---

            C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Monday, August 3, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 151

                           Headlines

AMAZON.COM LLC: Faces Litigation Over Mass Deletion of "1984"
APPLE INC: Appeal on Dismissal of "Bader" Lawsuit Still Pending
APPLE INC: Appeal on Dismissal of "Birdsong" Suit Still Pending
APPLE INC: Appeal on Dismissal of "Vogel" Suit Remains Pending
APPLE INC: Appeal to Settlement in iPod Liability Suit Pending

APPLE INC: Awaits Ruling on Quebec iPod Purchasers Suit v. Units
APPLE INC: Certification of "Somers" Injunctive Claims Deferred
APPLE INC: Continues to Face Remaining Claims in "Branning" Suit
APPLE INC: Oct. 27 Hearing Set for Appeal to "St-Germain" Ruling
APPLE INC: Ruling on Bid to Dismiss "Vitt" Suit Remains Pending

APPLE INC: Still Defending Monopolization Claims in Calif. Suit
APPLE INC: "Vogel" Securities Fraud Suit in Calif. Still Stayed
BLUE CROSS: Faces Mich. Suit  Over Treatments for Autistic Kids
C. R. BARD: Expects Hernia Product Claims Trials in 2010
C. R. BARD: "St. Francis Medical Center" Suit Remains Pending

CONTINENTAL CARBON: $10.5M Deal Reached in "Ponca Tribe" Lawsuit
CBRE REALTY: Conn. Court Grants Dismissal Bid in Securities Suit
GENZYME CORP: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in Massachusetts
HOLLINGER INC: Suit Settlement Reaches Final Stage in Saskatoon
MANULIFE FINANCIAL: Faces Investors' Litigation in Toronto

ORBCOMM INC: Oct. 15 Hearing Set for $2.45M N.J. Suit Settlement
PANALPINA WORLD: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in Texas
PULASKI COUNTY: Ark. Court Denies Certification Bid in "Jackson"
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Suits Over F.A.A. Violations Remain Pending
WAL-MART STORES: Faces FLSA Violations Lawsuit in Texas Court

WHIRLPOOL CORP: To Defend Suits on Compressor Business in Brazil


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

ACCURAY INC: Brower Piven Announces Securities Fraud Suit Filing
GENZYME CORP: Federman & Sherwood Announces Stock Suit Filing
INTERNATIONAL GAME: Coughlin Stoia Files Securities Fraud Suit
J.P. MORGAN CHASE: Scott+Scott LLP Files Securities Fraud Suit
OPPENHEIMER ATM-FREE: Holzer Holzer Announces Stock Suit Filing

SKILLED HEALTHCARE: Kendall Law Group Announces Lawsuit Filing


                           *********

AMAZON.COM LLC: Faces Litigation Over Mass Deletion of "1984"
-------------------------------------------------------------
     A class action lawsuit filed recently takes Amazon.com LLC
(NASDAQ: AMZN) to task after the company deleted George Orwell
books from customers' Kindles.

     According to the lawsuit, Amazon.com deleted these books
after claiming that it had mistakenly sold them without
permission from the copyright owner.

     After a barrage of criticism from customers, the media, and
public interest organizations, Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos apologized
for the company's behavior, conceding that it was "stupid,
thoughtless, and painfully out of line with our principles."

     The suit is being brought by Justin D. Gawronski, a 17-
year-old high school student who had purchased Orwell's "1984"
to complete a summer homework assignment.

     When Amazon deleted the book from his Kindle, it rendered
the electronic notes he had taken worthless.

     "We appreciate Amazon.com's new found contrition, but words
are not enough," explained Jay Edelson, the lead attorney for
the class action.  "Amazon.com had no more right to hack into
people's Kindles than its customers have the right to hack into
Amazon's bank account to recover a mistaken overpayment."

     The class action seeks injunctive relief barring Amazon.com
from improperly accessing people's Kindles in the future.

     It also seeks monetary relief for those who lost work-
product associated with the deleted books.  Edelson's firm,
KamberEdelson, LLC, is a leading class action firm that focuses
on internet, technology, and privacy issues.

     It claims that that Amazon.com's behavior could lead to
even greater consequences if a quick precedent is not set.

     "Technology companies increasingly feel that because they
have the ability to access people's personal property, they have
the right to do so.  That is 100% contrary to the laws of this
country," said Edelson.

     Edelson's firm has agreed to donate any money they receive
from this suit to a charity, assuming that Amazon.com abides by
its latest promise to take quick action to remedy this
situation.   Edelson is joined on the lawsuit by Steven Teppler
and Michael Aschenbrener, both of KamberEdelson.

A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at:
              http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?4062


APPLE INC: Appeal on Dismissal of "Bader" Lawsuit Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs' appeal from a judgment by the Santa Clara County
Superior Court that completely dismissed a purported class-
action suit entitled, "Bader v. Anderson, et al.," filed against
Apple, Inc., remains pending.

On May 19, 2005, the lead plaintiff filed the purported
shareholder derivative action with the Santa Clara County
Superior Court, naming as defendants Apple, each of its then
current executive officers, and certain members of its board of
directors.

The suit is asserting claims for breach of fiduciary duty,
material misstatements and omissions and violations of
California Business & Professions Code Section 17200 (unfair
competition).

The lead plaintiff alleged that the company's March 14, 2005
proxy statement was false and misleading for failure to disclose
certain information relating to the Apple Computer, Inc.
Performance Bonus Plan, which was approved by shareholders at
the annual meeting held on April 21, 2005.

The lead plaintiff, who brought the suit also on the company's
behalf, made no demand on the Board of Directors, stating that
any demand is excused.  The lead plaintiff also sought
injunctive and other relief for purported injury to the company.

On July 27, 2005, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint
alleging that, in addition to the purported derivative claims,
adoption of the bonus plan and distribution of the proxy
statement describing that plan also inflicted injury on her
directly as an individual shareholder.

On Jan. 10, 2006, the Court sustained the defendants' demurrer
to the amended complaint, with leave to amend.  The plaintiff
filed a second amended complaint on Feb. 7, 2006, and the
company filed another demurrer.

After a hearing on June 13, 2006, the Court sustained the
demurrer without leave to amend as to the non-director officers
and with leave to amend as to the directors.

On July 24, 2006, the plaintiff filed a third amended complaint,
which purported to bring claims derivatively as well as directly
on behalf of a class of common stockholders who have been or
will be harmed by virtue of the allegedly misleading proxy
statement.

In addition to reasserting prior causes of action, the third
amended complaint included a claim that the company violated the
terms of the plan, and a claim for waste related to restricted
stock unit grants to certain officers in 2003 and 2004 and an
option grant to the company's chief executive officer in January
2000.

The company filed a demurrer to the third amended complaint.  On
Jan. 30, 2007, the Court sustained the company's demurrer with
leave to amend.

On May 8, 2007, the plaintiff filed a fourth amended complaint.
The company filed a demurrer to the fourth amended complaint,
which the court sustained, without leave to amend, on Oct. 12,
2007.

On Oct. 25, 2007, the Court entered a final judgment in favor of
the defendant and ordered the case dismissed with prejudice.

On Nov. 26, 2007, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal (Class
Action Reporter, Jan. 7, 2009).

No further updates regarding the appeal were disclosed in the
company's July 22, 2009 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S.
Securities Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 27,
2009.

Apple, Inc. -- http://www.apple.com/-- formerly Apple Computer,
Inc., designs, manufactures and markets personal computers and
related software, services, peripherals and networking
solutions.  It also designs, develops and markets a line of
portable digital music players along with accessories, including
the online sale of third-party audio and video products.


APPLE INC: Appeal on Dismissal of "Birdsong" Suit Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs' appeal on the dismissal of the third amended
complaint in a purported class-action suit entitled, "Birdsong
v. Apple Inc.," remains pending.

The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
granted, with prejudice, a motion to dismiss the third amended
complaint in a purported class action suit against Apple, Inc.,
which alleges that defects in the company's iPod products cause
hearing loss to users.

The action, entitled, "Birdsong v. Apple Computers Inc.,"
specifically alleges that the company's iPod music players, and
the ear bud headphones sold with them, are inherently defective
in design and are sold without adequate warnings concerning the
risk of noise-induced hearing loss by iPod users.

The Birdsong Action was initially filed on Jan. 30, 2006, in the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana.  It
asserts causes of action on behalf of a purported Louisiana
class of iPod purchasers.

A similar action, "Patterson v. Apple Computer, Inc.," was filed
on Jan. 31, 2006, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California asserting California causes of action on
behalf of a purported class of all iPod purchasers within the
four-year period before Jan. 31, 2006.

The Birdsong Action was transferred to the U.S. District Court
with the Northern District of California, and the Patterson
Action was dismissed.

An amended complaint was subsequently filed in "Birdsong,"
dropping the Louisiana law-based claims and adding California
law-based claims equivalent to those in "Patterson."

After the company filed a motion to dismiss on Nov. 3, 2006, the
plaintiffs agreed not to oppose the motion and filed a second
amended complaint on Jan. 16, 2007.

That complaint alleges California law-based claims for breaches
of implied and express warranties, violations of California
Business & Professions Code Section 17200 (unfair competition),
California Business & Professions Code Section 17500 (false
advertising), the Consumer Legal Remedies Act and negligent
misrepresentation on behalf of a putative nationwide class and a
Louisiana law-based claim for redhibition for a Louisiana sub-
class.

On March 1, 2007, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
California law-based claims, which motion was heard on June 4,
2007.

On Dec. 14, 2007, the Court granted this request, with leave to
amend the complaint.

The plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint on Jan. 11, 2008,
which the company again sought to have dismissed.

On June 16, 2008, the Court granted the company's motion to
dismiss the third amended complaint with prejudice (Class Action
Reporter, July 31, 2008).

On July 11, 2008, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal (Class
Action Reporter, Jan. 7, 2009).

No further developments on the matter were reported in the
company's July 22, 2009 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S.
Securities Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 27,
2009

The suit is "Birdsong v. Apple Inc., Case No. 5:06-cv-02280-JW,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, Judge James Ware, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Richard J. Arsenault, Esq. (rarsenault@nbalawfirm.com)
          Neblett, Beard & Arsenault
          P.O. Box 1190, 2220 Bonaventure Court
          Alexandria, LA 71309
          Phone: 318-487-9874
          Fax: 318-561-2591

               - and -

          Philip Bohrer, Esq. (phil@bohrerlaw.com)
          Bohrer Law Firm
          8712 Jefferson Hwy., Suite B
          Baton Rouge, LA 70809
          Phone: 225-925-5297
          Fax: 225-231-7000

Representing the company is:

          James Alfred Lico, Esq. (Jlico@kirkland.com)
          Kirkland & Ellis LLP
          555 California Street
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Phone: 415-439-1400
          Fax: 415-439-1500


APPLE INC: Appeal on Dismissal of "Vogel" Suit Remains Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in the matter "Vogel et al. v. Jobs et al., Case
No. 5:06-cv- 05208-JF," continue to appeal the dismissal of
their case, which named Apple Computer, Inc., as a defendant.

The purported class-action suit was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California on Aug. 24, 2006.
It was brought against the company and certain of the company's
current and former officers and directors, alleging improper
backdating of stock option grants to maximize certain
defendants' profits, failing to properly account for those
grants and issuing false financial statements.

On Jan. 19, 2007, the Court appointed the New York City
Employees' Retirement System as lead plaintiff.

On March 23, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated class
action complaint.

The Consolidated Complaint purports to be brought on behalf of
several classes of holders of the company's stock and asserts
claims under Section 14(a) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act, as well as state law.

The Consolidated Complaint seeks rescission of amendments to
various stock option and other incentive compensation plans, an
accounting and damages in an unspecified amount.

The defendants, on June 8, 2007, filed a motion to dismiss the
suit.  Subsequently, on Nov. 14, 2007, the Court issued an order
dismissing all securities claims with prejudice, and held that
any amended complaint could only be styled as a derivative case.

On Dec. 14, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to
file a first amended consolidated class action complaint.

On Jan. 23, 2008, the defendants filed an opposition to the
plaintiff's motion.  The plaintiffs' motion was heard on March
21, 2008.

On May 14, 2008, the Court issued an order denying the
plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend.  The court entered
judgment dismissing the case on June 12, 2008.

On June 17, 2008, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal (Class
Action Reporter, Jan. 7, 2009).

Plaintiffs' appeal is still pending, according to the company's
July 22, 2009 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 27, 2009.

The suit is "Vogel et al. v. Jobs et al., Case No. 5:06-cv-
05208-JF," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, Judge Jeremy Fogel, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Patrice L. Bishop, Esq.
          Stull, Stull & Brody
          10940 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2300
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Phone: 310-209-2468
          Fax: 310-209-2087
          e-mail: service@ssbla.com

               - and -

          Mary Sikra Thomas, Esq. (mthomas@gelaw.com)
          Grant & Eisenhofer, P.A.
          1201 N. Market St., Suite 2100
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Phone: 302-622-7000

Representing the defendants is:

          David Malcolm Furbush, Esq. (dfurbush@omm.com)
          O'Melveny & Myers, LLP
          2765 Sand Hill Road
          Menlo Park, CA 94025
          Phone: 650-473-2600
          Fax: 650-473-2601


APPLE INC: Appeal to Settlement in iPod Liability Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the approval of the settlement of a consolidated
amended class action complaint, In re Apple iPod Nano Products
Liability Litigation, is pending.

Beginning on Oct. 19, 2005, eight complaints were filed in
various U.S. District Courts and two complaints were filed in
California State Court alleging that the company's iPod nano was
defectively designed so that it scratches excessively during
normal use, rendering the screen unreadable.

The federal actions were coordinated in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California and
assigned to the Hon. Ronald Whyte pursuant to an April 17, 2006
order of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.

Plaintiffs filed a First Consolidated and Amended Master
Complaint on Sept. 21, 2006, alleging violations of California
and other states' consumer protection and warranty laws and
claiming unjust enrichment.

The Master Complaint alleges two putative plaintiff classes: (1)
all U.S. residents (excluding California residents) who
purchased an iPod nano that was not manufactured or designed
using processes necessary to ensure normal resistance to
scratching of the screen; and (2) all iPod nano purchasers other
than U.S. residents who purchased an iPod nano that was not
manufactured or designed using processes necessary to ensure
normal resistance to scratching of the screen.  The company
answered the Master Complaint on Nov. 20, 2006.

The two California State Court actions were coordinated on May
4, 2006, and assigned to the Hon. Carl West in Los Angeles
County Superior Court.  Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended
class action Complaint on June 8, 2006, alleging violations of
California state consumer protection, unfair competition, false
advertising and warranty laws and claiming unjust enrichment.
The Consolidated Complaint alleges a putative plaintiff class of
all California residents who own an iPod nano containing a
manufacturing defect that results in the nano being susceptible
to excessive scratching.  The company answered the Consolidated
Amended Complaint on Oct. 6, 2006. The parties have reached a
settlement and on April 28, 2009, the Court granted final
approval of the settlement.  On May 21, 2009, an objector filed
a notice of appeal, according to the company's July 22, 2009
Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 27, 2009.

Apple, Inc. -- http://www.apple.com/-- formerly Apple Computer,
Inc., designs, manufactures and markets personal computers and
related software, services, peripherals and networking
solutions.  It also designs, develops and markets a line of
portable digital music players along with accessories, including
the online sale of third-party audio and video products.


APPLE INC: Awaits Ruling on Quebec iPod Purchasers Suit v. Units
----------------------------------------------------------------
A ruling on the class action complaint styled, "Royer-Brennan v.
Apple Computer, Inc. and Apple Canada, Inc.," is pending,
according to Apple, Inc.'s July 22, 2009 Form 10-Q Filing with
the U.S. Securities Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 27, 2009.

The complaint was filed in Montreal, Quebec, Canada, on Feb. 1,
2006, seeking authorization to institute a class action on
behalf of iPod purchasers in Quebec.

Plaintiffs filed a motion to amend their complaint to add a
minor plaintiff and claims regarding alleged risks of hearing
loss to young people.

The hearing on the motion to amend took place on April 24, 2009.
The Court has not issued a ruling yet.

Apple, Inc. -- http://www.apple.com/-- formerly Apple Computer,
Inc., designs, manufactures and markets personal computers and
related software, services, peripherals and networking
solutions.  It also designs, develops and markets a line of
portable digital music players along with accessories, including
the online sale of third-party audio and video products.


APPLE INC: Certification of "Somers" Injunctive Claims Deferred
---------------------------------------------------------------
The ruling on class certification of plaintiff's injunctive
claims in the complaint, Somers v. Apple Inc., has been deferred
pending resolution of the additional briefing requested by the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

The class-action complaint was filed on Dec. 31, 2007, in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California,
alleging various claims including alleged unlawful tying of
music and videos purchased on the iTunes Store with the purchase
of iPods and vice versa and unlawful acquisition or maintenance
of monopoly market power.

The complaint alleges violations of Sections 1 and 2 of the
Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. Sections 1 and 2), California Business &
Professions Code Section 16700 et seq. (the Cartwright Act),
California Business & Professions Code Section 17200 (unfair
competition) and the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act.

The plaintiff seeks unspecified damages and other relief.

On Feb. 21, 2008, the company filed an answer denying all
material allegations and asserting numerous defenses (Class
Action Reporter, Jan. 29, 2009).

On Feb. 23, 2009, plaintiff filed a motion for class
certification and on April 20, 2009, the company filed its
opposition to that motion.  An evidentiary hearing on the class
certification motion took place on June 30, 2009.

On July 17, 2009, the Court denied certification of plaintiff's
damage claims and deferred ruling on certification of
plaintiff's injunctive claims pending resolution of the
additional briefing requested by the Court, according to the
company's July 22, 2009 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S.
Securities Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 27,
2009.

Apple, Inc. -- http://www.apple.com/-- formerly Apple Computer,
Inc., designs, manufactures and markets personal computers and
related software, services, peripherals and networking
solutions.  It also designs, develops and markets a line of
portable digital music players along with accessories, including
the online sale of third-party audio and video products.


APPLE INC: Continues to Face Remaining Claims in "Branning" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Apple, Inc., formerly Apple Computer, Inc., continues to face a
purported class action suit, which alleges that the company
violated California's trade laws.

The plaintiffs originally filed the purported class action suit
styled, "Branning et al. v. Apple Computer, Inc.," before the
San Francisco County Superior Court on Feb. 17, 2005.

The initial complaint alleged violations of California Business
Professions Code 17200 (unfair competition) and violation of the
Consumer Legal Remedies Act regarding a variety of purportedly
unfair and unlawful conduct including, but not limited to,
allegedly selling used computers as new and failing to honor
warranties.

The plaintiffs also brought causes of action for
misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of contract, and
violation of the Song Beverly Act.  They requested unspecified
damages and other relief.

On May 2, 2005, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint adding
two new named plaintiffs and three new causes of action
including a claim for treble damages under the Cartwright Act
(California Business and Professions Code 16700 et seq.), and a
claim for false advertising.

On May 9, 2005, the court granted the company's motion to
transfer the case to Santa Clara County Superior Court.

The company filed a demurrer to the amended complaint, which the
court sustained in its entirety on Nov. 10, 2005.  The court
granted the plaintiffs leave to amend and they filed an amended
complaint on Dec. 29, 2005.

The plaintiffs' amended complaint adds three additional
plaintiffs and alleges many of the same factual claims as the
previous complaints such as alleged selling of used equipment as
new, alleged failure to honor warranties and service contracts
for the consumer plaintiffs, and alleged fraud related to the
opening of the Apple Retail stores.

The plaintiffs continue to assert causes of action for unfair
competition (17200), violations of the CLRA, breach of contract,
misappropriation of trade secrets, violations of the Cartwright
Act and allege new causes of action for fraud, conversion and
breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

The company filed a demurrer to the amended complaint on Jan.
31, 2006, which the court sustained on March 3, 2006, on 16 of
17 causes of action.

The plaintiffs filed a further amended complaint on Sept. 21,
2006.

On Oct. 2, 2006, the company filed an answer denying all
allegations and asserting numerous affirmative defenses.  On
Nov. 30, 2007, it filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings,
which the court denied.

The plaintiffs filed a Fifth Amended Complaint on March 19,
2008, and a Corrected Fifth Amended Complaint on April 1.  The
company filed an answer to the Corrected Fifth Amended Complaint
on April 18, 2008.

The Court has scheduled a class certification hearing on the
purported consumer class for Oct. 17, 2008.

The company filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings for an
order dismissing plaintiffs' fraud claim based upon the statute
of limitations, which was granted by the Court on June 24, 2008,
with leave to amend.

The plaintiffs filed a Sixth Amended Complaint on July 14, 2008,
and a Seventh Amended Complaint on Aug. 22, 2008, adding three
new reseller plaintiffs.

On Sept. 22, 2008, the company filed its answer to the consumer-
related claims denying all allegations and asserting numerous
affirmative defenses, and also filed a demurrer to the new
reseller claims.  The company has filed motions for summary
adjudication of two named plaintiffs' claims, which were heard
on Oct. 14, 2008.  The company's demurrer to the new reseller
claims is set for a hearing on Jan. 30, 2009.

The company filed motions for summary adjudication for certain
claims of two named plaintiffs', which was granted on Nov. 10,
2008.  Plaintiffs petitioned the Court of Appeal for a writ of
certiorari from the summary adjudication ruling and a motion to
stay the class certification hearing, which the Court of Appeal
denied on Dec. 17, 2008.

On Dec. 19, 2008, the Court held a hearing on the plaintiffs'
class certification motion. (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 29,
2009).

The Court requested further briefing and an additional hearing,
which did not take place because on Feb. 23, 2009, Hon. Jamie A.
Jacobs-May disqualified herself from the case.  The company
filed a petition for a writ of mandate from this order, which
the Court of Appeal denied on May 19, 2009.  The case has been
reassigned to Hon. Joseph H. Huber.  The class certification
hearing on the consumer-related claims is scheduled for July 14,
2009.

The company has filed two additional motions for summary
adjudication as to certain named plaintiffs' claims.  The
company has also filed a motion to sever the consumer class and
the reseller class for the purpose of trial, according to the
company's July 22, 2009 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S.
Securities Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 27,
2009.

Apple, Inc. -- http://www.apple.com/-- formerly Apple Computer,
Inc., designs, manufactures and markets personal computers and
related software, services, peripherals and networking
solutions.  It also designs, develops and markets a line of
portable digital music players along with accessories, including
the online sale of third-party audio and video products.


APPLE INC: Oct. 27 Hearing Set for Appeal to "St-Germain" Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------------
A hearing on Apple, Inc.'s appeal from the ruling in favor of
the plaintiff in the suit styled "St-Germain v. Apple Canada,
Inc." is set for Oct. 27, 2009, according to the company's July
22, 2009 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 27, 2009.

The plaintiff filed the case in Montreal, Quebec, Canada, on
Aug. 5, 2005, seeking authorization to institute a class action
for the refund by the company of the Canadian Private Copying
Levy that was applied to the iPod purchase price in Quebec
between Dec. 12, 2003 and Dec. 14, 2004 but later declared
invalid by the Canadian Court.

The company has completed a refund program for this levy.

A class certification hearing took place Jan. 13, 2006.

On Feb. 24, 2006, the Court granted class certification and
notice was published during the last week of March 2006.

The trial was conducted on Oct. 15 and Oct. 16, 2007.

On Jan. 11, 2008, the Court issued a ruling in plaintiff's
favor.  The Court ruled that despite the company's good faith
efforts with the levy refund program, the company must pay the
amount claimed, and that the class is comprised of 20,000
persons who purchased an iPod in Quebec between Dec. 12, 2003
and Dec. 14, 2004.  The Court ordered the company to submit a
statement of account showing the amount received by the Canadian
Private Copying Collective, and the amount that has already been
paid to class members in Quebec under the company's levy refund
program.  The Court also ordered the parties to submit further
briefing regarding the collective recovery award by Feb. 23,
2008.

On Feb. 11, 2008, the company filed an appeal (Class Action
Reporter, Jan. 29, 2009).

Apple, Inc. -- http://www.apple.com/-- formerly Apple Computer,
Inc., designs, manufactures and markets personal computers and
related software, services, peripherals and networking
solutions.  It also designs, develops and markets a line of
portable digital music players along with accessories, including
the online sale of third-party audio and video products.


APPLE INC: Ruling on Bid to Dismiss "Vitt" Suit Remains Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
A ruling on Apple, Inc.'s motion to dismiss an amended complaint
in the action styled "Vitt v. Apple Computer, Inc." remains
pending.

The plaintiff filed this purported class-action suit on Nov. 7,
2006, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California on behalf of a purported nationwide class of all
purchasers of the iBook G4 alleging that the computer's logic
board fails at an abnormally high rate.

The complaint alleges violations of California Business &
Professions Code Section 17200 (unfair competition) and
California Business & Professions Code Section 17500 (false
advertising).

The plaintiff seeks unspecified damages and other relief.

The company filed a motion to dismiss on Jan. 19, 2007, which
the Court granted on March 13, 2007.

The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on March 26, 2007.
The company filed a motion to dismiss on Aug. 16, 2007, which
was heard on Oct. 4, 2007.  The Court has not yet issued a
ruling (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 29, 2009).

No further developments on the case were disclosed by the
company in its July 22, 2009 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S.
Securities Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 27,
2009.

Apple, Inc. -- http://www.apple.com/-- formerly Apple Computer,
Inc., designs, manufactures and markets personal computers and
related software, services, peripherals and networking
solutions.  It also designs, develops and markets a line of
portable digital music players along with accessories, including
the online sale of third-party audio and video products.


APPLE INC: Still Defending Monopolization Claims in Calif. Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Apple, Inc., formerly Apple Computer, Inc., continues to face
monopolization claims in a consolidated class-action lawsuit
pending with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California.

                     Charoensak Litigation

The plaintiff filed the suit "Charoensak v. Apple Computer,
Inc." -- formerly "Slattery v. Apple Computer, Inc." -- on Jan.
3, 2005, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, alleging various claims including alleged unlawful
tying of music purchased on the iTunes Music Store with the
purchase of iPods and vice versa and unlawful acquisition or
maintenance of monopoly market power.

The plaintiff's complaint alleges violations of Sections 1 and 2
of the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. Sections 1 and 2), California
Business and Professions Code Section 16700 et seq., California
Business and Professions Code Section 17200 (unfair
competition), common law unjust enrichment and common law
monopolization.  It seeks unspecified damages and other relief.

The company, on Feb. 10, 2005, filed a motion to dismiss the
suit, which motion was subsequently denied by the court in part
and granted in part.

The plaintiff filed an amended complaint on Sept. 23, 2005,
which the company answered.

On May 8, 2006, the court heard the plaintiff's motion for leave
to file a second amended complaint to substitute two new
plaintiffs for "Slattery."

In August 2006, the court dismissed "Slattery" without prejudice
and allowed the plaintiffs to file an amended complaint naming
two new plaintiffs.

On Nov. 2, 2006, the company filed an answer to the amended
complaint denying all material allegations and asserting
numerous affirmative defenses.

                          Tucker Case

The plaintiff filed the "Tucker v. Apple Computer, Inc." case as
a purported class-action suit on July 21, 2006, before the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California alleging
various claims including alleged unlawful tying of music and
videos purchased on the iTunes Store with the purchase of iPods
and vice versa and unlawful acquisition or maintenance of
monopoly market power.

The complaint also alleged violations of Sections 1 and 2 of the
Sherman Act, California Business & Professions Code Section
16700 et seq., California Business & Professions Code Section
17200 and the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act.  The
plaintiff sought unspecified damages and other relief.

On Nov. 3, 2006, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint, which request was denied by the Court.

On Jan. 11, 2007, the company filed an answer denying all
material allegations and asserting numerous defenses.

                    Consolidation of Cases

On March 20, 2007, the court consolidated the two cases.  The
plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint on April 19, 2007.

On June 6, 2007, the company filed an answer to the consolidated
complaint denying all material allegations and asserting
numerous affirmative defenses.

On June 6, 2007, the company filed an answer to the consolidated
complaint denying all material allegations and asserting
numerous affirmative defenses (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 1,
2008).

On July 17, 2008, plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification and on Oct. 17, 2008, the company filed its
opposition to plaintiffs' motion.

The class certification hearing took place on Dec. 16, 2008.

On Dec. 22, 2008, the Court granted certification of the
monopolization claims and denied without prejudice certification
of the tying claims pending reconsideration of its denial of the
company's motion to dismiss (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 29,
2009).

On Feb. 13, 2009, the company filed a motion for judgment on the
pleadings as to plaintiffs' tying claims.

On May 15, 2009, the Court issued an order granting the
company's motion in part, dismissing the federal per se tying
claim and related state court tying claims and inviting the
company to file another motion for judgment on the pleadings if
plaintiffs pursue a rule of reason tying claim.

On July 17, 2009, the Court invited the company to file a motion
for reconsideration of the certification of an injunctive-relief
class or a motion to strike plaintiffs' prayer for the type of
injunctive relief sought, according to the company's July 22,
2009 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 27, 2009.

The suit is "Charoensak v. Apple Computer, Inc., Case No. 5:05-
cv-00037-JW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, Judge James Ware, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Michael David Braun, Esq.
          Braun Law Group, P.C.
          12400 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 920
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Phone: 310-442-7755
          Fax: 310-442-7756
          e-mail: service@braunlawgroup.com

          Roy A. Katriel, Esq. (rak@katriellaw.com)
          The Katriel Law Firm, P.L.L.C.
          1101 30th Street, NW, Suite 500
          Washington, DC 20007
          Phone: 202-625-4342

               - and -

          John J. Stoia, Jr., Esq. (jstoia@lerachlaw.com)
          Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: 619-231-1058
          Fax: 619-231-7423

Representing the company is:

          Caroline N. Mitchell, Esq. (cnmitchell@jonesday.com)
          Jones Day, 555 California Street, 26th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Phone: 415-875-5712
          Fax: 415-875-5700


APPLE INC: "Vogel" Securities Fraud Suit in Calif. Still Stayed
---------------------------------------------------------------
A purported securities fraud class-action lawsuit filed against
Apple, Inc., in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California remains stayed, according to the
company's July 22, 2009 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S.
Securities Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 27,
2009.

The purported class-action suit was filed on June 27, 2008,
against the company and certain of its current and former
officers and directors.

The allegations, which arise out of the company's past stock
option practices, are similar to those in the suit filed in 2006
entitled, "Vogel et al. v. Jobs et al., Case No. 5:06-cv-05208-
JF," which was dismissed on June 12, 2008.

The complaint purports to be brought on behalf of several
classes of holders of the company's stock and asserts claims
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange
Act.

The complaint seeks rescission of amendments to various stock
option and other incentive compensation plans, an accounting and
damages in an unspecified amount.

On July 22, 2008, the Court stayed this case pending the appeal
in the action styled, "Vogel v. Jobs et al." (Class Action
Reporter, Jan. 7, 2009).

The suit is "Vogel et al. v. Apple, Inc. et al., Case No.
5:2008-cv-03123," filed with the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, Judge Jeremy Fogel, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Patrice L. Bishop, Esq.
          Stull, Stull & Brody
          10940 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2300
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Phone: 310-209-2468
          Fax: 310-209-2087
          e-mail: service@ssbla.com

               - and -

          Gary S. Graifman, Esq. (ggraifman@kgglaw.com)
          Kantrowitz Goldhamer & Graifman PC
          747 Chestnut Ridge Road
          Chestnut Ridge, NY 10977
          Phone: 845-356-2570
          Fax: 845-356-4335


BLUE CROSS: Faces Mich. Suit  Over Treatments for Autistic Kids
---------------------------------------------------------------
Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan is facing a purported class-
action lawsuit filed by a Sylvan Lake mother of an autistic
child, who is alleging that the company is breaching its
contract in refusing to pay for treatments for autistic
children.

The suit was filed in Wayne County Circuit Court on July 30,
2009 by Cheryl Matthews, an Oakland County Circuit family court
judge.  She says that the insurance company has denied claims
for applied behavior analysis, a widely used method to treat
young children who have autism.

The plaintiff alleges that in addition to denying the claims,
the insurance company intentionally thwarts parents who are
seeking to appeal the denials by requiring a lengthy appellate
process and excessive paperwork.


C. R. BARD: Expects Hernia Product Claims Trials in 2010
--------------------------------------------------------
Trials of a limited number of the Hernia Product Claims against
C. R. Bard, Inc. are expected to begin in the first quarter of
2010.

As of July 23, 2009, approximately 1,210 federal and 1,370 state
lawsuits involving individual claims by 2,630 plaintiffs, as
well as two putative class actions, have been filed or asserted
against the company with respect to its Composix(R) Kugel(R) and
certain other core hernia repair products (collectively, the
"Hernia Product Claims").

One class action lawsuit consolidates nine previously-filed
class action lawsuits.

The company and certain plaintiffs have agreed to the dismissal
of approximately 330 lawsuits in the Superior Court of the State
of Rhode Island.  As a result, these lawsuits are not included
in the above figures.

The company voluntarily recalled certain sizes and lots of the
Composix(R) Kugel(R) product beginning in December 2005.

The actions generally seek damages for personal injury resulting
from use of the products.

The putative class actions, none of which has been certified,
seek (i) medical monitoring, (ii) compensatory damages, (iii)
punitive damages, (iv) a judicial finding of defect and
causation and/or (v) attorneys' fees.

On June 22, 2007, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
transferred Composix(R) Kugel(R) lawsuits pending in federal
courts nationwide into one Multidistrict Litigation ("MDL") for
coordinated pre-trial proceedings in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Rhode Island.  The MDL court subsequently
determined to include other hernia repair products in the MDL
proceeding.

Approximately 1,340 of the state lawsuits, involving individual
claims by a substantially equivalent number of plaintiffs, are
pending in the Superior Court of the State of Rhode Island, with
the remainder in various other jurisdictions.

The company expects trials of a limited number of the Hernia
Product Claims to begin in the first quarter of 2010, according
to its July 27, 2009 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2009.

C. R. Bard, Inc. -- http://www.crbard.com/-- is engaged in the
designing, manufacturing, packaging, distribution and sale of
medical, surgical, diagnostic and patient care devices.  The
company sells a range of products worldwide to hospitals,
individual healthcare professionals, extended care facilities
and alternate site facilities.


C. R. BARD: "St. Francis Medical Center" Suit Remains Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
The putative class-action complaint entitled "St. Francis
Medical Center, et al. v. C. R. Bard, Inc., et al.," remains
pending in the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of
Missouri, Southeastern District.

On Feb. 21, 2007, Southeast Missouri Hospital filed a putative
class action complaint on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated against the company and another manufacturer,
Tyco International, Inc.  Tyco was subsequently dismissed from
the action.  The complaint was later amended to add St. Francis
Medical Center as an additional named plaintiff.

The action was re-named as "St. Francis Medical Center, et al.
v. C. R. Bard, Inc., et al. (Civil Action No. 1:07-cv-00031,
U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Missouri, Southeastern
District)" when the court denied Southeast's motion to serve as
a class representative and Southeast was subsequently dismissed
from the lawsuit.  The court granted St. Francis's motion for
class certification and determined the measurement period for
any potential damages.

St. Francis alleges that the company conspired to exclude
competitors from the urological catheter market and that the
company sought to maintain market share by engaging in conduct
in violation of state and federal antitrust laws.

St. Francis seeks injunctive relief and has presented an expert
report that calculates damages of up to approximately $320
million, a figure that the company believes is unsupported by
the facts.

The company's expert report establishes that, even assuming a
determination adverse to the company, the plaintiffs suffered no
damages.  Any damages awarded under the federal antitrust laws
will be subject to statutory trebling.  If ultimately
successful, St. Francis's attorneys are entitled to an award of
reasonable fees and costs.

The trial was scheduled to commence in April 2009, however the
court recently adjourned the trial without setting a new date,
according to the company's July 27, 2009 Form 10-Q Filing with
the U.S. Securities Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2009.

C. R. Bard, Inc. -- http://www.crbard.com/-- is engaged in the
designing, manufacturing, packaging, distribution and sale of
medical, surgical, diagnostic and patient care devices.  The
company sells a range of products worldwide to hospitals,
individual healthcare professionals, extended care facilities
and alternate site facilities.


CONTINENTAL CARBON: $10.5M Deal Reached in "Ponca Tribe" Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A $10.5 million settlement was reached in a class-action lawsuit
brought by the Ponca Tribe of Indians and about 1,800 other
landowners against Continental Carbon Co., CCC USA, Inc., and
China Synthetic Rubber Corp. over alleged pollution damages
caused by black dust from a carbon black plant in Ponca City,
Marie Price of The Journal Record reports.

Under the settlement, plaintiffs' attorneys are to receive a 40-
percent contingency fee or about $4 million, plus $1.6 million
for legal costs, according to The Journal Record.

The settlement said if the plant causes a pollution problem in
the future, the defendants will "repair the injuries they have
caused, and make immediate payment as compensation for damages
they have caused," according to the explanation of the
agreement, reports The Journal Record.

About 5 percent of net settlement proceeds were set aside by the
plaintiffs as a contingency to pay claims of any currently
unknown class members, The Journal Record reported.

The Native American Times previously reported that Continental
Carbon Co., CCC USA, Inc., and China Synthetic Rubber Corp.
reached a $10,500,000 settlement for the class-action lawsuit,
"Ponca Tribe of Indians, et al. v. Continental Carbon Company,
et al., Case No. 05-445 (W.D. Okla.)," (Class Action Reporter,
June 24, 2009).

The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Oklahoma on April 20, 2005.  It seeks a court order
forcing Continental Carbon to halt polluting the land and air
where the White Eagle community lives.  Also, it demands that
the company clean up polluted properties and seeks damages for
the Ponca Tribe and its people (Class Action Reporter, May 3,
2007).

The complaint alleges trespass, private nuisance, public
nuisance, failure to warn, personal injuries, negligence,
medical monitoring, unjust enrichment and punitive damages.

The defendants named in the suit are Continental Carbon Co.,
China Synthetic Rubber Corp. and its domestic corporation, CSRC
USA and Taiwan Cement Corp.  The parent company is a publicly
traded corporation in Taiwan, which owns the Ponca City carbon
black facility, while CSRC is the fourth-largest producer of
carbon black in the world.

Carbon black, which contains constituent polynuclear aromatic
hydrocarbons, or PAHs, a known carcinogen to humans, is a
reinforcement product in automobile tires and hoses and used as
a colorant in printing inks and resins.  It is also used as
conductivity-imparting filler.

On Feb. 6, 2009 the parties reached an agreement to settle the
case, according to Native American Times.

The court will hold a hearing in this case on July 28, 2009 at
the United States Federal Courthouse in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
at 200 NW 4th Street, Courtroom 501 (Fifth Floor) to consider
whether to approve the settlement and a request by the lawyers
representing all plaintiffs for attorneys fees of 40% of the
settlement fund, plus expenses of approximately $1,800,000.

For more details, contact:

          Class Administrator
          1723 South Boston Avenue
          Tulsa, Oklahoma 74119
          Phone: (918) 398-0762

          Jason Bjorn Aamodt, Esq. (Jason@aamodt.biz)
          Aamodt Law Firm
          1723 S Boston Ave
          Floor 2
          Tulsa, OK 74119
          Phone: 918-347-6169
          Fax: 918-398-0514

               - and -

          Richard Casey Cooper, Esq. (casey@cnwlegal.com)
          Cooper Newsome & Woosley PLLP
          401 S Boston Ave
          Suite 3300
          Tulsa, OK 74103
          Phone: 918-592-3300
          Fax: 918-592-7816


CBRE REALTY: Conn. Court Grants Dismissal Bid in Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut granted
a motion to dismiss the Second Amended Class Action Complaint in
the matter, "Hutchison v. CBRE Realty Finance, Inc. et al., Case
No. 3:07-cv-01599-SRU," Alison Frankel of Am Law Litigation
Daily reports.

Previously, CBRE Realty Finance, Inc., sought for the dismissal
of a purported securities fraud class-action lawsuit filed in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut (Class
Action Reporter, Sept. 24, 2009).

The lawsuit, which was filed against CBRE Realty Finance and its
chief financial officer and former chief executive officer on
Oct. 30, 2007, is seeking remedies under the Securities Act of
1933, as amended.

The suit alleges that the registration statement and prospectus
relating to the company's October 2006 initial public offering
contained material misstatements and material omissions.

Specifically, the suit alleges that management had knowledge of
certain loan impairments and did not properly disclose or record
such impairments in the financial statements.

The plaintiff seeks to represent a class of all persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired the company's common stock
between Sept. 29, 2006, and Aug. 6, 2007, and seeks damages in
an unspecified amount.

Amended complaints filed on March 25, 2008, and May 6, 2008,
added as defendants the company's chairman and the underwriters
that participated in the company's October 2006 initial public
offering.

On July 29, 2008, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
putative class action suit in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Connecticut, according to the company's Aug. 11,
2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

A copy of the dismissal order is available free of charge at:
              http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?4063

The suit is "Hutchison v. Cbre Rlty Finance Inc et al., Case No.
3:07-cv-01599-SRU," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Connecticut, Judge Stefan R. Underhill, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Nancy A. Kulesa, Esq. (nkulesa@izardnobel.com)
          Izard Nobel, LLP
          20 Church Street, Suite 1700
          Hartford, CT 06103
          Phone: 860-493-6292
          Fax: 860-493-6290

               - and -

          David A. Rosenfeld, Esq. (Drosenfeld@csgrr.com)
          Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins
          58 South Service Road, Suite 200
          Melville, NY 11747
          Phone: 631-367-7100
          Fax: 631-367-1173

Representing the defendants are:

          Robert S. Fischler, Esq.
          (robert.fischler@ropesgray.com)
          Ropes & Gray LLP
          1211 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10036-8704
          Phone: 212-596-9000
          Fax: 212-596-9090

               - and -

          Jennifer Ann Black, Esq. (jblack@mccarter.com)
          McCarter & English
          Financial Center, Suite 304A
          695 E. Main St.
          Stamford, CT 06901
          Phone: 203-399-5921
          Fax: 203-399-5821


GENZYME CORP: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in Massachusetts
----------------------------------------------------------------
     An investor in Genzyme Corp. (Nasdaq: GENZ) has filed a
proposed securities class action lawsuit in the United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts on behalf of
all investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Genzyme Corp.
common stock between June 26, 2008 and July 21, 2009 and alleges
that Genzyme and Henri A. Termeer (President and CEO) issued a
series of materially false and misleading statements in
violation of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act and SEC Rule 10b-5.

     Gardy & Notis, LLP has filed a securities fraud class
action lawsuit on behalf of all investors who purchased or
otherwise acquired Genzyme Corporation (Nasdaq: GENZ) common
stock between June 26, 2008 and July 21, 2009 (Class Action
Reporter, Jan. 31, 2009).

     The lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court
for the District of Massachusetts, and charges defendants
Genzyme and Henri A. Termeer (President and CEO) with issuing a
series of materially false and misleading statements in
violation of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act and SEC Rule 10b-5.

     The complaint alleges that defendants concealed
deficiencies at two of its manufacturing facilities, which
caused a shortage in one of its top-selling products (a drug
called Myozyme) and delayed approval of a new formulation of
that product (a drug known as Lumizyme).  The manufacturing
problems also forced Genzyme to halt production of two other
top-selling products (drugs called Cerezyme and Fabrazyme) due
to contamination at one of the manufacturing facilities.

     On July 22, 2009, Genzyme slashed its earnings and revenue
forecasts for 2009, including its revenue projections for
Myozyme, Cerezyme and Fabrazyme, due to the impact of the
facility shutdown. During the class period, Genzyme's stock has
fallen over 35%, resulting in a loss of over $8 billion to
investors.

     Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of himself and
all other individual and institutional investors who purchased
Genzyme securities between June 26, 2008 and July 21, 2009,
excluding defendants and their affiliates.

For more information, contact:

          Charles Germershausen, Esq.
          (cgermershausen@gardylaw.com)
          Gardy & Notis, LLP
          Phone: 201-567-7377
          Fax: 201-567-7337
          Web site: http://www.gardylaw.com/


HOLLINGER INC: Suit Settlement Reaches Final Stage in Saskatoon
---------------------------------------------------------------
A proposed CAD$43-million settlement of two class-action suits
by shareholders against media baron Conrad Black, his company
Hollinger, Inc., and two major Canadian law firms reached the
final approval stage before a Saskatoon judge, Canwest News
Service reports.

The settlement is still before the courts in Ontario -- where it
is scheduled for an approval hearing Aug. 21, 2009 -- and in
Quebec, where no date has been set for a final hearing,
according to Canwest News Service.

A dozen lawyers representing the various parties attended
Saskatoon Court of Queen's Bench for the closed-door approval
hearing, Regina lawyer Tony Merchant, whose firm represents the
plaintiffs told Canwest News Service.

The judge gave approval, but expressed concern the settlement
does not require payment from Mr. Black or any of the other
individuals named in the suit, Mr. Merchant tells Canwest News
Service.

Instead, it proposes the cost be shared by the Tories LLP law
firm, tax advisory firm KPMG, Hollinger Inc., and Hollinger's
insurance company.


MANULIFE FINANCIAL: Faces Investors' Litigation in Toronto
----------------------------------------------------------
Manulife Financial Corp. and its top executives are facing a
purported class-action lawsuit that alleges that the life-
insurance giant misrepresented to investors its risk management
practices on guaranteed products, TheStar.com reports.

According to the statement of claim, filed in Toronto last week,
Manulife's "inadequate" risk management eventually led to
massive writedowns.  As a result "the price of MFC's securities
declined dramatically," it reads, according to TheStar.com.

The lawsuit, filed by class-action specialists Siskinds LLP, was
brought by trustees of the Ironworkers Ontario Pension Fund.  It
names two company directors, former chief executive and
president Dominic D'Alessandro and chief financial officer Peter
Rubenovitch, who is slated to step down in September,
TheStar.com reported.


ORBCOMM INC: Oct. 15 Hearing Set for $2.45M N.J. Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey will hold
a fairness hearing on Oct. 15, 2009, at 10:00 a.m. for the
proposed $2.45 million settlement in the matter, "Blake
Partners, Inc. v. ORBCOMM, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:07-cv-04517-
WHW-CCC."

The hearing will be held before the Honorable William H. Walls,
U.S.D.J., in Courtroom 4D of the Martin Luther King, Jr. Federal
Building & U.S. Courthouse, 50 Walnut Street, Newark, New Jersey
07101.

It was previously reported that ORBCOMM, Inc. continues to face
a consolidated securities fraud class-action lawsuit in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey, according to the
company's Aug. 11, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June
30, 2008 (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 25, 2008).

On Sept. 20 and 25, 2007, two separate plaintiffs filed
purported class-action complaints before the U.S. District Court
for the District of New Jersey against the company and certain
of its officers.

On June 2, 2008, the Court consolidated the actions, appointed
Erwin Weichel, David Peterson and William Hunt as lead
plaintiffs and approved the lead plaintiff's selection of co-
lead and liaison counsel.

On July 17, 2008, the lead plaintiffs filed their consolidated
complaint against the company and certain of its officers, and
added as defendants the two co-lead underwriters of the
company's initial public offering -- UBS Securities LLC and
Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated.

The consolidated complaint alleges, among other things, that the
company's registration statement related to its IPO in November
2006 contained material misstatements and omissions in violation
of the Securities Act of 1933.

The action cited, among other things, a drop in the trading
price of the company's common stock that followed disclosure on
Aug. 14, 2007, of a change in the company's definition of
billable subscriber communicators and reduced guidance for the
remainder of 2007 released with the company's 2007 second
quarter financial results.

The action seeks to recover compensatory and rescissory damages,
on behalf of a class of shareholders who purchased common stock
in and traceable to the company's IPO on or about Nov. 3, 2006,
through Aug. 14, 2007.

The suit is "Blake Partners, Inc. v. ORBCOMM, Inc. et al., Case
No. 2:07-cv-04517-WHW-CCC," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Jersey, Judge William H. Walls, presiding.

For more details, contact:

          ORBCOMM Securities Litigation
          Claims Administrator c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC
          P.O. Box 8040, San Rafael, CA 94912-8040
          Web site: http://www.gilardi.com

          Ellen Gusikoff Stewart, Esq. (elleng@csgrr.com)
          Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: (619) 231-1058 or (800) 449-4900
          Web site: http://www.csgrr.com/

          Peter S. Pearlman, Esq. (psp@njlawfirm.com)
          Cohn Lifland Pearlman Herrman & Knopf LLP
          Park 80 Plaza West-One
          Saddle Brook, NJ 07663
          Phone: 551-497-7131
          Fax: 201-845-9423
          Web site: http://www.njlawfirm.com/

               - and -

          Jack Fruchter, Esq.
          Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP
          One Penn Plaza, Suite 2805
          New York, New York 10119
          Phone: (212) 279-5050
          Web site: http://www.aftlaw.com/


PANALPINA WORLD: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in Texas
-----------------------------------------------------------
Panalpina World Transport (Holding) Ltd. is facing a purported
class-action lawsuit in Texas alleging violations of the
Securities Exchange Act, Cameron Langford of The Courthouse News
Service reports.

The suit was filed on July 23, 2009 in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Texas by Deccan Value Advisors Fund
LP, Deccan Value Advisors Fund Ltd., A/D Value Fund L.P. and Y/D
Value Fund L.P., under the caption, "Deccan Value Advisors Fund
LP et al v. A/D Value Fund L.P. et al, Case No. 5:2009cv00080."

Shareholders of the company are claiming that the self-described
"market leader for freight forwarding services in the oil and
gas industry" bribed Nigerian customs agents to boost its
business, and the share price dropped by 78 percent when the
scheme was revealed.  They claim that the Switzerland-based
company violated securities laws by concealing the bribes.

For more details, contact:

          Thomas Robert Ajamie, Esq. (tajamie@ajamie.com)
          Ajamie LLP
          711 Louisiana
          Ste 2150
          Houston, TX 77002
          Phone: 713-860-1600
          Fax: 713-860-1699


PULASKI COUNTY: Ark. Court Denies Certification Bid in "Jackson"
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kansas
denied a request to grant class-action status to a lawsuit that
claims the Pulaski County jail denies some inmates adequate
medical treatment, The Associated Press reports.

The suit was filed on Sept. 10, 2008 by Carl Jackson, under the
caption, "Jackson v. Johnson et al, Case No. 4:2008-cv-02271."
It was filed against Randy Johnson, Floyd G. Villines, Doc
Holliday, Randy Morgan, Dan Greenberg, Wilandra Dean, Donna
Massey, Jim Porter, Patricia Dicker, Ann McCaleb, Mary Louise
Williams, Robert Green, Bob Johnson, Jeff Rollins, Phil Stowers,
Charles Roberson, Steve Goss, Jerry Cox, Kathy Lewinson, Sarah
Speer and several "John Does."

The plaintiff claims he wasn't given a timely court appearance
or adequate medical treatment -- including access to prescribed
medication after his arrest in 2005.  He is asking for monetary
damages for mental and emotional distress and lost wages,
according to The Associated Press.

The Associated Press reported that the suit is also asking for
punitive damages against the current and past sheriffs, the jail
administrator and other as-yet-unidentified officials.

In denying plaintiff's request, Judge Susan Webber Wright says
the monetary damages sought aren't related to requests that she
declare the jail violated inmates' constitutional rights and
issue an order requiring it to correct the violations.  Instead,
she says the damages sought "require proof of individual
injury," reports The Associated Press.

For more details, contact:

          Denise Reid Hoggard, Esq. (dhoggard@cnjlaw.com)
          Chisenhall, Nestrud & Julian, P.A.
          Regions Center
          400 West Capitol Avenue
          Suite 2840
          Little Rock, AR 72201-3415
          Phone: (501) 372-5800

               - and -

          David M. Fuqua, Esq. (dfuqua@fc-lawyers.com)
          Fuqua & Campbell, P.A.
          425 West Capitol Avenue
          Suite 400
          Little Rock, AR 72201
          Phone: 501-374-0200


SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Suits Over F.A.A. Violations Remain Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Two purported class-action lawsuits over alleged violations of
Federal Aviation Administration safety regulations remain
pending against Southwest Airlines Co., according to the
company's July 23, 2009 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S.
Securities Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2009.

On March 6, 2008, F.A.A. notified Southwest Airlines that it was
seeking to fine the airline company approximately $10 million in
connection with an incident concerning the company's potential
non-compliance with an airworthiness directive.  Southwest
accrued the proposed fine as an operating expense in the first
quarter of 2008.

The company has started an "informal conference" with the
F.A.A., which is a process through which the parties may explore
common ground, or differences, to determine whether the matter
will be formally litigated or resolved.

In connection with the incident, during the first quarter and
early second quarter of 2008, the company was named as a
defendant in two putative class action suits on behalf of
persons who purchased air travel from the company while the
company was allegedly in violation of F.A.A. safety regulations.

Claims alleged by the plaintiffs in these two putative class
action complaints include breach of contract, breach of
warranty, fraud or misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, and
negligent and reckless operation of an aircraft. (Class Action
Reporter, May 5, 2009)

Southwest Airlines Co. -- http://www.southwest.com/-- is a
passenger airline that provides scheduled air transportation in
the U.S.  Southwest predominantly serves short-haul routes with
high frequencies.  It complements this service with more medium
to long-haul routes, including transcontinental service.


WAL-MART STORES: Faces FLSA Violations Lawsuit in Texas Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. is facing a purported class-action lawsuit
in Texas, alleging that the company violated the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA), Michelle Massey of Southeast Texas Record
reports.

The suit was filed on July 21, 2009 in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas by Pam Gellhaus, under the
caption, "Gellhaus v. Walmart Stores, Inc., Case No. 9:2009-cv-
00118."

Ms. Gellhaus, who is asking for more than $100,000 in unpaid
overtime wages, alleges that Wal-Mart violated federal
regulations by having its non-exempt hourly employees engage in
overtime work without paying the federally required overtime
pay, according to Southeast Texas Record.

Although the plaintiff filed the lawsuit individually, she is
asking for the court to order the case an "opt-in" class-action
for all overtime wages due and owing to Wal-Mart employees who
are similarly situated.

The plaintiff is asking the court to toll the statute of
limitations arguing Wal-Mart continues to violate the Federal
Fair Labor Standards Act, Southeast Texas Record reported.

According to the complaint, a copy of which was obtained by
Southeast Texas Record, "due to the willful violations of the
Defendant, Plaintiffs, individually, and as a class, seek to
recover all statutory enhancements authorized under federal law,
as well as to toll the statute of limitations to class members
due to Defendant's willful violations of the FLSA."

The suit is seeking damages for unpaid overtime wages, attorney
fees, statutory penalties, pre and post- judgment interest and
exemplary damages, reports Southeast Texas Record.

For more details, contact:

          John Stephen Morgan, Esq. (jsmorgan@hdhlawyers.com)
          Harris, Duesler & Hatfield, LLP
          550 Fannin, Ste. 650
          P.O. Box 830
          Beaumont, TX 77704
          Phone: 14098328382
          Fax: 14098334240


WHIRLPOOL CORP: To Defend Suits on Compressor Business in Brazil
----------------------------------------------------------------
Whirlpool Corp. intends to defend the class action lawsuits in
relation to the company's compressor business in Brazil,
according to the company's July 22, 2009 Form 10-Q Filing with
the U.S. Securities Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2009.

Government authorities in various jurisdictions are conducting
antitrust investigations of the global compressor industry,
including the company's compressor business headquartered in
Brazil.

In 2008, sales of compressors represented approximately 6% of
the company's global net sales.

In February 2009, competition authorities in Brazil, the U.S.
and Europe began to seek documents from the company in
connection with their investigations.  The company received a
grand jury subpoena from the U.S. Department of Justice
requesting documents for the time period 2003 through the
present.  Competition authorities in other jurisdictions have
sought similar information.  On July 9, 2009, the Brazilian
competition investigating authority publicly announced a formal
administrative investigation into alleged violations of
Brazilian antitrust law, which is a customary step following its
preliminary investigation.  The public announcement named
several members of the Brazilian compressor industry, including
certain Whirlpool affiliates and executives located in Brazil.
The company is cooperating fully with the government
investigations and have taken actions, and will continue to take
actions, to minimize its potential exposure.

Since the government investigations became public, the company
has been named as a defendant in numerous related antitrust
lawsuits in various jurisdictions seeking damages in connection
with the pricing of compressors from 1996 to the present.
Several other compressor manufacturers who are the subject of
the government investigations have also been named as defendants
in the litigation.  United States federal lawsuits instituted on
behalf of purported purchasers and containing class action
allegations are being combined in one proceeding in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.

Whirlpool Corp. -- http://www.whirlpoolcorp.com/-- is a global
manufacturer and marketer of home appliances.  It manufactures
and markets a line of appliances and related products, primarily
for home use.  The company's principal products are laundry
appliances, refrigerators and freezers, cooking appliances,
dishwashers, room air-conditioning equipment, and mixers and
other small household appliances.  Whirlpool also produces
hermetic compressors for refrigeration systems.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

ACCURAY INC: Brower Piven Announces Securities Fraud Suit Filing
----------------------------------------------------------------
     Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation announces that a
class action lawsuit has been commenced in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf
of purchasers of Accuray, Inc. (NASDAQ: ARAY) common stock
pursuant or traceable to the Company's Initial Public Offering
(IPO) on or about February 7, 2007, as well as purchasers of the
Company's common stock between February 7, 2007 and August 19,
2008, inclusive.

     The complaint accuses the defendants of violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Securities Act of 1933
by virtue of the Company's failure to disclose in the
registration statement issue for its initial public offering
(IPO) on or about February 7, 2007 and/or during the Class
Period that at the time of Accuray's IPO, Accuray changed its
definition of backlog to include both contingent and non-
contingent contracts such that, beginning in the fiscal quarter
ending March 31, 2007 (the time of the IPO), the total reported
backlog would increase and be materially overstated because the
backlog orders for the CyberKnife system did not have a
substantially high probability of being booked as revenue while
a significant portion of commissions paid to CyberKnife sales
personnel were earned prior to those potential sales being
booked as revenue.

     The complaint further alleges that Accuray did not have
adequate internal controls and procedures to ensure that
potential orders reported as backlog had a substantially high
probability of being booked as revenue; and that, based on the
foregoing, defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their
positive statements about the Company, its backlog, earnings,
operations and prospects.

     According to the complaint, on August 19, 2008, after the
Company announced its fiscal fourth quarter and full year 2008
financial results for the period ended June 28 and revealed that
Accuray removed another $39 million from backlog (making the
total backlog removed in the last 3 quarters of fiscal 2008
approximately $127 million), the value of Accuray's stock
declined significantly.

     No class has yet been certified in the above action.

     A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain
criteria and be made on or before Sept. 21, 2009.

For more details, contact:

          Charles J. Piven, Esq. (hoffman@browerpiven.com)
          Brower Piven
          The World Trade Center-Baltimore
          401 East Pratt Street, Suite 2525
          Baltimore, Maryland 21202
          Phone: 410/332-0030
          Web site: http://www.browerpiven.com


GENZYME CORP: Federman & Sherwood Announces Stock Suit Filing
-------------------------------------------------------------
     Federman & Sherwood announces that on July 29, 2009, a
class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District
Court for the District of Massachusetts against Genzyme Corp.
(NASDAQ: GENZ).

     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 June 26, 2008 through July 21, 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. 28, 2009.

For more details, contact:

          K. Lynn Nunn, Esq. (kln@federmanlaw.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/


INTERNATIONAL GAME: Coughlin Stoia Files Securities Fraud 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 District of
Nevada on behalf of purchasers of International Game Technology
(NYSE: IGT) common stock during the period between November
1, 2007 and October 30, 2008.

     The complaint charges IGT and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.  IGT is a global gaming company that specializes in the
design, manufacture, and marketing of electronic gaming
equipment and network systems, as well as licensing and
services, in North America and internationally.

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

       -- that defendants had diverted substantial funds to the
          development of the Company's SB and AVP gaming
          platforms, which materially compromised the Company's
          growth prospects and undermined defendants’ optimistic
          statements;

       -- that IGT was unable to develop and market its SB and
          AVP gaming platforms within the time frame that
          defendants had represented to investors due to
          increasingly challenging market conditions and
          mounting costs;

       -- that defendants' positive representations concerning
          the Company's shift to non-machine based operations
          were undermined by a slowdown in the gaming industry,
          the impact of which defendants minimized; and

       -- that defendants concealed that, as a result of the
          foregoing, it was not likely that IGT would achieve or
          exceed its earnings guidance.

     As alleged in the complaint, the inflation in the price of
IGT stock came out in response to a series of disclosures by
IGT.

     Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all
purchasers of IGT 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/IGT/


J.P. MORGAN CHASE: Scott+Scott LLP Files Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
     Scott+Scott LLP filed a purported class-action lawsuit
alleging a registration statement and prospectus supplements
issued to investors who purchased or otherwise acquired certain
Mortgage Pass-Though Certificates issued by J.P. Morgan Chase &
Co. (NYSE: JPM) through its issuing trusts were false and
misleading, was removed from state court and is now pending in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

     The Defendants include J.P. Morgan, certain of its
subsidiaries and affiliates, the directors at J.P. who signed
the Registration Statement and the rating agencies that
facilitated the sale of the Certificates.  This is a securities
class action on behalf of all persons who acquired the
Certificates of JP Morgan Issuing Trusts (defined, below)
pursuant and/or traceable to the J.P. Morgan Acceptance
Corporation I Registration Statement No. 333-141607 and
accompanying Prospectus and Prospectus Supplements, for
violations of the Securities Act of 1933.

     The J.P. Morgan Issuing Trusts at issue in this action
include:

       -- JP Morgan Mortgage Trust 2007-S2
       -- JP Morgan Mortgage Trust 2007-S3
       -- JP Morgan Mortgage Trust 2007-A3
       -- JP Morgan Mortgage Trust 2007-A4
       -- JP Morgan Alternative Loan Trust 2007-S1
       -- JP Morgan Alternative Loan Trust 2007-A2
       -- JP Morgan Mortgage Acquisition Trust 2007-CH4
       -- JP Morgan Mortgage Acquisition Trust 2007-CH5
       -- JP Morgan Mortgage Trust 2007-A5
       -- JP Morgan Mortgage Trust 2007-A6
       -- JP Morgan Mortgage Acquisition Trust 2007-CH3
       -- JP Morgan Mortgage Acquisition Trust 2007-CH6

     A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain
criteria and be made on or before Sept. 28, 2009.

     The complaint alleges that on March 27, 2007, J.P. Morgan
and the other Defendants caused the Registration statements to
be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") in
connection with and for the purpose of issuing hundreds of
millions of dollars of Certificates through J.P. Morgan Issuing
Trusts listed above.  The J.P. Morgan Issuing Trusts issued the
Certificates pursuant to the Registration Statements, which
explained the structure of the Issuing Trusts and provided an
overview of the Certificates.  The Certificates were then sold
to investors by underwriters pursuant to a series of prospectus
supplements that were also filed with the SEC and incorporated
by reference into the Registration Statements.  Each Prospectus
Supplement included a detailed description of the particular
J.P. Morgan Issuing Trust and the Certificates it would issue.
The Registration Statements further represented that the
mortgages underlying the Certificates were investment-grade and
were subject to specific loan underwriting and appraisal
standards were based on and met such standards.

     The Certificates entitled investors to receive monthly
distributions of interest and principal on cash flows paid by
the borrowers on the mortgages held by the J.P. Morgan Issuing
Trusts.  As the underlying mortgage borrowers in each issuance
paid their mortgages, distributions were to be made to the
investors of the particular Certificate as disclosed in the
Prospectus Supplement disseminated with respect to that
Certificate.  If the underlying borrowers did not pay their
mortgages, losses passed to investors based on the seniority of
their Certificates.  Consequently, the investment quality of the
Certificates was inextricably connected to the quality of the
mortgage loan pools held by each J.P. Morgan Issuing Trust.

     However, as the complaint alleges, J.P. Morgan, and certain
of its entities, failed to disclose in the Registration
Statements that the loan originators that originated the
mortgages to borrowers had ignored and/or never intended to
follow the stated underwriting and appraisal standards and
guidelines, and that loan purchasing guidelines were ignored.
The underlying mortgages were also loans on properties for which
the collateral appraisals materially overstated the value of the
underlying properties.  The Certificates that were sold to
investors as investment-grade instruments were later revealed to
be below investment-grade instruments.  Additionally, as
underlying mortgage borrowers became delinquent, defaulted and
suffered foreclosures, the purportedly investment-grade
Certificates were downgraded, cash flows were reduced and the
Certificates were significantly reduced in value.  The complaint
further alleges that as a direct and proximate result of
defendants' false and materially misleading statements and
material omissions, investors suffered damages when the truth
about the risk profile and value of the Certificates became
known and the price dropped.

     A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain
criteria and be made on or before Sept. 28, 2009.

For more details, contact:

          Scott + Scott LLP
          Phone: (800) 404-7770 or (860) 537-5537
          e-mail: scottlaw@scott-scott.com


OPPENHEIMER ATM-FREE: Holzer Holzer Announces Stock Suit Filing
---------------------------------------------------------------
     Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC announces that a class action
lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for
the District of Colorado on behalf of all persons or entities
who purchased Class A, Class B and/or Class C shares of the
Oppenheimer ATM-Free New York Municipals (NASDAQ: OPNYX)
(NASDAQ: ONYBX) (NASDAQ: ONYCX) offered by OppenheimerFunds,
Inc. between May 21, 2006 and October 21, 2008, inclusive.

     The lawsuit alleges that OppenheimerFunds, along with other
defendants, violated the Securities Act of 1933 by
misrepresenting the Fund's investment strategy.  The complaint
also alleges that material facts were omitted from the
Registration Statements/Prospectuses issued in connection with
the offerings of these Funds.

     A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain
criteria and be made on or before Aug. 7, 2009.

For more details, contact:

          Corey D. Holzer, Esq. (cholzer@holzerlaw.com)
          Marshall P. Dees, Esq. (mdees@holzerlaw.com)
          Phone: (888) 508-6832
          Web site: http://www.holzerlaw.com


SKILLED HEALTHCARE: Kendall Law Group Announces Lawsuit Filing
--------------------------------------------------------------
     Kendall Law Group, led by a former federal judge and U.S.
Attorney, announces that a lawsuit has been filed on behalf of
Skilled Healthcare (NYSE: SKH) shareholders who purchased stock
between May 14, 2007 through June 9, 2009. Also included are
those who purchased common stock pursuant or traceable to the
Company's Initial Public Offering on February 7, 2007.

     According to the Complaint, filed in the Central District
of California, defendants violated the federal securities laws
by misrepresenting the true amount of its income in its IPO
prospectus.  Then, on June 9, Skilled Healthcare announced that
the Company's prior financial statements for the annual and
quarterly periods between January 1, 2006 and March 31, 2009
should no longer be relied upon and that the Company expected to
restate those financial statements.  That announcement caused
the stock to drop 9 percent.

     A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain
criteria and be made on or before Sept. 22, 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, 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  * * *