors Group is an educational company that organizes
and promotes international and domestic travel programs for
youth, athletes, and professionals.

     The complaint alleges that during the Class Period,
defendants issued materially false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's business prospects.  Specifically,
defendants misrepresented and/or failed to disclose the
following adverse facts:

       -- that the Company was experiencing a lower conversion
          rate from people attending its informational meetings
          to booking travel;

       -- that there was a decrease in the number of enrolled
          participants for the Company's 2008 travel programs,
          especially in its international outbound programs;

       -- that the Company had utilized a different database in
          order to promote its travel programs to prospective
          clients; and

       -- as a result of the foregoing, defendants lacked a
          reasonable basis for their positive statements about
          the Company and its prospects.

     As a result of defendants' false and misleading statements,
Ambassadors Group stock traded at artificially inflated prices
during the Class Period, reaching a high of $40.99 per share on
October 18, 2007.

     Then, on October 22, 2007, Ambassadors Group announced its
financial results for the third quarter of 2007, the period
ending September 30, 2007.  For the quarter, the Company
reported net income of $22.5 million and $1.12 fully diluted
earnings per share.  The Company also announced that "as of
October 16, 2007, its net enrolled participants for 2008 travel
programs were 26,200 compared to 37,300 participants as of the
same date last year for its 2007 programs" and that the
"decrease in net enrollments for its 2008 programs will
negatively impact its 2008 earnings."  In response to this
announcement, the price of Ambassadors Group common stock fell
$17.73 per share, or approximately 44%, to close at $21.04 per
share.

     Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all
purchasers of Ambassadors Group common stock during the Class
Period.

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/ambassadorsgroup/


AMBASSADORS GROUP: Howard G. Smith Announces Stock Suit Filing
--------------------------------------------------------------
     The Law Offices of Howard G. Smith announces that a
securities class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of all
persons or entities who purchased the common stock of
Ambassadors Group Inc. (NASDAQ: EPAX) between February 8, 2007
and October 23, 2007, inclusive.  The class action lawsuit was
filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Washington.

     The Complaint alleges that the defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing material misrepresentations to the
market concerning Ambassadors Group's business and prospects,
thereby artificially inflating the price of Ambassadors Group
securities.

     A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain
criteria and be made on or before Sept. 14, 2009.

For more details, contact:

          Howard G. Smith, Esq. (howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com)
          Law Offices of Howard G. Smith
          3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112
          Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020
          Phone: (215) 638-4847 or (888) 638-4847
          Web site: http://www.howardsmithlaw.com


COMTECH TELECOMMUNICATIONS: Coughlin Stoia Files N.Y. Stock Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
     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 Eastern
District of New York on behalf of purchasers of Comtech
Telecommunications Corp. (NASDAQ: CMTL) common stock during the
period between September 17, 2008 and March 9, 2009.

     The complaint charges Comtech and certain of its officers
and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.  The Company engages in the design, development,
production, and marketing of products, systems, and services for
advanced communications solutions in the United States and
internationally.

     The complaint alleges that during the Class Period,
defendants issued materially false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's business prospects.  Specifically,
defendants misrepresented and/or failed to disclose the
following adverse facts:

       -- that the Company was experiencing negative trends in
          its commercial satellite earth station and encoder
          bookings, as well as commercial RF Amplifier bookings;

       -- that the Company's sales from its Mobile Data
          Communications division were weakening outside of its
          one order with the U.S. Army's Movement Tracking
          System ("MTS");

       -- that the Company was experiencing difficulty
          integrating the Radyne acquisition and was not
          generating the synergies expected from the
          acquisition;

       -- that the Company's costs were rising in excess of
          internal forecasts reducing profit margins; and

       -- as a result of the foregoing, defendants lacked a
          reasonable basis for their positive statements about
          the Company, its prospects, and its revenue and
          earnings projections.

     Then, on March 9, 2009, Comtech issued a press release
announcing its financial results for the fiscal second quarter
of 2009, the period ended January 31, 2009.  In response to the
Company's drastic reduction in its revenue and earnings guidance
for 2009, the price of Comtech common stock fell $12.97 per
share, or approximately 37%, to close at $22.48 per share, on
extremely heavy trading volume.

     Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all
purchasers of Comtech common stock during the Class Period.

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/comtech/


COMTECH TELECOMMUNICATIONS: Kendall Law Group Files Stock Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
     Kendall Law Group, led by a former federal judge and U.S.
Attorney, announced that a class action has been filed against
Comtech Telecommunications Corp. (NASDAQ: CMTL) for investors
who purchased stock at artificially inflated prices between
September 17, 2008 and March 9, 2009.

     According to the complaint, filed in the Eastern District
of New York, the defendants issued positive statements about the
company's business prospects that were misleading from September
17, 2008 to March 9, 2009.  When Comtech finally disclosed the
problems associated with its negative trends in bookings,
synergies associated with the Radyne acquisition, and rising
costs, the price of Comtech stock fell $12.97 per share, or
almost 37%, to close at $22.48 per share, on very heavy trading
volume.

     A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain
criteria and be made on or before Sept. 11, 2009.

For more details, contact:

          Hamilton Lindley, Esq. (hlindley@kendalllawgroup.com)
          Kendall Law Group
          3232 McKinney, Ste. 700
          Dallas, TX 75204
          Phone: (214) 744-3000 or (877) 744-3728
          Fax: (214) 744-3015
          Web site: http://www.kendalllawgroup.com


                            *********

A list of Meetings, Conferences and Seminars appears in each
Wednesday's edition of the Class Action Reporter.  Submissions
via e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged.

Each Friday's edition of the CAR includes a section featuring
news on asbestos-related litigation and profiles of target
asbestos defendants that, according to independent research,
collectively face billions of dollars in asbestos-related
liabilities.

                            *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills,
Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland
USA.  Glenn Ruel S. Senorin, Stephanie T. Umacob, Gracele D.
Canilao, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2009.  All rights reserved.  ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without
prior written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed
to be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via
e-mail.  Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each.  For subscription information, contact Christopher
Beard at 240/629-3300.

                * * *  End of Transmission  * * *