/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/100302.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Tuesday, March 2, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 42


AUSTRALIA: 600 Plaintiffs Sue Over 2003 Canberra Brush Fires
BANK OF AMERICA: Sued in Mass. for Failure to Modify Mortgage
BRIGGS & STRATTON: Settles Misleading Lawnmower Label Litigation
COLORADO: State Retirees Sue to Block Pension Reductions
CORRIGAN OIL: $900K Bad Automatic Transmission Fluid Settlement

DRAM ANTITRUST: Settlement Reportedly Near in Long-Running Case
ELECTRONIC GAME: Rosen Scouts for Shareholders after Restatement
FARMERS INSURANCE: Requests Bond to Cover Discovery Costs in Ark.
HURONIA REGIONAL CENTRE: Accused of Mistreating Mentally Disabled
LEAP WIRELESS: Settles Securities Litigation for $13.75 Million

MONEYGRAM INTERNATIONAL: Inks $80 Million Stockholder Settlement
PORT LINCOLN: Australian Homeowners Explore Post-Fire Class Suit
ROYAL BANK: Canadin Bank Sued for Role in Earl Jones Ponzi Scheme
SMITHTOWN BANCORP: Coughlin Files Shareholder Suit in E.D.N.Y.
STORM FINANCIAL: Commonwealth Bank Threatened with Class Action

TENNESSEE VALLEY: Plaintiffs Want Coal Ash Lawsuits Consolidated
TOYOTA MOTOR: Spartanburg Lawyer Moves for Consolidation in S.C.
UNITED KINGDOM: South Australians Join Maralinga Class Action
VERIZON WIRELESS: N.J. Lawsuit Challenges Data-Service Fees
WELLS FARGO: Sued in Mass. for Failure to Modify Mortgage

* "Attorney of the Year" Michael Dowd Joins Coughlin Stoia


AUSTRALIA: 600 Plaintiffs Sue Over 2003 Canberra Brush Fires
AAP, via heraldsun.com.au, reports that the Australian Capital
Territory and New South Wales governments will be sued for
damages resulting from the 2003 Canberra firestorm.

More than 600 plaintiffs, including victims and insurance
companies, will take their case to the ACT Supreme Court today.

The group is seeking an estimated $100 million for injuries and
losses from the bushfires that killed four people and destroyed
nearly 500 houses.

It argues the duty of care was breached because emergency
services failed to extinguish fires that had broken out in rugged
bushland in neighbouring NSW 10 days before the firestorm struck.

The hearing has been set down for 12 weeks.

BANK OF AMERICA: Sued in Mass. for Failure to Modify Mortgage
Stella M. Hopkins at McClatchy Newspapers reports that more
frustrated homeowners turned to federal court this week for help
with their mortgages, saying Bank of America failed to provide
promised payment modifications.

Johnson v. Defendant: BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP, a subsidiary
of Bank of America, N.A., Case No. 10-cv-10316 (D. Mass) (Zobel,
J.), seeks class action status.  

The plaintiff-borrower was granted a trial modification,
according to court documents, but hasn't received long-term
modifications despite having submitted all required documents and
made timely payments for more than three months.

The claims are simple, the lawsuit says: "When a large financial
institution promises to modify an eligible loan to prevent
foreclosure, homeowners who live up to their end of the bargain
expect that promise to be kept."

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kevin Costello, Esq.
          Shennan Alexandra Kavanagh, Esq.
          Gary E. Klein, Esq.
          727 Atlantic Avenue, 2nd Floor
          Boston, MA 02111
          Telephone: 617-357-5500

               - and -

          Michael Raabe, Esq.
          Stuart T. Rossman, Esq.
          170 Common Street, Suite 300
          Lawrence, MA 01840-1507
          Telephone: 978-686-6900

Bank of America said it couldn't comment on the lawsuit because
it hadn't yet been served. The Charlotte bank has said its
"extraordinary measures" include sending workers to borrowers'
homes, to help them fulfill requirements for long-term

BRIGGS & STRATTON: Settles Misleading Lawnmower Label Litigation
FOXBusiness reports that equipment manufacturer Briggs & Stratton
has entered into an agreement to resolve more than 65 class-
action lawsuits.

The suits allege that Briggs & Stratton placed misleading labels
on its lawnmower engines.  The settlement was submitted to Judge
Adelman of the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Wisconsin for preliminary approval.

The company has consented to a settlement of $51 million, along
with an injunctive relief over the labeling of engines for 10
years.  As reported in the Jan. 15, 2009, edition of the Class
Action Reporter, the labeling dispute focused on its engines'
horsepower rating.  Plaintiffs say they were led to believe they
were getting more power by purchasing more expensive models, when
that wasn't the case.  

If the settlement is approved, it will end litigation that began
as early as 2004.  

In the third quarter of fiscal 2010, the company will recognize a
pretax expense of around $31 million related to the settlement.
The company continues to deny any wrongdoing.

COLORADO: State Retirees Sue to Block Pension Reductions
The law firms of Stember Feinstein Doyle & Payne, LLC, and
Richard Rosenblatt and Associates, LLC, filed a class action
lawsuit last week on behalf of Colorado Public Employees'
Retirement Association (PERA) retirees challenging the newly-
passed amendments to PERA which reduce the annual increase to the
retirees' pension benefits.

The suit charges that the new law, which was signed by the
governor a week ago today, is unconstitutional because it impairs
the retirees' contractual rights to receive pension benefits at
the levels promised them when they became eligible to retire or
when they actually retired.

"Both the United States and Colorado Constitutions bar reductions
in pension benefits once the right to those pension vests. And
that is exactly what the legislature did here," said:

          Stephen M. Pincus, Esq.
          1705 Allegheny Building
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: 412-281-8400

one of the attorneys for the retirees.

From 1994 until now, state law has guaranteed annual pension
adjustments, either through a cost of living adjustment (COLA) or
a guaranteed 3.5% yearly increase. Citing PERA's underfunding,
the Legislature recently passed Senate Bill 10-001, which
eliminated the 3.5% annual increase in effect since 2001.

"The Colorado Supreme Court has repeatedly held that once a
public employee is eligible for retirement, his pension benefits
may not be diminished," said lead plaintiffs' attorney William T.
Payne. "This includes not just his base benefit but also any
guaranteed, annual increase."

In a 2004 formal Opinion, then-Attorney General Ken Salazar
acknowledged that "[w]hen a PERA member retires from active
service and begins receiving a pension, the member's pension
becomes a vested contractual obligation of the pension program
that is not subject to unilateral change of any type by the
General Assembly. "

As a result of the new 2% cap on the COLA, retirees will lose
millions of dollars in promised benefits. For example, a public
employee who retired in 2002 and who was eligible for $2,772 a
month (the average PERA benefit in 2008) will lose more than
$165,000 in promised benefits during the next twenty years.

"This lawsuit is about the state complying with its own
Constitution," said plaintiff Gary R. Justus, a retired Denver
Public Schools math teacher. "The General Assembly is trying to
correct its past mistakes on the backs of the retirees. We can't
go back and restart our careers."

Denver Public School retirees are also included in the suit as
their pension plan became part of PERA on January 1 of this year.
The new law eliminates the guaranteed 3.25% annual increase owed
to them.

Justus, et al. v. State of Colorado, et al., Case No. 10-cv-_____
(D. Colo.), asks the court to rule that the recent changes are
unconstitutional and to order the defendants not to implement

The other named plaintiff, Kathleen Hancock, retired from the
Colorado Department of Labor in 2001.  The suit is filed on
behalf of approximately 100,000 PERA members who became eligible
to retire or who have retired since March 1, 1994, when annual
pension increases were first guaranteed under state law.
Defendants are the State of Colorado, PERA, Governor Bill Ritter,
PERA Board Chair Mark J. Anderson and PERA Board Vice Chair Sara
J. Valt.

Plaintiffs are represented by Stember Feinstein Doyle & Payne,
LLC -- http://www.stemberfeinstein.com/-- a Pittsburgh, Pa.,law  
firm that has brought numerous class actions challenging the
elimination or reduction of retiree benefits. Recently, Stember
Feinstein Doyle & Payne represented about 750,000 retirees from
GM, Ford and Chrysler in restructuring their retiree health
benefits and the firm is currently involved in cases in the
public sector similar to this one in Massachusetts and New
Hampshire. Richard Rosenblatt, Esq. is a well-respected and
experienced labor and employment attorney based in Greenwood
Village, Colorado.

Copies of the Complaint and the 2004 Attorney General Formal
Opinion are available at:


More background on the decrease to the PERA COLA and the public
employee retiree organization which has opposed it is available
at http://www.saveperacola.com/

CORRIGAN OIL: $900K Bad Automatic Transmission Fluid Settlement
Dennis Pelham at Daily Telegram reports that owners of vehicles
that received contaminated automatic transmission fluid in 2005
and 2006 could share in a $900,000 class action lawsuit

The lawsuit -- Kohn, et al. v. Corrigan Oil, Case No. 09-1015 NZ
(Mich. Cir. Ct., Washtenaw Cty.) -- is one of two claims brought

          John J. Koselka, Esq.
          221 North Main Street, Suite 300
          Ann Arbor, MI 48104
          Telephone: 734-213-1144

against Corrigan Oil Co. of Brighton.  The company is accused of
distributing bulk transmission fluid to shops in southeast and
southcentral Michigan that was contaminated. Thousands of
vehicles may have been damaged, Mr. Koselka said.

A tentative settlement in a class action case on behalf of
vehicle owners was reached last week in Washtenaw County Circuit
Court. Judge Melinda Morris certified the case as a class action
and set an April 7 hearing for class members to object. Claims
for a share of the settlement are to be submitted by April 4.

Corrigan Oil Co. is not making any admission of liability as part
of the settlement, according to the company's defense lawyers:

          Janice G. Hildenbrand, Esq.
          Brian D. Einhorn
          4000 Town Center, Suite 909
          Southfield, MI 48075
          Telephone: 248-355-4141

The Brighton-based company has been a highly reputable
distributor during its 65-year history, Ms. Hilenbrand said.

A separate lawsuit on behalf of three transmission repair shops
was tried last year in Jackson County. A circuit court jury there
awarded the shops more than $2.2 million as compensation for
expenses of repairing customers' damaged vehicles and for lost
business. Two of the shops claimed they had to close their doors
because of the damages they suffered.

The award ranked as the 13th largest in Michigan last year.

Corrigan Oil was preparing to appeal the jury decision when an
agreement for an undisclosed settlement amount was reached last
fall, Mr. Koselka said.  Some of the money being paid to the
transmission shops will help them with liability claims filed by
customers, he said.

Individual vehicle owners from throughout the region, including
Lenawee County, are covered in the class action lawsuit in
Washtenaw County, Mr. Koselka said. The settlement, if given
final court approval after the April 7 hearing, would be
distributed among all the legitimate claims that are filed by
April 4. The amount each vehicle owner receives will depend on
how many claims are verified, he said.

The contaminated fluid was distributed to a large number of auto
service shops where it was used in transmission rebuilds and
fluid changes, Mr. Koselka said. An estimated 70,000 gallons of
contaminated fluid was distributed. The three shops in Jackson
County accounted for only 3 percent of it, so a large number of
vehicles may have been damaged.

"The numbers could be very large. It could be thousands," Mr.
Koselka said. "How many of those are still out there after all
these years may not be so large. You still have to own the car."

To claim a share of the settlement, an owner must submit a
notarized, sworn statement identifying what shop provided the
automatic transmission fluid and that it occurred between Jan. 1,
2005, and Nov. 1, 2006. Records will show if the date and
location match with the contaminated fluid distribution, he said.

Each claim must also include proof the vehicle is registered with
the same owner as at the time it received the bad transmission
fluid, he said. That requirement may disqualify many vehicle
owners, he said.

"Most people have their cars, statistically, only three years,"
Mr. Koselka said.

DRAM ANTITRUST: Settlement Reportedly Near in Long-Running Case
Dan Levine at The Recorder reports that the sprawling antitrust
class action against computer memory manufacturers is about to

The deal will end years of litigation between companies -- like
Micron Technology Inc., Hynix Semiconductor Inc. and Infineon
Technologies -- and indirect purchasers of DRAM memory chips,
which includes California and several other states. It avoids a
risky oral argument in the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit: Plaintiffs asked the court to remove the case from
its March hearings calendar, which the court did.

Direct purchasers of DRAM settled a different class action long
ago, to the tune of $325 million. But the two cases are very
different, and no details about the indirect settlement have been

Several companies and executives pleaded guilty to criminal price
fixing in the DRAM chip market. Two class actions proceeded on
the civil side: one on behalf of customers who purchased DRAM
directly, like computer manufacturers. The other involved
indirect plaintiffs: customers who bought computers that
contained DRAM chips.

But the indirect case ran into trouble before Northern District
of California Judge Phyllis Hamilton, who ruled that the
plaintiffs did not have standing to pursue a swath of claims
against the companies. Under antitrust law, indirect customers
did not participate in the same market as the DRAM manufacturers,
Hamilton ruled.

"A contrary conclusion runs the risk of opening the floodgates to
potential litigation," Judge Hamilton wrote in 2008. "In today's
current business climate, and with increasingly globalized
markets, nearly all markets that service one another can be said
to be 'related' to such a degree that the impact of one upon
another could allegedly be 'proven' with the use of

Judge Hamilton acknowledged the "devastating" effect of her
ruling on the plaintiffs' case. They appealed, but it was a risk:
Should the 9th Circuit affirm Judge Hamilton, her holdings would
extend far beyond the DRAM case.

"It would have jeopardized the plaintiff indirect purchaser
business model," said:

          Michael Tubach, Esq.
          Two Embarcadero Center, 28th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111-3823
          Telephone: 415-984-8876

who represents Hynix. However, the appeal had risks for the
defendants, too.

"If we were reversed, it would have revived a substantial
percentage of the claims on which plaintiffs originally sued,"
Mr. Tubach said.

Liaison plaintiff attorney:

          Francis O. Scarpulla, Esq.
          44 Montgomery Street, Suite 3400
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: 415-693-0700

did not return calls for comment.

"The parties have reached an agreement in principle to the terms
of a settlement in this and related actions, and are currently
negotiating a final settlement agreement," plaintiff attorney:

          Josef D. Cooper, Esq.
          COOPER & KIRKHAM, P.C.
          357 Tehama St, Second Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94103

wrote to the 9th Circuit.

The value of the direct plaintiff settlement should be viewed
separately and independently from the indirect case, said:

          Bruce L. Simon, Esq.
          44 Montgomery Street, Suite 2450
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: 415-433-9000

who was one of the lead lawyers representing direct purchasers.

"There are issues with the indirect case that the directs didn't
have to contend with, which would make an assessment of the
litigation risk different," Mr. Simon said.

Once the indirect purchasers ink a final deal, they will return
to Judge Hamilton's court so she can sign off.

ELECTRONIC GAME: Rosen Scouts for Shareholders after Restatement
Alan Fein at AXcess News reports that micro cap technology stock,
Electronic Game Card Inc. (OTCBB: EGCI), saw its auditors
withdraw three years of financials associated with a UK checking
account whose funds could not be verified as belonging to EGCI.  
The SEC promptly halted trading.  Now a class-action lawsuit is

On Friday, February 26, 2010, the law firm of Laurence Rosen,
Esq., The Rosen Law Firm L.P., announced it was seeking
shareholders in Electronic Game Card, Inc. who purchased shares
between April 5, 2007 and February 19, 2010, saying "you have
important legal rights that may form the basis of a claim for
damages against the Company for issuing inaccurate financial
It appears from Rosen's publicity that a class-action lawsuit is
in the works, Mr. Fein says.  

The problem stemmed from a February 12, 2010 notice sent to
Electronic Game Card by its auditors, Mendoza Berger and Company,
LLP (M&B), informing the Company M&B was withdrawing its audit
opinions for EGCI's financial statements for the years ended
December 31, 2006, 2007 and 2008 due to "irregularities in the
audit confirmation of a bank account represented to M&B as having
been held by Electronic Game Card (UK) Limited ("EGC Ltd"), a
wholly owned subsidiary of EGCI that conducts its European

On February 19, 2010 the Company filed an 8-K announcing that its
auditors had withdrawn their audit opinions.  That same day, the
SEC issued an Order temporarily suspending trading in the
Company's stock because "there is a lack of current and accurate
information concerning the securities of Electronic Game Card,
Inc. because of questions regarding the accuracy of assertions by
EGMI, and by others, in financial disclosures to investors
concerning, among other things, the Company's assets."

"As a result of the trading suspension, EGCI's shares are
effectively illiquid and shareholders have been damaged,"
asserted Rosen.

The Company says it plans to restate its financial statements for
the periods in question.  But that won't stop Rosen's law firm,
which specializes in representing investors "that fall victim to
securities fraud and corporate misconduct," according to a
statement on the law firm's Web site.

Electronic Game Card CEO, Kevin Donovan, was not available for
comment.  The Company's website is offline and a single page was
post on Saturday stating: "We are currently experiencing
technical difficulties on this website."  A search of pages on
the Site returned a 404 error, meaning they were removed from the

FARMERS INSURANCE: Requests Bond to Cover Discovery Costs in Ark.
Michelle Massey at The Southeast Texas Record reports that six
years into a pending Arkansas class action lawsuit, and still
maintaining their innocence against the plaintiffs' allegations,
defendant Farmers Insurance Co. wants to recoup the millions they
have spent providing documents to the plaintiffs' attorneys.

Farmers, one of the few remaining defendants who is still
refusing to pay a settlement, is asking the Honorable Kirk
Johnson in Chivers v. State Farm, et al., Case No 2004-294-3
(Ark. Cir. Ct., Miller Cty.), to enforce the Arkansas Cost Bond
Statute and order the non-resident plaintiffs to pay a bond to
cover the insurance company's out-of-pocket costs.

In response to the request, the plaintiff's are challenging the
constitutionality of the statute with the Arkansas Attorney

The original class action, which was filed Sept 8, 2004, in the
Circuit Court of Miller County, Ark., accuses hundreds of
insurance companies of not paying the general contractors'
overhead and profit or not accounting for the cost of a general
contractor's services when estimating the repair costs under
their homeowners' policies. Although the insurance companies paid
previous their client's previous damages claims, the lawsuit
argues that plaintiffs are entitled to additional payments.

The class action alleges claims of civil conspiracy, unjust
enrichment, fraud, and constructive fraud.

One of many insurance companies that believe this Arkansas case
involves discovery abuse, Farmers has consistently asked Judge
Johnson for protective orders against the plaintiff's extensive
requests for production of documents.

Initially, the plaintiffs agreed to allow all the insurance
companies to provide a 2,000 page-sampling of their case files,
instead of producing all their claims files as previously

Farmers filed numerous motions seeking protective orders and a
court enforcement of the agreement to reduce the request of claim
files. Many of the motions, some almost six years old, still
remain undecided by Judge Johnson. The judge maintains he will
not violate Arkansas law and delve into the issues of the
litigation prior to class certification.

To some extent, Farmers has attempted to comply with the
outrageous requests for documents, it has produced millions of
pages of claim files and had the files converted to the requested
format. In its most recent motion, Farmers states it has spent at
least $6 million on this production and coupled with mounting
defense fees and costs, it wants the plaintiffs to post that $6
million in a bond.

Farmers argues that the costs of its complying with the Court's
discovery order is imposing an "undue burden and expense" and is
depriving the company of its property pre-judgment in violation
of the Fifth Amendment.

The plaintiffs are represented by:

          John C. Goodson, Esq.
          Matt Keil, Esq.
          KEIL & GOODSON PA
          406 Walnut St.
          Texarkana, AR 71854
          Telephone: (870) 772-4113

               - and -  

          Michael B. Angelovich, Esq.
          Cary Patterson, Esq.
          Brady Paddock, Esq.
          Christopher Johnson, Esq.
          2900 St. Michael Dr., 5th Floor
          Texarkana, TX 75503
          Telephone: (903) 223-3999

HURONIA REGIONAL CENTRE: Accused of Mistreating Mentally Disabled
Julie Langpeter the the Olillia Packet & Times reports that
lawyers for former Huronia Regional Centre (HRC) residents are in
court this week to start down the path of a class-action lawsuit
that alleges they suffered while living at the facility for the
mentally disabled.

The suit claims that the defendants -- the province and the HRC
-- failed to care for and protect the HRC's residents, resulting
in loss or injury, including psychological trauma, pain and
suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, and exacerbation of
existing mental disabilities.

If this case makes it to court and there is found to be merit to
the allegations, the payout could be huge. The action covers
residents who lived at the facility between 1876 and 2008 -- who
number in the thousands -- as well as certain of their family

If the province makes a financial settlement, it is certain the
lawyers who are handling the case will be significantly enriched.

The families of residents who dropped their children off at the
institution were certainly negatively affected by the experience.
Even though institutionalizing the mentally disabled was the
prevailing wisdom for a long time, it must haunt mothers and
fathers who gave up their children to what, at the time, was seen
as the best thing for them.

To consider that anything hurtful was happening to their children
inside the halls and on the grounds of the HRC must be like a
knife to the heart.

The important part of the case, though, is the surviving
residents. Last year, the final residents were moved out of the
century-old institution and into group homes.

It is these people who are the legacy of HRC, and any financial
benefit that may or may not come out of this class-action suit
should help these people to live out the rest of their lives in

The past cannot be changed, and money cannot make up for the
sorts of abuses that are alleged in this class action.

The class action has not yet been certified by the courts, and
may go no further than these proceedings, but if it does, the
focus needs to stay on the former residents and how they can
benefit from the outcome of the case.

LEAP WIRELESS: Settles Securities Litigation for $13.75 Million
Leap Wireless International, Inc., a leading provider of
innovative and value-driven wireless communications services,
reached a settlement in the consolidated securities class action
lawsuits pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of California.  The lawsuits being settled
relate to the Company's 2007 restatement of certain financial
statements to correct for errors in previously reported service
revenues, equipment revenues, and operating expenses. Although
the Company and the individual defendants have denied any
liability or responsibility for the claims made and make no
admission of any wrongdoing, the Company believes that it is in
the best interests of its stockholders to settle the matters.

                         Insurers Will Pay

The settlement is contingent on court approval and provides for,
among other things, dismissal of the lawsuits with prejudice, the
granting of broad releases of the defendants, and a payment to
the plaintiffs of $13.75 million, which would include payment of
any attorneys' fees for plaintiffs' counsel. The Company
anticipates that the entire settlement amount will be paid by its
insurers. On February 18, 2010, the lead plaintiff filed a motion
seeking preliminary approval by the court of the settlement and
approval of a form of notice to potential settlement class

                             About Leap

Leap -- http://www.leapwireless.com/-- provides innovative,  
high-value wireless services to a fast-growing, young and
ethnically diverse customer base. With the value of unlimited
wireless services as the foundation of its business, Leap
pioneered its Cricket(R) service. The Company and its joint
ventures operate in 35 states and the District of Columbia and
hold licenses in 35 of the top 50 U.S. markets. Through its
affordable, flat-rate service plans, Cricket offers customers a
choice of unlimited voice, text, data and mobile Web services.
Headquartered in San Diego, Calif., Leap is traded on the NASDAQ
Global Select Market under the ticker symbol "LEAP."

MONEYGRAM INTERNATIONAL: Inks $80 Million Stockholder Settlement
MoneyGram International, a global leader in the payment services
industry, yesterday entered into memoranda of understanding to
settle federal securities class and stockholder derivative
actions pending in federal court.  The claims asserted in In re
MoneyGram International, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No.
08-cv-00883 (D. Minn) (Doty, J.), arise out of the subprime
related losses in 2007 and 2008.

"We are pleased to be able to enter into these agreements and
bring to conclusion these legal proceedings," said Pamela H.
Patsley, MoneyGram chairman and CEO. "My goal since joining
MoneyGram has been to re-focus the organization on our core
business and transform the company into a global market leader.
These agreements will put these claims behind us and move
MoneyGram another step forward towards the achievement of that

Under terms of the securities class action memorandum of
understanding, the plaintiffs agree in principle to settle the
claims for an $80 million cash payment, all but $20 million of
which will be paid by the Company's insurance coverage. The
derivative claims memorandum of understanding provides for
changes to MoneyGram's business, corporate governance and
internal controls, some of which have already been implemented in
whole or in part in connection with MoneyGram's recent
recapitalization. The memoranda of understanding are subject to
negotiation and execution of definitive settlement documents
containing usual and customary settlement agreement terms, notice
to the class and shareholders, and approval of the Court.

MoneyGram's three remaining pre-recapitalization directors,
having helped MoneyGram successfully manage the transition of the
company's ownership, management and governance and resolve the
litigation described above, have determined not to seek re-
election as directors at MoneyGram's annual meeting for the year
2010 in order to ensure a wholly new post-recapitalization board
and wholly new audit committee.

"MoneyGram is committed to ensuring that its Board of Directors
embodies the highest standards of governance and oversight for
MoneyGram and its shareholders," added Ms. Patsley. "Our
Nominating Committee and board will work to ensure that the
MoneyGram Board of Directors and Audit Committee are comprised of
directors best suited to uphold these standards."

The company has begun a process to identify new director
candidates and anticipates nominating candidates for election to
the board at the 2010 annual meeting of stockholders.

The Class Action Reporter's latest updated about this matter
appeared in its May 26, 2009, edition.  

                    About MoneyGram International

MoneyGram International -- http://www.moneygram.com/-- offers  
more control and more choices for people separated by distance or
with limited bank relationships to meet their financial needs. A
leading global payment services company, MoneyGram International
helps consumers to pay bills quickly and safely send money around
the world in as little as 10 minutes. Its global network is
comprised of 190,000 agent locations in nearly 190 countries and
territories. MoneyGram's convenient and reliable network includes
retailers, international post offices and financial institutions.

PORT LINCOLN: Australian Homeowners Explore Post-Fire Class Suit
ABC West Coast SA reports that victims of the pre-Christmas fire
in Port Lincoln, South Australia, are considering legal action,
possibly a class action.

The fire destroyed 13 homes and caused other extensive damage
after starting on a property on the city's outskirts.

About 30 landowners have hired:

          Michael Coates, Esq.
          PO Box 1755
          Port Lincoln, SA 5606
          Telephone: 08 8682 3399
and have received preliminary advice from a fire expert.

Mr. Coates says it is still too early to decide whether there is
a case for public liability damages from the insurer of the
property where the fire started, but there is enough evidence to
investigate further.

"The group has suffered obviously quite dramatic losses,
including personal trauma, and the task that we're undertaking is
to determine whether anything can legally be done to recover
those losses," Mr. Coates said.

ROYAL BANK: Canadin Bank Sued for Role in Earl Jones Ponzi Scheme
Canwest News Service and the Montreal Gazette reports that a
victim of disgraced former financial adviser Earl Jones sought in
court last month authorization for a class-action lawsuit on
behalf of all affected parties against Royal Bank, whose
Beaconsfield, Que., branch handled much of Jones' banking between
1981 and 2008.

In her Superior Court submission, Montreal resident Virginia
Nelles claims that "in order to carry out his fraudulent Ponzi
scheme," Jones deposited and paid out funds from an account at
Royal Bank titled "Earl Jones in trust," which in effect was
"nothing more than a personal bank account of Earl Jones, as
opposed to a trust account."

Ms. Nelles' submission notes that the bankruptcy trustee
determined about $1 million a year was withdrawn from that
account to pay the personal expenses of Jones and his family, and
argues Jones would not have been able to work his scheme without
"the negligence and wilful blindness of the Royal Bank of

None of the allegations have been proven in court.

The Royal Bank did not respond to calls for comment.

Mr. Jones pleaded guilty Jan. 15 to two charges of using deceit
and falsehood to defraud investors of $50.3 million.  He will be
sentenced this month.

The class action seeks compensation equal to the total amount of
funds deposited by clients in the "Earl Jones In Trust" account
from 1981 to 2008, less amounts they received, plus interest.

SMITHTOWN BANCORP: Coughlin Files Shareholder Suit in E.D.N.Y.
Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins filed Waterford Township
Police & Fire Retirement System v. Smithtown Bancorp, Inc., et
al., Case No. 10-cv-_____ (E.D.N.Y.), last week on behalf of
purchasers of the common stock of Smithtown Bancorp, Inc. between
March 13, 2008, and February 1, 2010, seeking to pursue remedies
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court
no later than 60 days from today. If you wish to discuss this
action or have any questions concerning this notice or your
rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Samuel
H. Rudman or David A. Rosenfeld of Coughlin Stoia at 800/449-4900
or 619/231-1058, or via e-mail at djr@csgrr.com. If you are a
member of this Class, you can view a copy of the complaint as
filed or join this class action online at:


Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as
lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to
do nothing and remain an absent class member.

The complaint charges SBI and certain of its officers and
executives with violations of the Exchange Act. SBI is a bank
holding company, and through its subsidiaries engages in a full
range of commercial and consumer banking services.

The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period,
defendants failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's true financial condition, business and prospects.
Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants failed to
disclose: (i) that the Company's financial results were
artificially inflated due to SBI's material understatement of its
loan loss reserves and SBI's failure to state certain of its
assets at their true fair value; (ii) that the Company improperly
delayed the recognition of its impaired assets in order to
inflate its reported income and asset quality; (iii) that the
Company's internal and disclosure controls were materially
deficient; and (iv) that the Company, through its subsidiary, was
engaged in unsafe and/or unsound banking practices.

On February 1, 2010, SBI issued a press release announcing its
fourth quarter and full year 2009 results, which included a loss
of $19.8 million for the fourth quarter of 2009, or ($1.34) per
fully diluted share. In response to this announcement, on the
next trading day, shares of the Company stock fell approximately
15%, to close at $4.60 per share, on extremely heavy trading

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
the common stock of SBI during the Class Period. The plaintiff is
represented by Coughlin Stoia, which has expertise in prosecuting
investor class actions and extensive experience in actions
involving financial fraud.

Coughlin Stoia, a 180-lawyer firm with offices in San Diego, San
Francisco, New York, Boca Raton, Washington, D.C., Philadelphia
and Atlanta, is active in major litigations pending in federal
and state courts throughout the United States and has taken a
leading role in many important actions on behalf of defrauded
investors, consumers, and companies, as well as victims of human
rights violations.  The Coughlin Stoia Web site at
http://www.csgrr.com/has more information about the firm.

STORM FINANCIAL: Commonwealth Bank Threatened with Class Action
Peter Michael at the Courier Mail reports that Australia's
Commonwealth Bank may yet face a costly class action in the
Federal Court by disgruntled Storm investors, despite a
resolution scheme tipped to cost up to $300 million.

In a landmark deal, the CBA this week revealed it would offer
cash refunds and home loan cuts to up to 2,000 former investors
in Storm Financial who lost homes and life savings in the
corporate collapse just over a year ago.

A lawyer who brokered the settlement on behalf of 1,250 clients:

          Damien Scattini, Esq.
          Slater & Gordon
          300 Adelaide Street, Level 5
          Brisbane, QLD 4000
          Telephone: (07) 3220 2555

said it was a fair outcome and avoided "litigation Armageddon".

But hundreds of unhappy Storm victims are holding out for a
bigger compensation payout ahead of an Australian Securities and
Investment Commission investigation due to be released next

Another lawyer:

          Stewart A. Levitt, Esq.      
          PO Box 850 Darlinghurst 1300 DX
          11563 Sydney Downtown
          Telephone: (02) 9286 3133

who represents 70 Storm victims, said his firm was likely to file
a class action in the Federal Court by Easter.

He cited a legal precedent in the Goodridge vs Macquarie Bank
case in the Federal Court two weeks ago to have a client's entire
portfolio reinstated in full.

Any court damages payout from a class action could be much

"It is unclear how the (CBA) system will work for people whose
homes were over-valued," Mr. Levitt said. "It is also unclear
when hardship provisions will cut in.

"The destitution of the elderly superannuees through the
operation of the CBA/Storm scheme has not been fairly or
adequately addressed."

Storm was Queensland's biggest corporate collapse and had about
14,000 clients -- with about 3000 retirees who invested their
life savings and re-mortgaged their homes. Investors lost about
$3 billion.

Storm Investors Consumer Action Group yesterday said it would now
"redouble" efforts to go after the other banks, including
Macquarie Bank, Westpac, ANZ and Bank of Queensland.

"Some banks have been recalcitrant and are trying to buy time to
see the outcome by ASIC," said SICAG co-chairman Noel O'Brien.

"If ASIC comes in with a better offer, it trumps what is on the

MP Bernie Ripoll, who headed an inquiry into financial services
in the aftermath of the Storm fiasco, urged other banks to follow
the CBA.

An ANZ spokesman said the bank would have a customer resolution
scheme for 200 to 300 clients in a few weeks.

Macquarie Bank refused to comment on the matter.

TENNESSEE VALLEY: Plaintiffs Want Coal Ash Lawsuits Consolidated
Scott Barker at the Knoxville News Sentinel reports that
plaintiffs in three class-action federal lawsuits over the giant
Kingston coal ash spill have joined forces in litigation against
the Tennessee Valley Authority and two of its consultants.

The amended complaint, filed late Thursday in U.S. District
Court, is somewhat changed from the previous three complaints and
redefines the class of potential plaintiffs -- a number that
could run into the hundreds. The lawsuit seeks unspecified
damages, plus payment for medical monitoring for anyone who joins
in the action.

"This new filing should move the case forward more quickly and
efficiently," said Rhon Jones, one of the plaintiffs' attorneys.
"It should also allow the claims of those seeking class action
status to speak with one unified voice."

The three federal court actions are:

  (A) Scofield, et al. v. Tennessee Valley Authority, Case No.
      09-cv-_____ (E.D. Tenn) -- a copy of which is available
      at http://web.knoxnews.com/pdf/tvaspillscofield.pdf--
      in which the Plaintiffs are represented by:

          L. Jeffrey Hagood, Esq.
          Todd J. Moody, Esq.
          Riverview Tower, Suite 2100
          900 South Gay Street
          Knoxville, TN 37902
          Telephone: 865-525-7313

               - and -  

          Jeff Friedman, Esq.
          FRIEDMAN, LEAK
          3800 Colonnade Parkway, Suite 650
          Post Office Box 43219
          Birmingham, AL 35243-3219
          Telephone: 205-278-7000          

  (B) Auchard, et al. v. The Tennessee Valley Authority, Case
      No. 09-cv-_____ (E.D. Tenn)-- a copy of which is available
      at http://web.knoxnews.com/pdf/021909flyashcomplaint.pdf--  
      in which the Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Roger T. May, Esq.
          MAY & RYAN, PLC
          219 Second Ave. N., Suite 300
          Nashville, TN 37201

               - and -  

          Robin L. Greenwald, Esq.
          WEITZ & LUXENBERG, P.C.
          180 Maiden Lane, 17th Floor
          New York, NY 10038
          Telephone: 212-558-5500

               - and -  

          John M. Broaddus, Esq.
          WEITZ & LUXENBERG, P.C.
          210 Lake Drive East, Suite 101
          Cherry Hill, NJ 08005
          Telephone: 856-755-1115

  (C) Giltnane, et al. v. Tennessee Valley Authority, Case No.
      09-cv-_____ (E.D. Tenn) -- a copy of which is available at
      http://web.knoxnews.com/pdf/tvaspillgiltnane.pdf-- in       
      which the Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Elizabeth A. Alexanger, Esq.
          150 Fourth Avenue N., Suite 1650
          Nashville, TN 37219
          Telephone: 615-313-9000

               - and -  

          Elizabeth J. Cabraser, Esq.
          275 Battery Street, 30th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
          Telephone: 415-956-1000

               - and -  

          Paulina do Amaral, Esq.
          250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor
          New York, NY 10013-1413
          Telephone: 212-355-9500

A copy of the complaint filed in Raymond, et al. v. The Tennessee
Valley Authority, No. _____ )Tenn. Cir. Ct., Roane Cty.), is
available http://web.knoxnews.com/pdf/123008tvasuit.pdfand has  
not been removed to federal court.  In this state court
litigation, the Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael Ritter, Esq.
          1670 Oak Ridge Turnpike
          Oak Ridge, TN 37830
          Telephone: 865-482-7734

               - and -  

          Stephen A. Irving, Esq.
          12204 Oakmont Circle
          Knoxville, TN 37922
          Telephone: 865-966-4904

TOYOTA MOTOR: Spartanburg Lawyer Moves for Consolidation in S.C.
Robert W. Dalton at the Spartanburg Herald Journal reports that
one of Spartanburg's top law firms is ready to take on one of the
world's largest automotive companies, and it's angling for a home
court advantage.

The lawyer:

          John B. White Jr., Esq.
          P.O. Box 3547
          Spartanburg, SC 29304
          Telephone: 864-585-5100

wants to consolidate about a dozen class-action lawsuits filed
against Toyota and has filed a motion to have the case heard in
Spartanburg.  The motion was filed Friday in federal court in

The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation in
Washington, D.C., will decide the venue.

Mr. White said Spartanburg would be a prime central location to
handle the cases. He said trying them in California, where Toyota
Motor Sales USA is headquartered, would create an "East Coast-
West Coast nightmare."

"South Carolina is an easy forum for experts and other witnesses
who would have to come in," White said. "Our courthouses are
large enough to handle it, and our judiciary is competent to
handle it."

A Toyota spokesman said the company does not comment on pending

Mr. White is seeking to consolidate lawsuits filed in South
Carolina, California, Florida, Louisiana and West Virginia.  He
is asking for unspecified damages -- but, according to the
lawsuit, he's seeking to have anyone living in the U.S. "who
purchased or leased one new Toyota, Lexus or Scion vehicle
equipped with (Toyota's) electronic throttle control system with
intelligence, but not equipped with a brake override system"
included in the class, so a judgment against the company could
run into the hundreds of millions.

Toyota has recalled about 8.5 million vehicles worldwide because
of complaints of sticky accelerators that caused sudden
acceleration. A number of wrongful-death suits have been filed in
the wake of the recall.

Mr. White's suit accuses Toyota of:

     -- Breach of express warranty;

     -- Breach of implied warranty of merchantability;

     -- Violation of the Magnusson-Moss Warranty Act, which
        states that consumers damaged by the "failure of a
        supplier, warrantor, or service contractor to comply with
        any obligation under this title, or under a written
        warranty, implied warranty or service contract" may file
        suit in an "appropriate" U.S. District Court;

     -- Violation of consumer protection laws.

The suit claims that Toyota has faced "heightened scrutiny"
because of accelerator issues for nearly a decade, and that
almost 40 percent of all unintended acceleration complaints
reported to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration in
2008 involved Toyota models.

Mr. White said the suit comes down to a simple question: Who is
willing to take on the automotive giant to protect consumers.

"Our firm is saying we will," he said.

UNITED KINGDOM: South Australians Join Maralinga Class Action
Bryan Littlely at AdelaideNow reports that more than 100 South
Australians have joined a class action against the British
Ministry of Defence over deaths and disabilities they believe
were caused by nuclear testing at Maralinga more than 50 years

Among them are families of the Woomera babies - more than 60
lives lost, many without explanation, during the decade of
nuclear testing, up to 600km away.

Lawyers running the case say it is "just the tip of the iceberg".
They have heard only from people who are "very confident" they
have a case for compensation, AdelaideNow reports.

Already, families of some of the stillborn children, hours-old
babies and toddlers who account for more than half the plots in
Woomera Cemetery for the 1950s and 1960s, have come forward.

Edith Hiskins, 79, of Willaston, gave birth to a stillborn
daughter, Helene Michelle, in March 1963, and still is not
satisfied with the reason given for her baby's death.

Mrs Hiskins, and her husband John, a serviceman at Woomera, were
told the baby girl was stillborn due to "mild toxemia" - a cause
not given until years after her death and only after they pushed
authorities for a death certificate.

The parents never saw their daughter , who was buried in the
cemetery the next day, and they have never seen her medical
records. "I would like some answers as to why that happened,
because the answers given on her death certificate, I do not find
sufficient," Mrs Hiskins said.

"As far as I know, her records were sealed. It was years before
we even got a death certificate."

Mrs Hiskins said she, or her family, are likely to join the class
action. "There are still questions to be answered and reasons to
be given," she said.

In all, the Woomera Cemetery contains 23 graves for stillborn
babies born in the hospital between December 1953 and September
1968, and a further 46 graves for other children who died around
that period. Autopsies were not always conducted and it is
understood the medical records of those 23 stillborn babies
remain sealed and held by the National Archives of Australia.

Now, as British lawyers search for others to join the class
action against the British Ministry of Defence, they will also
push for the secrets of the Woomera baby graves to be revealed.

Hickman & Rose partners Anna Mazzola and Beth Handley, working
with the Aboriginal Legal Rights Movement in Adelaide, have
collected more than 100 names of people who believe they could
join a class action for compensation from the British Government.

They will apply for the records of the Woomera babies to be made

Secrecy surrounding the disturbing rate of baby deaths and
research suggesting fallout from tests blanketed the town despite
being more than 600km from the Maralinga testing sites, warrants
those families investigating claims as part of the class act, Ms
Mazzola says.

VERIZON WIRELESS: N.J. Lawsuit Challenges Data-Service Fees
Goldman Scarlato & Karon, P.C., a law firm with offices in
Cleveland, Ohio, and Conshohocken, Pa., has filed a consumer
class-action lawsuit against Verizon Wireless in federal court in
New Jersey.  This lawsuit claims that Verizon charged its non-
smartphone customers for data service that these customers never
used. Verizon's allegedly improper data-service charges
oftentimes appeared $1.99 at a time, and this lawsuit strives to
reimburse people and businesses should it turn out that these
charges were improper.

If you believe Verizon charged you for data service that it
shouldn't have and would like to see a copy of this lawsuit,
please e-mail us at info@gsk-law.com.  Or if you'd like to learn
more about this lawsuit, contact:

          Daniel R. Karon, Esq.
          55 Public Square, Suite 1500
          Cleveland, OH 44113
          Telephone: (216) 622-1851.

Mr. Karon -- http://www.gsk-law.com/attorney_bio.aspx?a_id=1--  
is an attorney whose practice includes representing wireless-
telephone customers in class-action cases. He also teaches class-
action law as an adjunct professor of law at Cleveland State
University's Cleveland-Marshall College of Law; lectures on
class-action law at the Ohio State University College of Law; and
has published many scholarly articles on class-action law.

WELLS FARGO: Sued in Mass. for Failure to Modify Mortgage
Stella M. Hopkins at McClatchy Newspapers reports that more
frustrated homeowners turned to federal court this week for help
with their mortgages, Wells Fargo Bank failed to provide promised
payment modifications.

Bosque, et al. v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. d/b/a Wells Fargo Home
Mortgage d/b/a America's Servicing Company, Case No. 10-cv-10311
(D. Mass) (Saylor, J.), seeks class action status.  

The plaintiff-borrowers were granted a trial modification,
according to court documents, but haven't received long-term
modifications despite having submitted all required documents and
made timely payments for more than three months.

The claims are simple, the lawsuit says: "When a large financial
institution promises to modify an eligible loan to prevent
foreclosure, homeowners who live up to their end of the bargain
expect that promise to be kept."

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kevin Costello, Esq.
          Shennan Alexandra Kavanagh, Esq.
          Gary E. Klein, Esq.
          727 Atlantic Avenue, 2nd Floor
          Boston, MA 02111
          Telephone: 617-357-5500

               - and -

          Michael Raabe, Esq.
          Stuart T. Rossman, Esq.
          170 Common Street, Suite 300
          Lawrence, MA 01840-1507
          Telephone: 978-686-6900

A Wells Fargo spokeswoman said the company "will respond to the
lawsuit once we have a chance to review it."

The San Francisco bank, which bought Wachovia late in 2008, has
been "diligently working to convert -- from trial to completed
modifications -- customers who meet the HAMP guidelines," Debora
Blume said in an e-mail. "Unfortunately, not all customers who
enter a HAMP trial do ultimately qualify for the program. In
these instances, we work to determine if another foreclosure
prevention option is available to them."

* "Attorney of the Year" Michael Dowd Joins Coughlin Stoia
Days after being named an "Attorney of the Year" by California
Lawyer magazine Michael J. Dowd, Esq., has been added as a name
partner at Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP.
"I'm honored to have my name added to the masthead," said Dowd.
"I look forward to continuing our firm's unmatched success in
standing up for defrauded shareholders and consumers."

Mr. Dowd has served on the firm's Executive Committee for years
and played a key role in many of the firm's groundbreaking cases,
including last year's victories against UnitedHealth and
Household International -- two of the most significant results in
recent securities litigation.

"Mike Dowd is a lawyer's lawyer.  He's not only one of the most
talented lawyers I know, he is one of the hardest working guys in
the securities bar," said Darren J. Robbins.

Mr. Dowd, a former federal prosecutor, recently won a liability
verdict against Household International (now part of HSBC) in a
case in which three executives misled investors about the
company's business practices, one of the few times purveyors of
predatory lending practices have been held accountable.

Reflecting his success, California Lawyer magazine this month
announced that it will award Mr. Dowd its prestigious "Lawyer of
the Year" award, noting Mr. Dowd "led a trial team to a rare
verdict in a securities class action that resulted in a finding
of liability for the plaintiffs after a two-week trial. . . .  In
the damages phase, now underway, class members could recover as
much as $3 billion."

In addition, Mr. Dowd led the litigation team that obtained a
recovery of nearly $1 billion from UnitedHealth in the largest
ever options backdating case, and was responsible for recoveries
in the AOL Time Warner, WorldCom, Qwest, Vesta, U.S. West and
Safeskin cases.  Mr. Dowd was also the lead trial lawyer in the
AT&T case, which settled after two weeks of trial for $100

Additionally, as the Enron case wraps up and a record-setting $7
billion is being distributed to defrauded shareholders, Patrick
J. Coughlin is stepping back from the day-to-day administrative
duties of the firm. "I take great pride in transitioning to Of
Counsel status with a firm that has an unmatched group of
talented attorneys, more institutional clients than any other
securities firm, and scores of good cases," said Coughlin.

Coughlin will remain as Of Counsel to the firm and continue to
litigate cases. Reflective of these developments, at the end of
this quarter the firm will be known as Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd LLP.

Mr. Dowd can be reached at:

          Michael J. Dowd, Esq.
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 231-1058

The firm is the acknowledged leader in the field, with more
institutional investor clients than any other plaintiffs'
securities firm and unmatched success recovering funds for
defrauded shareholders, including the largest securities class
action recovery (over $7 billion for Enron shareholders), the
largest options backdating case (nearly $1 billion for
UnitedHealth shareholders), the largest opt-out recovery (more
than $650 million for WorldCom investors), and the recent
liability verdict returned by the jury in the Household
International case.


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.  Gracele D. Canilao, Leah Felisilda and Peter A. Chapman,

Copyright 2010.  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  * * *