CAR_Public/090729.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Wednesday, July 29, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 148

                           Headlines

AMERICAN COACH: Eleventh Circuit Rules in Shuttle Drivers' Suit
AMAZON.COM INC: Securities Suits Deal Still Pending Approval
BANCOLOMBIA SA: Santa Sofia Estate Co-Owners' Lawsuit Ongoing
BLOOMBERG L.P.: N.Y. Mayor Testifies in EEOC Discrimination Case
BNSF RAILWAY: Still Faces Lawsuits Over Personal Injury Claims

BROADCOM CORP: Continues to Defend Amended Securities Fraud Suit
CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Appeal to Denied Class Certification Pending
CVS CAREMARK: Faces Minn. Suit for Overcharging on Generic Drugs
DELTA AIR: Defends Antitrust Lawsuits Over First Bag Fees
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR: D.C. Circuit Rules in "Cobell" Case

EXELON CORP: Ex-Employee Seeks Rehearing of Suit v. Pension Plan
EXELON CORP: Seeks to Lift Stay in ERISA Violations Lawsuit
FACEBOOK INC: Faces Advertisers' "Click Fraud" Suit in Calif.
FEDERAL EXPRESS: Eleventh Rejects Appeals in "Babineau" Lawsuit
FEDEX CORP: Indiana Judge Rules in Contract Drivers' Litigation

FREESCALE SEMICONDUCTOR: "Howell" Suit v. Motorola Nixed in July
HORIZON LINES: Defending Two Securities Lawsuits in Delaware
HORIZON LINES: Discovery in Price-fixing Complaints Still Stayed
LIFE SCIENCES: Faces "Ramaiah" Suit Over Baker Merger in N.J.
LIFE SCIENCES: To Respond to "Berger" Suit Over Merger Agreement

MOSAIC CO: Continues to Defend Suits by Potash Buyers in U.S.
MOSAIC CO: Faces Lawsuit Over Wastewater Release in Florida
SOUTH DAKOTA: Regents Face Lawsuit Over Deaf School's Closure
WELLS FARGO: Faces Customers' Suit Over Errors in ATM Deposits
WESTLAKE HARDWARE: Kansas Judge Certifies Class in FLSA Lawsuit


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

CARACO PHARMACEUTICAL: Federman & Sherwood Announces Suit Filing


                           *********

AMERICAN COACH: Eleventh Circuit Rules in Shuttle Drivers' Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit ruled in a
lawsuit against American Coach Lines of Miami that drivers who
shuttle cruise-ship passengers from local airports to seaports
and hotels are not entitled to overtime pay, Patrick Danner of
MiamiHerald.com reports.

The federal appeals court found that the company doesn't have to
pay overtime because its shuttle drivers are engaged in
interstate commerce -- even though most of their trips are
local.

The court, which issued its opinion on July 23, 2009, concluded
the shuttle rides are interstate commerce because the trips
"share a practical continuity of movement with the interstate or
international travel of the cruise lines and their passengers,"
according to MiamiHerald.com.

The appeals court's decision upheld a 2008 ruling by Judge
Ursula Ungaro of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida.

Judge Ungaro found American Coach Lines was exempt from the Fair
Labor Standards Act, which requires employers to pay time-and-a-
half for any time worked in excess of 40 hours, reports
MiamiHerald.com.

As a motor carrier, the company falls under the jurisdiction of
the Department of Transportation.

In 2007, three drivers sued American Coach Lines, claiming they
should have been paid time-and-a-half for the hours they worked
over 40 hours a week, MiamiHerald.com reported.

Instead, they said, they received regular pay -- about $9 an
hour -- in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act's overtime
and minimum-wage provisions.

In late 2007, the drivers' lawsuit was certified as a class-
action case with 63 plaintiffs, who were  represented by
Elizabeth Hitt, Esq., of The Law Offices of Robert Ader,
according to MiamiHerald.com.

MiamiHerald.com reported eighteen drivers, who drove shuttle
routes at the University of Miami, later reached a confidential
settlement after it was found they were not exempt from overtime
regulations.  The remaining 45 appealed Judge Ungaro's ruling.


AMAZON.COM INC: Securities Suits Deal Still Pending Approval
------------------------------------------------------------
Settlement of the securities class-action lawsuit naming
Audible, Inc., as a defendant, remains subject to court
approval, according to Amazon.com, Inc.'s July 23, 2009 Form 10-
Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2009.

In June 2001, Audible, the company's subsidiary acquired in
March 2008, was named as a defendant in a securities class-
action filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York related to its initial public offering in July 1999.

The lawsuit also named certain of the offering's underwriters,
as well as Audible's officers and directors as defendants.

Approximately 300 other issuers and their underwriters have had
similar suits filed against them, all of which are included in a
single coordinated proceeding in the Southern District of New
York.

The complaints allege that the prospectus and the registration
statement for Audible's offering failed to disclose that the
underwriters allegedly solicited and received "excessive"
commissions from investors and that some investors allegedly
agreed with the underwriters to buy additional shares in the
aftermarket in order to inflate the price of the company's
stock.

Audible and its officers and directors were named in the suits
pursuant to Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933, Section
10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and other related
provisions.

The complaints seek unspecified damages, attorney and expert
fees, and other unspecified litigation costs.

In March 2009, all parties, including Audible, reached a
settlement of these class actions that would resolve this
dispute entirely with no payment required from Audible.  The
settlement is still subject to review and approval by the Court.

Amazon.com, Inc. -- http://www.amazon.com/-- offers services to
consumer customers, seller customers and developer customers.
The company serves its consumer customers through its retail
Websites.  it offers programs that enable seller customers to
sell their products on the company's Websites and their own
branded Websites.  It serves developer customers through Amazon
Web Services, which provides access to technology infrastructure
that developers can use to enable virtually any type of
business.  In addition, the company generates revenue through
co-branded credit card agreements and other marketing and
promotional services, such as online advertising.  The company's
operations are organized into two principal segments: North
America and International.


BANCOLOMBIA SA: Santa Sofia Estate Co-Owners' Lawsuit Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action proceedings commenced by the co-owners of the
Santa Sofia Housing Estate remains ongoing, according to
Bancolombia SA's July 24, 2009 Form 20-F/A filing with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2008.

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

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

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

The management of Fiduciaria Bancolombia S.A. considered that
the probability of liability is low (Class Action Reporter, July
6, 2009).

The judge ordered evidence to be heard as requested by the
parties.  The legal counsel in charge of these proceedings
considers that favorable rulings are moderately possible.

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


BLOOMBERG L.P.: N.Y. Mayor Testifies in EEOC Discrimination Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, the founder of Bloomberg
L.P., recently testified at a deposition in a federal
discrimination suit against Mr. Bloomberg's giant media company,
David W. Chen of The New York Times reports.

The Associated Press previously reported that Bloomberg L.P. is
facing a purported class-action lawsuit filed on behalf of more
than 80 female employees who claim they were discriminated.

The class-action lawsuit was filed by the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission in September 2007 on behalf of more than
80 female employees.  It accuses the company of systematically
discriminating against pregnant women who took maternity leave,
according to The New York Times.

For more details, contact:

          Richard A. Roth, Esq.
          The Roth Law Firm PLLC
          Phone: 212-542-8882
          Cell Phone: 914-484-5555
          Fax: 212-542-8883

               - and -

          Thomas H. Golden, Esq. (tgolden@willkie.com)
          Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP
          787 Seventh Avenue
          New York, N.Y. 10019-6099, U.S.A.
          Phone: 212-728-8657
          Fax: 212-728-9657


BNSF RAILWAY: Still Faces Lawsuits Over Personal Injury Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
BNSF Railway Co. continues to face purported class actions over
personal injury claims, including asbestos claims and employee
work-related injuries and third-party injuries.

Personal injury claims by BNSF Railway employees are subject to
the provisions of the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA)
rather than state workers' compensation laws.

FELA's system of requiring the finding of fault, coupled with
unscheduled awards and reliance on the jury system, contributed
to increased expenses in past years.

Other proceedings include claims by non-employees for punitive
as well as compensatory damages.

A few proceedings purport to be class actions.

The variability present in settling these claims, including non-
employee personal injury and matters in which punitive damages
are alleged, could result in increased expenses in future years.

BNSF Railway has implemented a number of safety programs
designed to reduce the number of personal injuries as well as
the associated claims and personal injury expense, according to
the company's July 23, 2009 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June
30, 2009.

BNSF Railway Co. -- http://www.bnsf.com/-- formerly known as
The Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Co., is a wholly
owned subsidiary of Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corp.  BNSF
Railway operates a railroad system in North America.


BROADCOM CORP: Continues to Defend Amended Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Broadcom Corp. continues to defend a consolidated securities
fraud class-action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, according to the company's July
23, 2009 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2009.

From August through October 2006, several plaintiffs filed these
purported shareholder class-action complaints in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California against
Broadcom and certain of its current or former officers and
directors (Class Action Reporter, May 10, 2007).

      -- "Bakshi v. Samueli, et al., Case No. 06-5036 R (CWx),"

      -- "Mills v. Samueli, et al., Case No. SACV 06-9674 DOC
         R(CWx)," and

      -- "Minnesota Bakers Union Pension Fund, et al. v.
         Broadcom Corp., et al., Case No. SACV 06-970 CJC R
         (CWx)."

The essence of the plaintiffs' allegations is that Broadcom
improperly backdated stock options, resulting in false or
misleading disclosures concerning, among other things,
Broadcom's business and financial condition.

The plaintiffs also allege that Broadcom failed to account for
and pay taxes on stock options properly, that the individual
defendants sold Broadcom stock while in possession of material
nonpublic information, and that the defendants' conduct caused
artificial inflation in Broadcom's stock price and damages to
the putative plaintiff class.

They assert claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.

In November 2006, the Court consolidated the Options Class
Actions and appointed the New Mexico State Investment Council as
lead class plaintiff.

In October 2007, the federal appeals court resolved a dispute
regarding the appointment of lead class counsel.

In March 2008, the district judge entered a revised order
appointing lead class counsel.  The lead plaintiff filed an
amended consolidated class action complaint in late April 2008,
naming additional defendants that include certain current
fficers and directors of Broadcom as well as Ernst & Young LLP,
the company's former independent registered public accounting
firm.

In October 2008, the district judge granted defendants' motions
to dismiss with leave to amend.

Also in October 2008, the lead plaintiff filed an amended
complaint.  In November 2008, defendants filed motions to
dismiss.  On Feb. 2, 2009, these motions were denied except with
respect to E&Y and the current Chairman of the Audit Committee,
which were granted with leave to amend, and with respect to the
former Chief Executive Officer, which is still being considered.

The lead plaintiff did not amend its complaint with respect to
the former Chairman of the Audit Committee and the time period
to do so has expired.  With respect to E&Y, in March 2009, the
district judge entered a final judgment for E&Y and against the
lead plaintiff.

The suit is "Sonam Bakshi v. Henry Samueli et al., Case No.
2:06-cv-05036-R-CW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, Judge Manuel L. Real, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Michael D. Braun, Esq.
          Braun Law Group
          12400 Wilshire
          Boulevard, Suite 920
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Phone: 310-442-7755
          e-mail: service@braunlawgroup.com

               - and -

          Bryan L. Crawford, Esq.
          Heins Mills & Olson
          3550 IDS Ctr., 80 South 8th St.
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Phone: 612-338-4605
          Fax: 612-338-4692

Representing the defendants are:

          Gordon A. Greenberg, Esq.
          McDermott Will & Emery
          2049 Century Park E, 34th Fl.
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-3208
          Phone: 310-277-4110
          Fax: 310-277-4730

               - and -

          Stephen S. Hasegawa, Esq. (shasegawa@irell.com)
          Irell & Manella
          1800 Avenue of the Stars, Ste. 900
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-4276
          Phone: 310-277-1010


CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Appeal to Denied Class Certification Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal to the denial of class certification in a lawsuit
against Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. in California remains
pending.

The lawsuit alleges violations of state laws regarding employee
record-keeping, meal and rest breaks, payment of overtime and
related practices with respect to its employees.

The case seeks damages, penalties and attorney's fees on behalf
of a purported class of the company's present and former
employees (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 8, 2007).

The court denied the plaintiff's motion to certify the purported
class, and as a result the action can proceed, if at all, as an
action by a single plaintiff.  The plaintiff has appealed the
court's denial of class certification, and the appeal remains
pending, according to the company's July 24, 2009 Form 10-Q
Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2009.

Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. -- http://www.chipotle.com--
operates fast casual, fresh Mexican food restaurants serving
burritos, tacos, bowls and salads.


CVS CAREMARK: Faces Minn. Suit for Overcharging on Generic Drugs
----------------------------------------------------------------
CVS Caremark Corp., Walgreen Co., Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., and
several other major pharmacies face a purported class-action
lawsuit accusing them of overcharging customers for generic
drugs, Jessica Chapman of The Courthouse News Service reports.

The suit was filed on July 23, 2009 in Hennepin County Court in
Minnesota by two employee benefit plans, Graphic Communications
Local 1B Health & Welfare Fund A, and the Twin Cities Bakery
Drivers Health and Welfare Fund, which provide health and
prescription drug benefits to more than 2,500 Minnesotans,
according to The Courthouse News Service.

The Courthouse News Service reported that state law requires
pharmacies to pass along the discounts they receive on generics
to consumers, but according to the complaint, the pharmacies
"routinely violate this law and see the lower acquisition cost
of generic drugs as an opportunity to generate higher profit for
themselves."

A "pharmacy in Minnesota cannot make a greater profit on the
sale of a generic prescription drug than it does on the brand-
name version of the drug."  But the pharmacies do it, according
to the complaint, a copy of which was obtained by The Courthouse
News Service.

A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at:
              http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?4019

For more details, contact:

          David L. Hashmall, Esq. (dhashmall@felhaber.com)
          Felhaber, Larson & Fenlon
          U.S. Bank Plaza (Formerly Pillsbury Center)
          220 South 6th Street
          Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55402-4504
          Phone: (612) 373-8518 or 800-989-6321
          Fax: 612-338-0535
          Web site: http://www.felhaber.com/


DELTA AIR: Defends Antitrust Lawsuits Over First Bag Fees
---------------------------------------------------------
Delta Air Lines Inc. and AirTran Airways defend purported class
action antitrust lawsuits over first bag fees.

In May, June and July 2009, a number of purported class action
antitrust lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Courts for
the Northern District of Georgia, the U.S. District Court for
the Middle District of Florida, and the District of Nevada
against Delta and AirTran.

In these cases, the plaintiffs allege that Delta and AirTran
engaged in collusive behavior in violation of Section 1 of the
Sherman Act in November 2008, based upon certain public
statements made in October 2008, by AirTran's CEO at an analyst
conference concerning fees for the first checked bag, Delta's
imposition of a fee for the first checked bag on Nov. 4, 2008
and AirTran's imposition of a similar fee on Nov. 12, 2008.

The plaintiffs seek to assert claims on behalf of an alleged
class consisting of passengers who paid the first bag fee after
Dec. 5, 2008, and seek injunctive relief and unspecified treble
damages.

Motions are pending to transfer and consolidate all pending
cases in the Northern District of Georgia, according to the
company's July 24, 2009 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June
30, 2009.

Based in Atlanta, Georgia, Delta Air Lines Inc. (NYSE: DAL) --
http://www.delta.com/-- is the world's second-largest airline
in terms of passengers carried and the leading U.S. Carrier
across the Atlantic, offering daily flights to 328 destinations
in 56 countries on Delta, Song, Delta Shuttle, the Delta
Connection carriers and its worldwide partners.  Delta flies to
Argentina, Australia and the United Kingdom, among others.


DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR: D.C. Circuit Rules in "Cobell" Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
ruled on July 24, 2009 that the U.S. Department of the Interior
(DOI) must provide an accounting in a 13-year class-action
lawsuit concerning the US government's alleged mismanagement of
trust funds for a group of some 500,000 American Indians, Jaclyn
Belczyk of JURIST reports.

Both parties appealed two separate rulings from the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia in the case,
"Elouise Pepion Cobell, et al., on her own behalf and on behalf
of all those similarly situated v. Gale Norton, Secretary of the
Interior, et al., Case No. 96-1285 (RCL)."

In January 2008, Judge James Robertson ruled that the DOI
"unreasonably delayed" the accounting of billions of dollars of
American Indian money, holding that it was impossible for the
DOI or for Congress to remedy the breach.

In August 2008, Judge Robertson ordered that the federal
government to pay $455.6 million in restitution, despite
plaintiffs' claims that they were owed $58 billion.

The D.C. Circuit vacated both orders and remanded for further
proceedings, holding, "that while the district court's analysis
of duty and breach are generally correct, the court erred in
freeing the Department of the Interior from its burden to make
an accounting," according to JURIST.

JURIST reported that Congress established the Indian Trust in
1887 to hold proceeds from government-arranged leases of Indian
lands.  In a 2005 opinion, Royce Lamberth of the U.S. District
Court for the District of Columbia required the DOI to apologize
to the plaintiffs for its handling of the Trust, and to admit
that information being provided to them regarding outstanding
lost royalties on earnings from Indian land may be unreliable.

In 2006, the DC Circuit removed Judge Lamberth from the case and
reassigned it to Judge Robertson.  In 2007, the plaintiffs
rejected a $7 billion settlement proposal from the U.S.
Government, JURIST reports.

A copy of the ruling is available free of charge at:
              http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?4020


EXELON CORP: Ex-Employee Seeks Rehearing of Suit v. Pension Plan
----------------------------------------------------------------
A former employee of Commonwealth Edison Company (ComEd) seeks a
rehearing of the class-action lawsuit against the Exelon
Corporation Cash Balance Pension Plan (Plan), according to
Exelon Corp.'s July 24, 2009 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June
30, 2009.

On July 11, 2006, a former employee of ComEd filed a purported
class-action lawsuit against the Plan in the Federal District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

The complaint alleges that the Plan, which covers certain
management employees of Exelon's subsidiaries, calculated lump
sum distributions in a manner that does not comply with the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).

The plaintiff seeks compensatory relief from the Plan on behalf
of participants who received lump sum distributions since 2001
and injunctive relief with respect to future lump sum
distributions.

On Aug. 31, 2007, the District Court dismissed the lawsuit in
its entirety.

On Dec. 21, 2007, the District Court amended its order, in part,
to allow the plaintiff to file an administrative claim with the
Plan with respect to the calculation of the portion of his lump
sum benefit accrued under the Plan's prior traditional formula.

On Jan. 16, 2008, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal in the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit of the District
Court's dismissal of his claims.

In addition, on Jan. 6, 2009, the plaintiff filed a complaint in
the District Court challenging the Plan's denial of his
administrative claim.

On July 2, 2009, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh
Circuit affirmed the District Court's dismissal of his claims
and, on July 14, 2009, the plaintiff filed a motion requesting
rehearing of the case before the entire Seventh Circuit Court of
Appeals.

Exelon Corp. -- http://www.exeloncorp.com/-- is a utility
services holding company.  It operates through its principal
subsidiaries Exelon Generation Company, LLC (Generation),
Commonwealth Edison Company (ComEd) and PECO Energy Company
(PECO).  Generation's business consists of its owned and
contracted electric generating facilities, its wholesale energy
marketing operations and its competitive retail sales
operations.  ComEd's energy delivery business consists of the
purchase and regulated retail and wholesale sale of electricity
and the provision of distribution and transmission services to
retail customers in northern Illinois, including Chicago.
PECO's energy delivery business consists of the purchase and
regulated retail sale of electricity and the provision of
transmission and distribution services to retail customers in
southeastern Pennsylvania, including Philadelphia, as well as
the purchase and regulated retail sale of natural gas to retail
customers in the Pennsylvania counties.


EXELON CORP: Seeks to Lift Stay in ERISA Violations Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Exelon Corp. and the other defendants in a putative class action
lawsuit ask the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois to lift the stay and enter judgment in their favor,
according to the company's July 24, 2009 Form 10-Q Filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2009.

On Sept. 11, 2006, five individuals claiming to be participants
in the Exelon Corporation Employee Savings Plan, Plan #003
(Savings Plan), filed a putative class action lawsuit in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

The complaint names as defendants Exelon, its Director of
Employee Benefit Plans and Programs, the Employee Savings Plan
Investment Committee, the Compensation and the Risk Oversight
Committees of Exelon's Board of Directors and members of those
committees.

The complaint alleges that the defendants breached fiduciary
duties under ERISA by, among other things, permitting fees and
expenses to be incurred by the Savings Plan that allegedly were
unreasonable and for purposes other than to benefit the Savings
Plan and participants, and failing to disclose purported
"revenue sharing" arrangements among the Savings Plan's service
providers.

The plaintiffs seek declaratory, equitable and monetary relief
on behalf of the Savings Plan and participants, including
alleged investment losses.

On Feb. 21, 2007, the district court granted the defendants'
motion to strike the plaintiffs' claim for investment losses.

On June 27, 2007, the district court granted the plaintiffs'
motion for class certification.

On June 28, 2007, the district court granted the defendants'
motion to stay proceedings in this action pending the outcome of
the appeal to the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in
another case not involving Exelon.  In that case, an appeal is
pending before the Seventh Circuit from the June 20, 2007
decision of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Wisconsin, which dismissed with prejudice substantially similar
claims.  On Feb. 12, 2009, a panel of the Seventh Circuit Court
of Appeals affirmed the district court's dismissal of that case
and, on March 9, 2009, the plaintiffs' motion requesting a
rehearing of that case before the entire Seventh Circuit Court
of Appeals was denied.

On July 9, 2009, the defendants in the Exelon case filed a
motion requesting that the district court lift the stay and
enter judgment in the defendants' favor.

Exelon Corp. -- http://www.exeloncorp.com/-- is a utility
services holding company.  It operates through its principal
subsidiaries Exelon Generation Company, LLC (Generation),
Commonwealth Edison Company (ComEd) and PECO Energy Company
(PECO).  Generation's business consists of its owned and
contracted electric generating facilities, its wholesale energy
marketing operations and its competitive retail sales
operations.  ComEd's energy delivery business consists of the
purchase and regulated retail and wholesale sale of electricity
and the provision of distribution and transmission services to
retail customers in northern Illinois, including Chicago.
PECO's energy delivery business consists of the purchase and
regulated retail sale of electricity and the provision of
transmission and distribution services to retail customers in
southeastern Pennsylvania, including Philadelphia, as well as
the purchase and regulated retail sale of natural gas to retail
customers in the Pennsylvania counties.


FACEBOOK INC: Faces Advertisers' "Click Fraud" Suit in Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Facebook, Inc. is facing a purported class-action lawsuit
claiming it charges advertisers more than it should, based on
the number of users viewing the ads, Bloomberg News reports.

The suit was filed on July 27, 2009 in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California by Unified ECM, Inc.,
under the caption, "Unified ECM, Inc v. Facebook, Inc., Case No.
5:2009-cv-03430."

According to the suit, companies that advertise on Facebook have
two options: They must pay a specified amount each time a user
clicks on an ad, or pay an amount for each 1,000 page views, or
impressions, of advertisements, reports Bloomberg News.

Unified ECM seeks class-action status for the case, arguing it
was "wrongfully charged for nonexistent, fraudulent or invalid
clicks," according to Bloomberg News.

For more details, contact:

          Gordon M. Fauth, Jr., Esq. (gmf@classlitigation.com)
          Litigation Law Group
          1801 Clement Av
          Suite 101
          Alameda, CA 94501
          Phone: (510) 238-9610
          Fax: (510) 337-1431

               - and -

          Mark Punzalan, Esq.
          (mpunzalan@finkelsteinthompson.com)
          Finkelstein, Thompson LLP
          100 Bush Street
          Suite 1450
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Phone: 415-398-8700
          Fax: 415-398-8704


FEDERAL EXPRESS: Eleventh Rejects Appeals in "Babineau" Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit rejected an
appeal filed by Federal Express Corp. employees who were seeking
class-action status in a wage-and-hour dispute with the package
delivery giant, James Kelleher of Reuters reports.

A three-judge panel of the Atlanta-based Eleventh Circuit upheld
a lower court's ruling that blocked the hourly employees in
Florida from forming a class, according to Reuters.

The appeals court ruled the lower court had not abused its
discretion in ruling against the employees, Reuters reported.

The was filed on May 16, 2008 in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida by Paul Babineau, Kenny Bosely,
Larry Horton and Duane Joyce, under the caption, "Paul Babineau
v. Federal Express Corporation, Case No. 1:2008-cv-21428."  It
generally alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA).

For more details, contact:

          Marshall Dore Louis, Esq. (mdl@sinclairlouis.com)
          Sinclair Louis Heath Nussbaum & Zavertnik
          Alfred I. DuPont Building
          169 E Flagler Street
          Suite 1125
          Miami, FL 33131
          Phone: 305-374-0544
          Fax: 305-381-6869

          Glen Robert Bregman, Esq. (glenbregmanlaw@aol.com)
          Glen Robert Bregman
          16633 Ventura Boulevard
          Suite 1240
          Encino, CA 91436
          Phone: 818-981-9793
          Fax: 818-981-9807

          Sandra C. Isom, Esq. (scisom@fedex.com)
          Federal Express Corporation
          Legal Department
          3620 Hacks Cross Road
          3rd Floor Building B
          Memphis, TN 38125-1842
          Phone: 901-434-8600
          Fax: 901-434-9271

               - and -

          Aaron Jarett Reed, Esq. (AReed@littler.com)
          Littler Mendelson
          2 S Biscayne Boulevard
          Suite 1500 One Biscayne Tower
          Miami, FL 33131-1804
          Phone: 305-400-7500
          Fax: 305-603-2552


FEDEX CORP: Indiana Judge Rules in Contract Drivers' Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Robert Miller of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Indiana ruled that FedEx Corp. must face more state
class-action lawsuits by contract drivers who claim they deserve
benefits because the company treats them as full-time workers by
mandating their clothing, hours and prices, Laurence Viele
Davidson of Bloomberg reports.

In a July 27, 2009 ruling, Judge Miller granted drivers' request
to sue as groups on behalf of workers in Arizona, Georgia, Ohio,
Utah, Louisiana, Nevada, North Carolina and Oregon.  However, in
the same ruling, the judge denied similar requests by drivers in
Colorado, Connecticut and Vermont as well as claims that some of
the lawsuits should cover all such FedEx drivers in the U.S.,
according to Bloomberg.

Judges have certified 28 such cases as class actions while
rejecting 14, Lynn Faris, Esq., the lead attorney for the
drivers tells Bloomberg.

Judge Miller previously certified one state case as a national
class action, in which an estimated 14,000 current and 13,000
former drivers in the ground-delivery unit can sue as a group
under federal law.  The drivers seek about $1 billion in damages
for back pay, truck purchases, overtime and costs they incurred
as contractors.

Bloomberg reported that in his recent ruling, Judge Miller said
that he will turn his attention to requests by both sides to
decide the cases without trials.  While class certification
isn't a ruling on the merits of a case, it provides leverage for
plaintiffs, making it easier to finance litigation and negotiate
a settlement.

The ruling is in relation to the Indiana case captioned, "In re
FedEx Ground Package System Inc. Employment Practices
Litigation, Case No. 3:05-md-00527," which is pending in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana,
Bloomberg reports.


FREESCALE SEMICONDUCTOR: "Howell" Suit v. Motorola Nixed in July
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois,
on June 17, 2009, granted motions for summary judgment on all
claims in the purported class-action lawsuit, "Howell v.
Motorola, Inc., et al.," according to Freescale Semiconductor,
Inc.'s July 24, 2009 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 3, 2009.

A purported class-action suit, "Howell v. Motorola, Inc., et
al.," was filed against Motorola and various of its directors,
officers and employees in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois on July 21, 2003, alleging breach
of fiduciary duty and violations of the Employment Retirement
Income Security Act (ERISA).

The complaint alleged that the defendants had improperly
permitted participants in the Motorola 401(k) Plan to purchase
or hold shares of common stock of Motorola because the price of
Motorola's stock was artificially inflated by a failure to
disclose vendor financing to Telsim in connection with the sale
of telecommunications equipment by Motorola.

The plaintiff sought to represent a class of participants in the
Plan for whose individual accounts the Plan purchased or held
shares of common stock of Motorola from "May 16, 2000 to the
present," and sought an unspecified amount of damages.

On Sept. 30, 2005, the Illinois District Court dismissed the
second amended complaint filed on Oct. 15, 2004.  Plaintiff
filed an appeal to the dismissal on Oct. 27, 2005.  On March 19,
2007, the appeals court dismissed the appeal.

Three new purported lead plaintiffs intervened in the case, and
filed a motion for class certification seeking to represent Plan
participants for whose individual accounts the Plan purchased
and/or held shares of Motorola common stock from May 16, 2000
through Dec. 31, 2002.

On Sept. 28, 2007, the Illinois District Court granted the
motion for class certification but narrowed the requested scope
of the class.

Motorola has sought leave to appeal in the appellate court and
reconsideration in the Illinois District Court of certain
aspects of the class certification order.

On Oct. 25, 2007, the Illinois District Court modified the scope
of the class, granted summary judgment dismissing two of the
individually-named defendants in light of the narrowed class,
and ruled that the judgment as to the original named plaintiff,
Howell, would be immediately appealable.

The class as certified includes all Plan participants for whose
individual accounts the Plan purchased and/or held shares of
Motorola common stock from May 16, 2000 through May 14, 2001
with certain exclusions.

On Feb. 15, 2008, Motorola and its codefendants filed motions
for summary judgment on all claims asserted by the class.  Those
motions are currently pending before the District Court.

On Feb. 22, 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh
Circuit agreed to hear Motorola's interlocutory appeal of the
District Court's order certifying the class.  This hearing
occurred on Oct. 23, 2008.

On June 17, 2009, the district court granted defendants' motions
for summary judgment on all claims.  This ruling rendered moot
the interlocutory appeals current before the Seventh Circuit.
The plaintiffs have not indicated whether they would appeal the
June 17, 2009 ruling of the district court.

As a result of the terms of its separation from Motorola, it is
possible that Freescale could be held responsible to Motorola
for a portion of any judgment or settlement in this matter.  The
company continues to assess the merits of this action as well as
the potential effect on its consolidated financial position,
results of operations and cash flows.

Freescale Semiconductor, Inc. -- http://www.freescale.com/--
designs, develops, manufactures and markets a range of
semiconductor products that are based on its core capabilities
in embedded processing.  The Company's product portfolio are
Microcontroller Solutions; Networking and Multimedia; Cellular
Products, and Radio Frequency, Analog and Sensors.


HORIZON LINES: Defending Two Securities Lawsuits in Delaware
------------------------------------------------------------
Horizon Lines, Inc. continues to defend two securities class-
action lawsuits pending in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Delaware.

The two lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Delaware, naming the company and five current and
former employees, including its Chief Executive Officer, as
defendants.

The first complaint was filed on Dec. 31, 2008, and the second
complaint was filed on Jan. 27, 2009, but was subsequently
voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiffs.

Each complaint purports to be on behalf of purchasers of the
company's common stock during the period from March 2, 2007
through April 25, 2008.

The complaints allege, among other things, that the company made
material misstatements and omissions in connection with alleged
price-fixing in the company's shipping business in Puerto Rico
in violation of antitrust laws.

The company says in its July 24, 2009 Form 10-Q Filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 21, 2009, that it has appropriate disclosure practices.

Horizon Lines, Inc. -- http://www.horizon-lines.com/-- formerly
known as H-Lines Holding Corp., is a container shipping and
integrated logistics company.  The company's subsidiaries
include Horizon Lines, LLC (HL), Horizon Logistics Holdings, LLC
(Horizon Logistics) and Horizon Lines of Puerto Rico, Inc.
(HLPR).  With 21 vessels, 16 of which are fully qualified Jones
Act vessels, and approximately 22,000 cargo containers the
company provides shipping and logistics services in its markets.
The company, through its wholly owned subsidiary, Horizon
Logistics, offers inland transportation through its own trucking
operations on the U.S. west coast and Alaska, and its integrated
logistics services including relationships with third-party
truckers, railroads, and barge operators in its markets.  It
ships a spectrum of consumer and industrial items ranging from
foodstuffs (refrigerated and non-refrigerated) to household
goods and auto parts to building materials and various materials
used in manufacturing.


HORIZON LINES: Discovery in Price-fixing Complaints Still Stayed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery in the price-fixing class-action complaints filed
against Horizon Lines, Inc. and other domestic shipping carriers
remains stayed, according to the company's July 24, 2009 Form
10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 21, 2009.

On April 17, 2008, the company received a grand jury subpoena
and search warrant from the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Florida seeking information regarding an
investigation by the Antitrust Division of the Department of
Justice (DOJ) into possible antitrust violations in the domestic
ocean shipping business.

Subsequent to the commencement of the Department of Justice's
investigation into possible antitrust violations in the domestic
ocean shipping business, a number of purported class action
lawsuits were filed against the company and other domestic
shipping carriers.

Fifty-six cases have been filed in the following federal
district courts: eight in the Southern District of Florida, six
in the Middle District of Florida, nineteen in the District of
Puerto Rico, eleven in the Northern District of California, two
in the Central District of California, one in the District of
Oregon, eight in the Western District of Washington, and one in
the District of Alaska.  All of the district court cases that
related to ocean shipping services in the Puerto Rico tradelane
were consolidated into a single multidistrict litigation (MDL)
proceeding in the District of Puerto Rico.  All of the district
court cases that related to ocean shipping services in the
Hawaii and Guam tradelanes were consolidated into a MDL
proceeding in the Western District of Washington.  One district
court case remains in the District of Alaska, relating to the
Alaska tradelane.

Each of the federal district court cases purports to be on
behalf of a class of individuals and entities who purchased
domestic ocean shipping services from the various domestic ocean
carriers.

The complaints allege price-fixing in violation of the Sherman
Act and seek treble monetary damages, costs, attorneys' fees,
and an injunction against the allegedly unlawful conduct.

On June 11, 2009, the company entered into a settlement
agreement with the plaintiffs in the Puerto Rico MDL litigation.
Under the settlement agreement, which is subject to Court
approval, the company has agreed to pay $20.0 million and to
certain base-rate freezes to resolve claims for alleged
antitrust violations in the Puerto Rico tradelane.  Subsequent
to June 21, 2009, the company paid $5.0 million into an escrow
account pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement and
will be required to pay $5.0 million within 90 days after
preliminary approval of the settlement agreement by the district
court and $10.0 million within five business days after final
approval of the settlement agreement by the district court.

On March 20, 2009, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
claims in the Hawaii and Guam MDL litigation.  The plaintiffs
filed a response to the company's motion to dismiss on April 20,
2009, and the company filed a reply on May 8, 2009.  The court
has scheduled a hearing on July 29, 2009 to consider the
company's motion to dismiss.  Discovery in the Alaska MDL
litigation has been stayed.

Horizon Lines, Inc. -- http://www.horizon-lines.com/-- formerly
known as H-Lines Holding Corp., is a container shipping and
integrated logistics company.  The company's subsidiaries
include Horizon Lines, LLC (HL), Horizon Logistics Holdings, LLC
(Horizon Logistics) and Horizon Lines of Puerto Rico, Inc.
(HLPR).  With 21 vessels, 16 of which are fully qualified Jones
Act vessels, and approximately 22,000 cargo containers the
company provides shipping and logistics services in its markets.
The company, through its wholly owned subsidiary, Horizon
Logistics, offers inland transportation through its own trucking
operations on the U.S. west coast and Alaska, and its integrated
logistics services including relationships with third-party
truckers, railroads, and barge operators in its markets.  It
ships a spectrum of consumer and industrial items ranging from
foodstuffs (refrigerated and non-refrigerated) to household
goods and auto parts to building materials and various materials
used in manufacturing.


LIFE SCIENCES: Faces "Ramaiah" Suit Over Baker Merger in N.J.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Life Sciences Research, Inc. faces a purported class action
lawsuit, "Ramaiah v. Baker, et al.," filed in Superior Court of
New Jersey, Chancery Division, Somerset County.

The suit was filed on July 17, 2009, in connection with the
company's entry into a definitive merger agreement on July 8,
2009 with Lion Holdings, Inc. and its subsidiary Lion Merger
Corp., entities controlled by Andrew Baker, pursuant to which
Lion would acquire all of the outstanding shares of the company
for $8.50 per share (Baker Merger).

The lawsuit names as defendants Mr. Baker, all other members of
the company's Board, the company, and Lion.

This complaint alleges, among other things, that the Board
breached its fiduciary duties in connection with the Baker
Merger by agreeing to sell the company for an unfair price
pursuant to an unfair process and that the merger agreement
contains preclusive deal protection provisions by virtue of its
"no shop" and "standstill" clauses and termination fees.

This complaint seeks unspecified damages and other relief.

The company will respond appropriately to the lawsuit, according
to the company's Form 8-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission dated July 24, 2009.

Life Sciences Research Inc. -- http://www.lsrinc.net/-- is a
global contract research organization, offering worldwide pre-
clinical and non-clinical testing services for biological safety
evaluation research to pharmaceutical and biotechnology, as well
as agrochemical and industrial chemical companies.  LSR serves
the regulatory and commercial requirements to perform safety
evaluations on new pharmaceutical compounds and chemical
compounds contained within the products that humans use, eat and
are otherwise exposed to.  In addition, LSR tests the effect of
such compounds on the environment and also performs work on
assessing the safety and efficacy of veterinary products.


LIFE SCIENCES: To Respond to "Berger" Suit Over Merger Agreement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Life Sciences Research, Inc. intends to respond to a purported
class action lawsuit filed in connection with the company's
entry into a definitive merger agreement on July 8, 2009.

On July 13, 2009, a First Amended Complaint was filed in the
purported class action lawsuit, "Berger v. Life Sciences
Research, et al.," against the company.

The suit was filed in connection with the company's entry into a
definitive merger agreement on July 8, 2009 with Lion Holdings,
Inc. and its subsidiary Lion Merger Corp., entities controlled
by Andrew Baker, pursuant to which Lion would acquire all of the
outstanding shares of the company for $8.50 per share (Baker
Merger).

The First Amended Complaint, like the original lawsuit, was
filed in Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division,
Somerset County (Civil Action No. SOM-C-12006-09), and names as
defendants Mr. Baker, all other members of the company's Board
of Directors and the company.

The First Amended Complaint alleges, among other things, that
the directors breached their fiduciary duties with respect to
the Baker Merger; that Baker controls LSR and its directors;
that the merger price constitutes inadequate consideration; and
that certain terms of the merger agreement unfairly benefit Mr.
Baker at the expense of the other stockholders, including the
absence of appraisal rights, accelerated vesting of restricted
stock, restrictions on the solicitation of negotiations with
respect to third party proposals, and termination fees.

The First Amended Complaint further alleges that the directors
were motivated to accept Baker's offer because of concerns that
a public dispute with Baker would draw unwanted attention from
animal rights activists.

The First Amended Complaint seeks unspecified damages and other
relief, according to the company's Form 8-K Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission dated July 24, 2009.

Life Sciences Research Inc. -- http://www.lsrinc.net/-- is a
global contract research organization, offering worldwide pre-
clinical and non-clinical testing services for biological safety
evaluation research to pharmaceutical and biotechnology, as well
as agrochemical and industrial chemical companies.  LSR serves
the regulatory and commercial requirements to perform safety
evaluations on new pharmaceutical compounds and chemical
compounds contained within the products that humans use, eat and
are otherwise exposed to.  In addition, LSR tests the effect of
such compounds on the environment and also performs work on
assessing the safety and efficacy of veterinary products.


MOSAIC CO: Continues to Defend Suits by Potash Buyers in U.S.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Mosaic Co. remains a defendant in multiple class-action
lawsuits by purchasers of potash in the United States, according
to the company's July 24, 2009 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended May
31, 2009.

The plaintiffs in these lawsuits seek unspecified amounts of
damages including treble damages, alleging that the company and
other defendants conspired to, among other matters, fix the
price at which potash was sold in the United States, allocated
market shares and customers and fraudulently concealed their
anticompetitive conduct.

The Mosaic Co. -- http://www.mosaicco.com/-- is a producer of
phosphate and potash combined, as well as nitrogen and animal
feed ingredients.  The Company operates its business through
four business segments: phosphates, potash, offshore and
nitrogen.


MOSAIC CO: Faces Lawsuit Over Wastewater Release in Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Mosaic Co. faces a private class action lawsuit due to a
release of phosphoric acid process wastewater at the company's
Riverview, Florida facility during a hurricane.

The release of phosphoric acid process wastewater resulted in a
small civil fine, as well as a private class action lawsuit and
claims for natural resource damages by governmental agencies.

No further details were reported in the company's July 24, 2009
Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended May 31, 2009.

The Mosaic Co. -- http://www.mosaicco.com/-- is a producer of
phosphate and potash combined, as well as nitrogen and animal
feed ingredients.  The Company operates its business through
four business segments: phosphates, potash, offshore and
nitrogen.


SOUTH DAKOTA: Regents Face Lawsuit Over Deaf School's Closure
-------------------------------------------------------------
The South Dakota Board of Regents, former regents Executive
Director Robert Tad Perry and his successor Jack Warner are
facing a purported class-action lawsuit that seeks to keep the
South Dakota School For The Deaf open, Carson Walker of The
Associated Press reports.

The suit was filed on July 23, 2009 in the U.S. District Court
for the District of South Dakota by Barry Barron, Kimberly
Barron, Joel Curran, Deanne Curran, Leo Willey, Jennifer Dans-
Willey, Cindy Sparks, Teresa Nold and Timothy Nold, under the
caption, "Barron et al v. State of South Dakota et al, Case No.
4:2009-cv-04111."  It was brought on behalf of the students from
South Dakota and Minnesota.

The plaintiffs -- parents of eight deaf or hearing-impaired
children -- are suing to keep open South Dakota's only school
for the deaf, saying closing the school would be illegal despite
a sharp decline in enrollment over the past few decades.  They
seek class-action status for the complaint on behalf all deaf or
hearing-impaired South Dakota residents age 21 and younger,
according to The Associated Press.

The suit argues that closing the South Dakota School for the
Deaf would violate a clause in the state constitution that
mandates a public school for the deaf be available and runs
contrary to an obligation tied to federal education funding for
a free education for students with disabilities, reports The
Associated Press.

Gov. Mike Rounds earlier this year tried to close the campus and
shift funding to outreach programs that educate deaf and
hearing-impaired students in school districts around the state.
That would have saved an estimated $1.2 million a year, AP
reported.

For more details, contact:

          Shawn M. Nichols, Esq. (snichols@cadlaw.com)
          Cadwell, Sanford, Deibert & Garry, LLP
          200 E 10th Street
          Suite 200
          PO Box 2498
          Sioux Falls, SD 57101-2498
          Phone: 605-336-0828
          Fax: 605-336-6036
          Web site: http://www.cadlaw.com


WELLS FARGO: Faces Customers' Suit Over Errors in ATM Deposits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. faces a purported class-action lawsuit
that accuses it of taking advantage of customers who make math
errors on ATM deposits by keeping the extra money even after it
discovers the mistake, Maria Dinzeo of The Courthouse News
Service reports.

The suit was filed on July 23, 2009 in the Superior Court of
California, County of San Diego by Brandi A. McLay, under the
caption, "McClay v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Case No. 37-2009-
00094494-CU-BT-CTL."

The plaintiff claims that when customers make a deposit by ATM
and mistakenly enter an amount lower than the amount of the
check, Wells Fargo pockets the difference.  She claims Wells
Fargo does not inform customers of their errors, but keeps the
money under what it calls an "Excess Funds Retention Policy,"
which its customers do not know exists, The Courthouse News
Service reported.

The lawsuit seeks restitution and damages for conversion, unfair
competition and unjust enrichment, according to The Courthouse
News Service.

A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at:
              http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?401a

For more details, contact:

          Law Offices of David J. Gallo
          12702 Via Cortina, Suite 500
          San Diego, CA 92014-3769
          Phone: 858-509-3652
          Fax: 858-509-3717


WESTLAKE HARDWARE: Kansas Judge Certifies Class in FLSA Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Kathryn H. Vratil of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Kansas conditionally certified an estimated class of
135 current and former employees of Westlake Hardware, Inc. in a
case concerning overtime pay, The Kansas City Star reports.

The class certified by Judge Vratil includes all front-end
supervisors, later known as administrative managers, who were
employed as such from July 31, 2005, to the present, according
to The Kansas City Star.

The suit was filed on July 31, 2008 by Dianna D. Creten-Miller,
under the caption, "Creten-Miller v. Westlake Hardware, Inc.,
Case No. 2:2008-cv-02351."  It generally alleges violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

The plaintiff specifically alleges that Westlake Hardware
misclassified the front-end supervisors as salary exempt under
the FLSA and thus improperly denied them overtime pay, reports
The Kansas City Star.

Brendan J. Donelon, Esq., an attorney for the plaintiffs, told
The Kansas City Star that the employees' testimony showed they
typically worked more than 50 hours a week without overtime pay.

For more details, contact:

          Brendan J. Donelon, Esq. (brendan@donelonpc.com)
          Donelson PC
          802 Broadway, 7th Floor
          Kansas City, MO 64105
          Phone: 816-221-7100
          Fax: 816-472-6805

               - and -

          Michael F. Brady, Esq. (brady@mbradylaw.com)
          Brady & Associates Law Office
          10901 Lowell Ave. Suite #280
          Overland Park, KS 66210
          Phone: 913-696-0925
          Fax: 913-696-0468


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

CARACO PHARMACEUTICAL: Federman & Sherwood Announces Suit Filing
----------------------------------------------------------------
     Federman & Sherwood announces that on July 17, 2009, a
class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Michigan against Caraco
Pharmaceutical Laboratories, Ltd. (NYSE: CPD).

     The complaint alleges violations of federal securities
laws, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of issuing a series
of material misrepresentations to the market which had the
effect of artificially inflating the market price.  The class
period is from May 29, 2008 through June 25, 2009.

     Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of the Class.

     A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain
criteria and be made on or before Sept. 15, 2009.

For more details, contact:

          William B. Federman (wfederman@aol.com)
          Federman & Sherwood
          10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue
          Oklahoma City, OK 73120
          Phone: 405.235.1560
          Fax: 405.239.2112
          Web site: http://www.federmanlaw.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, 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  * * *