CAR_Public/100309.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Tuesday, March 9, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 47

                            Headlines

AMERICAN ELECTRIC: Recalls 900 Outdoor Lighting Fixtures
BIOMEDICAL TISSUE: No Class Certified in Stolen Body Parts Cases
BOWNE & CO: Being Sold for Inadequate Price, N.Y. Suit Claims
CHANDIGARH FASHION: Recalls 1,200 Lead-Painted Children's Bangles
CITY OF ABERDEEN: W.D. Wash. Red Light Camera Suit Dismissed

CITY OF SPRINGFIELD: Mo. Sup. Ct. Vacates Red Light Camera Fines
DOLLAR GENERAL: Settles Canadian Pay-Day Loan Suit for C$25 Mil.
ELECTRONIC GAME: Securities Fraud Lawsuit Filed in C.D. Calif
ETHAN ALLEN: Recalls 163,000 Roman Shades
GEORGIA: Judge Testifies in Unrepresented Indigent Defendant Suit

GROUPOON INC: CEO Says He'll "Fight Fire with Fire"
H&R BLOCK: 3rd Cir. Blesses Electronic Tax Return Filing Fees
INTEGRAL SYSTEMS: Vidmar Class Action Lawsuit Dismissed
L.A. FITNESS: Class Action Suit Challenges Early Termination Fees
LDK SOLAR: Resolves Securities Class Action Suit for $16 Million

LELE & COMPANY: Recalls 2,700 Children's Hooded Sweatshirts
MERCK & CO: Loses Vioxx Class Action Suit in Australian Fed. Ct.
METROPOLITAN LIFE: Judge Weinstein Approves $50 Mil. Settlement
OPEN DOOR: Accused in Ill. Suit of Leaking Patient Information
PFIZER INC: Class Decertification in Listerine Suit Affirmed

RIVERS EDGE: Accused in Pa. Suit of Charging Illegal Loan Fees
SAVINGS BANK LIFE: Settles 11-Year-Old Mass. Suit for $18.6 Mil.
TEN WEST APPAREL: Recalls 75 Boys' Hooded Jackets
TOYOTA MOTOR: Electronic Throttle Lawsuit Filed in S.D. Fla.
UNITED STATES: Capitol Police Sue for Race Discrimination

                            *********

AMERICAN ELECTRIC: Recalls 900 Outdoor Lighting Fixtures
--------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
American Electric Lighting, a division of Acuity Brands Lighting
Inc., of Conyers, Ga., announced a voluntary recall of about 900
Outdoor Lighting Fixtures.  Consumers should stop using recalled
products immediately unless otherwise instructed.

Improper wiring in the light fixtures poses a shock hazard to
consumers.

No incidents or injuries have been reported.   

This recall involves model AVL outdoor lighting fixtures sold
under the American Electric Lighting brand name. The light
fixtures are intended for use in parking lots, roadways,
commercial environments and office communities. "AVL" is printed
on the reflector of each light fixture.  A picture of the
recalled product is available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10154.html

The recalled light fixtures were manufactured in Mexico and sold
by electrical distributors and electrical sales representatives
nationwide from September 2008 through September 2009 for between
$250 and $800.

Consumers should immediately disconnect power to the fixtures and
contact American Electric Lighting to schedule a free inspection
and repair.  For additional information, contact American
Electric Lighting at (800) 754-0463 between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00
p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, or visit the firm's
Web site at http://www.americanelectriclighting.com/


BIOMEDICAL TISSUE: No Class Certified in Stolen Body Parts Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
Henry Gottlieb at the New Jersey Law Journal reports that a
federal judge has denied class action status to families seeking
damages from funeral homes in three states for the ghoulish,
unauthorized harvesting of their loved ones' body tissue for
transplants.

U.S. District Judge William Martini in Newark, N.J., ruled last
week that the proliferation of factual differences in the cases
make a class action unworkable.

And there are too many potential conflicts between the interests
of the 13 named plaintiffs and unnamed potential class members
numbering in the hundreds, Martini ruled in Kennedy-McInnis v.
Biomedical Tissue Services Ltd.

The plaintiffs' lawyers greeted the decision with a shrug. Van
White, Esq., a Rochester, N.Y., solo who filed the putative class
action in 2006, says Judge Martini telegraphed his inclination to
deny the request months ago.

Mr. White says the decision actually clears the way for the main
effort: individual suits against individual funeral homes by
family members.

And the Fort Lee, N.J., dentist who masterminded the illegal
operation, Michael Mastromarino, is cooperating from his cell in
a New York prison, other attorneys in the case say.

Mr. Mastromarino was sentenced to 18 to 54 years in 2008 after he
pleaded guilty to being the ringleader of the operation in which
tissue from as many as 1,000 bodies was taken without permission
and used in medical procedures for up to 13,000 patients around
the country.

Seven funeral directors or employees have been found guilty in
the scandal, which came to light in 2006.

The civil actions accuse funeral homes in New York, New Jersey
and Pennsylvania implicated with Mr. Mastromarino of violating
laws against improper treatment of bodies, breach of burial and
cremation contracts, and infliction of emotional distress on the
families of decedents whose bones and flesh were taken.

The corpse of Alistair Cooke, the British journalist and host of
"Masterpiece Theater" on public television, was among those
desecrated.  After he died of cancer in 2004 at age 95, the ring
removed his leg bones and used phony documentation and
permissions purporting to be from his family to sell the parts
for $11,000 before the remainder of his cadaver was cremated,
according to news accounts in 2006.

Lawyers representing a substantial number of the donor families
in suits against the funeral homes say they took Mr.
Mastromarino's deposition at Wende Correctional Facility near
Buffalo, N.Y., in December and February and are scheduled to hold
another session on Tuesday.

"He's being cooperative to all of the parties and has been very
enlightening on the entire process," says Kevin Dean of Motley
Rice in Mount Pleasant S.C.

The depositions have been videotaped and will be available for
the civil trials. About 50 cases are pending in state court in
Staten Island, N.Y., 30 in state court in Philadelphia and seven
before Judge Martini, says plaintiffs' lawyer Larry Cohan of
Anapol Schwartz in Philadelphia.

Mr. White, who started the class action, says he represents 26
plaintiffs in the Rochester, N.Y., area, some of whom have not
filed because the statute of limitations has been tolled while
the class action request was pending.

Mr. White filed the class action in federal court in Rochester in
2006, but it was sent to Judge Martini when suits around the
country were consolidated as a multidistrict litigation.  The
class would have consisted of all next-of-kin relatives of
decedents whose bodies were desecrated.

But Judge Martini ruled that the plaintiffs failed to jump two of
the legal hurdles to certification of a class under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 23: typicality and adequacy.

The lack of typicality applies in particular to the claims of
emotional distress, which require inquiries into the plaintiffs'
relationships with the decedents and the level of damages, he
said.

"The claims presented by these plaintiffs and their unique
factual underpinnings could require such extensive individual
consideration that it would be neither fair nor more efficient to
proceed with this matter as a class action," Judge Martini ruled.

The same is true of the desecration claims, he said. "For
example, the circumstances of decedents' deaths, the procedures
performed post-mortem, the tissue and/or bone removed, and the
appearance of the decedents after the procedures will be
individualized and unique, further militating against a finding
of typicality," he wrote.

As for adequacy of the named plaintiffs to represent the class,
he wrote, that given the individualized nature of the claims,
class representatives may have a lesser incentive to prove the
existence of unique injuries suffered by the absent class members
-- many of whom are in New Jersey and Pennsylvania.

The decedents of the named plaintiffs were taken to funeral homes
in New York.

Now that the class action is over, plaintiffs' lawyers can
concentrate on their individual cases in the local venues, White
says.

He says many funeral directors and employees implicated in the
scandal have been found guilty of criminal activity so insurers
have been denying coverage.

"It's a strange situation, where an acquittal ends up being more
beneficial to a plaintiff in a civil case because of the
insurance situation," he says. When there is coverage, a
settlement could be worth between $10,000 and $50,000, he says.

Judge Martini's ruling in the case was his second key decision.
The other, last January, affected a larger group of plaintiffs --
individuals who received transplants of tissue from the stolen
body parts.

The judge dismissed individual suits against tissue banks by
about 325 recipients who had failed to show a likelihood of
contracting disease, he ruled.

The plaintiffs tested negative for disease six months after their
transplants and those given tissue that had been stored at room
temperature for 30 or more days.

He found that those plaintiffs failed to establish general
causation on the potential for transmission of a host of
diseases, including HIV, cancer and hepatitis. The cases of about
40 recipients who claimed they developed illnesses remained
viable.

An appeal of Judge Martini's ruling in the so-called recipient
cases is pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit, but the parties aren't pressing for a decision.

Plaintiffs' lawyer Dean says about 900 cases have settled. He
says the cases have been resolved by the payment of cash amounts
but the terms are covered by a confidentiality agreement.


BOWNE & CO: Being Sold for Inadequate Price, N.Y. Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that directors of Bowne & Co.
will unfairly enrich themselves as they sell the company too
cheaply to RR Donnelly & Sons, for $481 million or $11.50 per
share, shareholders say in New York County Court.  Bowne's main
business is printing shareholder documents.

Copies of the Summons and the Complaint in Sartoretti v. Bowne &
Co., Inc., et al., Index No. 10600531 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., N.Y. Cty.),
are available at:
     
     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/03/04/SCA.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas G. Amon, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF THOMAS G. AMON
          250 West 57th St., Suite 1316
          New York, NY 10107
          Telephone: 212-810-2430

               - and -

          Marc M. Umeda, Esq.
          S. Benjamin Rozwood, Esq.
          Kelly M. McIntyre, Esq.
          Rebecca A. Peterson, Esq.
          Alejandro E. Moreno, Esq.
          ROBBINS UMEDA LLP
          600 B Street, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: 619-525-3990


CHANDIGARH FASHION: Recalls 1,200 Lead-Painted Children's Bangles
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Chandigarh Fashion Inc., of Flushing, N.Y., announced a voluntary
recall of about 1,200 Children's Bangles.  Consumers should stop
using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed.

The surface coating on the bracelets contains high levels of
lead, violating the federal lead paint standard.

No incidents or injuries have been reported.

This recall involves children's bangle bracelets.  The bracelets
which were sold in packets of 24, are gold with stripes of either
red, maroon, black, orange or green.  A picture of the recalled
product is available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10153.html

The recalled children's jewelry was manufactured in India and
sold at Chandigarh Fashion stores in Flushing, N.Y., and Sonia
Selections stores in Chicago, Ill., from May 2007 through August
2008 for about $2.

Consumers should immediately take the recalled bracelets from
children and return the bracelets to the store where purchased
for a full refund.  


CITY OF ABERDEEN: W.D. Wash. Red Light Camera Suit Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Schaefer at the B-Town Blog, citing The Olympian as his
source, reports that a federal judge dismissed a lawsuit alleging
that 18 Washington cities, including Burien, were charging too
much for traffic violations caught by red light cameras.
This means that all Washington state cities with red light
cameras will be able to continue charging their current fines,
many of which are set at $101 and above.

The Order of Dismissal in Todd, et al. v. City of Aberdeen, et
al., Case No. 09-cv-01232 (W.D. Wash.), was issued by U.S.
District Court Judge John C. Coughenour in Seattle, and this ends
a lawsuit in which more than 40 drivers claimed that fines issued
from red light cameras exceeded the amount intended by state law.
As we've previously reported, attorneys for the plaintiffs were
seeking class-action status over a 2005 law that says traffic-
camera fines "shall not exceed the amount of the fine issued for
other parking infractions within the jurisdiction," according to
the complaint.

The City of Burien has five red light cameras, which have been up
and running since last March, and according to a city e-
newsletter, were averaging "around 540 infractions per month"
back in October 2009 -- equaling a projected gross of over
$654,000 in its first year of operation.

The 18 cities names in the lawsuit are City of Aberdeen, City of
Auburn, City of Bellevue, City of Bonney Lake, City of Bremerton,
City of Burien, City of Federal Way, City of Fife, City of
Issaquah, City of Lacey, City of Lake Forest Park, City of
Lakewood, City of Lynnwood, City of Monroe, City of Mountlake
Terrace, City of Puyallup, City of Renton, City of SeaTac, City
of Seattle, City of Spokane, City of Tacoma, and City of
Wenatchee.  Pierce County, American Traffic Solutions, American
Traffic Solutions LLC and Redflex Traffic Systems Inc. were also
named as defendants.  

Although the plaintiffs argued that the cities violated state law
requirements for issuing tickets because the infraction forms
were not treated in the same manner as parking tickets, the Court
disagreed. In his order, Judge Coughenour explained that state
law allows for differences in how the form of parking tickets and
safety camera tickets are developed. Furthermore, regarding the
question of whether the fees associated with the violations were
unreasonable, the judge held that state law "grants
municipalities flexibility in determining fine levels, and that
the fines are not excessive."

George Hittner, vice president and general counsel for American
Traffic Solutions, called the judge's ruling "yet another
validation of the legality of safety cameras. Across the country,
courts have consistently upheld the constitutionality and use of
safety cameras. ATS will continue to work with states and
municipalities to bring life-saving technology to communities to
protect motorists, pedestrians, and bicyclists."

The Todd ruling aligns with court decisions in numerous states,
as well as the with U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals decision in
Idris v. City of Chicago, No. 08-1363 (7th Cir. 2009) ("No one
has a fundamental right to run a red light."), which upheld the
use of photo safety cameras as legal law enforcement tools to
protect the public's safety.

American Traffic Solutions is represented by a team of lawyers at
Stoel Rives, L.L.P.


CITY OF SPRINGFIELD: Mo. Sup. Ct. Vacates Red Light Camera Fines
----------------------------------------------------------------
Abby Wuellner at KY3 News reports that it was a court ruling that
stunned the city of Springfield -- The Supreme Court for the
State of Missouri ruling that red light camera tickets don't hold
up because of the ticketing process -- which must be handled in
court -- but currently isn't.

Since the cameras started snapping pictures in 2007, the city has
issued thousands of tickets, adding up to more than $800,000.  

Now, many of those people want their money back.

When Cindy Rushefsky was elected to City Council, red light
cameras were already photographing red light runners in the act.
"It was like having a police officer there 24-7 without having
someone there 24-7," Ms. Rushefsky says.

One of those cameras caught one family car rolling right through
red.  The proof arrived at the Watson home Mountain Grove.
"My husband got the ticket in the mail," says Ashley Watson.
But, she says, she was the driver.

To spare time and any extra costs, though, the Watsons didn't
contest it.  Ashley says they paid the ticket on February 14th.
But on the second of March, a decision by the Missouri Supreme
Court led the City of Springfield to invalidate all unpaid
tickets.

Now the Watsons are second-guessing their decision.

"When I hear the people who haven't paid their ticket aren't
going to have to pay -- yeah, I was a little upset," Ashley says.
So she and her husband are planning to join the class action
lawsuit -- filed Wednesday -- asking the city to refund its red
light profits.

Now a court will decide whether and how the city reimburses those
individuals.  As for the red light cameras, that decision goes to
the City Council.

"We can add that to our controversy list," Ms. Rushefsky laughs.
No one on the current Council had any say on whether the cameras
were installed in the first place.  But the topic will no doubt
dominate their agendas in the future.

"It's such a bad situation on so many levels and so unfortunate,"
Ms. Rushefsky adds.

City Council now has three options: appeal the court's decision,
upgrade the traffic cameras, or get rid of them altogether.


DOLLAR GENERAL: Settles Canadian Pay-Day Loan Suit for C$25 Mil.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Financial Corp (DLLR), a leading international financial
services company serving unbanked and under-banked consumers,
announced today that it has reached an agreement to settle its
British Columbia class action litigation, in which the plaintiffs
claimed that the business model used by the Company's Canadian
subsidiary, National Money Mart Company (NMMC), resulted in the
collection of fees in excess of the statutory limit for payday
loans made since 1997. In addition, the Company announced court
approval of the previously announced settlement of its comparable
Ontario class action litigation.

Jeff Weiss, the Company's Chairman and Chief Executive Officer,
stated, "Our agreement to settle the British Columbia litigation,
coupled with the court's approval of our Ontario settlement,
accelerates our progress in putting behind us the legal
challenges to our payday loan product, all of which relate to
periods of time before the 2009 adoption in British Columbia and
Ontario of payday loan industry regulations. NMMC presently
provides payday loans in both provinces below the regulations'
rate caps and continues to be the lowest cost provider in those
provinces."

Under the summary terms of the British Columbia settlement, the
Company will create a settlement fund in an amount of C$24.75
million, consisting of C$12.375 million in cash and C$12.375
million in vouchers. Fees payable to plaintiffs' counsel will be
paid from this fund. The remaining amount of the fund will be
available to class members who make claims, with the Company
receiving a credit for any unpaid debts incurred through November
1, 2009 and owed by claimants to the Company. As part of the
settlement, the Company will release all debts incurred through
November 1, 2009 by class members who do not make a claim, up to
the total check cashing fees paid by those class members through
that date. The vouchers will be in paper form, will not be
transferable, will be subject to cash redemption for six months
after their three-year life, and will be available to be applied
during the three years generally in C$5.00 increments to product
transactions on most of NMMC's products. Any amounts remaining in
the settlement fund after the redemption period will be returned
to NMMC.

The British Columbia settlement will be set forth in a definitive
settlement agreement which will be subject to final court
approval. The Company expects final settlement approval by June
30, 2010, although there can be no assurances in that regard. The
Company expects to record a charge of C$12.375 million associated
with the cash component of the settlement fund, and an additional
non-cash amount that will be based on the expected value of the
vouchers.

The Company announced the expected settlement of its Ontario
class action litigation in June 2009 and at that time recorded a
provision for the expected costs of the Ontario settlement in the
quarter ended June 30, 2009. After a hearing on February 22,
2010, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice released its orders
on March 3, 2010 approving the settlement. The court order is
subject to appeal for 30 days.

                    About Dollar Financial Corp

Dollar Financial Corp -- http://www.dfg.com/-- is a leading  
diversified international financial services company primarily
serving unbanked and under-banked consumers. Its customers are
typically service sector individuals who require basic financial
services but, for reasons of convenience and accessibility,
purchase some or all of their financial services from the Company
rather than from banks and other financial institutions. To meet
the needs of these customers, the Company provides a range of
consumer financial products and services primarily consisting of
check cashing, short-term consumer loans, automobile loans and
services, pawn lending, Western Union money order and money
transfer products, currency exchange, gold buying, reloadable
VISA(R) and MasterCard(R) branded debit cards, electronic tax
filing, and bill payment services.

At December 31, 2009, the Company's global store network
consisted of 1,172 stores, including 1,043 company-operated
financial services stores and 129 franchised and agent locations
in the United States, Canada, United Kingdom, Republic of
Ireland, and Poland. The financial services store network is the
largest network of its kind in each of Canada and the United
Kingdom and the second-largest network of its kind in the United
States. The Company's customers, many of whom receive income on
an irregular basis or from multiple employers, are drawn to the
convenient neighborhood locations, extended operating hours and
high-quality customer service. The Company's financial products
and services, principally check cashing, money transfer, pawn
lending and short-term consumer loan programs, provide immediate
access to cash for living expenses or other needs.


ELECTRONIC GAME: Securities Fraud Lawsuit Filed in C.D. Calif
-------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson Bottini, LLP, has filed a class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired securities of Electronic Game Card, Inc. (OTCBB.EGMI)
between April 5, 2007, and February 19, 2010.

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, Frank
Bottini or Derek Wilson of Johnson Bottini, LLP at (619) 230-
0063, or via e-mail at derekw@johnsonbottini.com. If you are a
member of this Class, you can view a copy of the complaint by
visiting http://www.johnsonbottini.com/or by contacting  
plaintiff's counsel.  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 alleges that on February 10, 2010, EGC postponed a
conference call, which was slated to discuss important internal
issues at the Company. The postponement resulted in an immediate
sixteen percent drop in stock price. On February 19, 2010,
Electronic Game Card, Inc. announced that: (a) its independent
auditors withdrew its audit opinions for EGC's financial
statements for the years ended December 31, 2006, 2007, and 2008;
and (b) its financial reporting for the years ended December 31,
2006, 2007, and 2008 as well as its quarterly reports for its
first three quarters of 2009 needed to be adjusted and reissued.
Also on February 19, 2010, the United States Securities and
Exchange Commission halted trading in EGC securities. As a
result, class members have suffered substantial damages and their
shares are currently illiquid.

The Complaint alleges that EGC and certain of its executive
officers violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing false and misleading statements
during the Class Period. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on
behalf of the class members and has retained Johnson Bottini,
LLP.

Johnson Bottini, LLP is headquartered in San Diego, California,
with additional offices in Munich, Germany, and is dedicated to
providing its clients with personalized service. The firm
specializes in securities class action litigation and has taken a
leading role in many important actions on behalf of defrauded
investors and consumers.

A copy of the Complaint in Burns v. Electronic Game Card, Inc., et
al., Case No. 10-cv-00258 (C.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/03/05/SCAGameCard.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Frank J. Johnson, Esq.
          Francis A. Bottini, Jr., Esq.
          Derek J. Wilson, Esq.
          JOHNSON BOTTINI, LLP
          501 West Broadway, Suite 1720
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: 619-230-0063


ETHAN ALLEN: Recalls 163,000 Roman Shades
-----------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Ethan Allen Global Inc., of Danbury, Conn., announced a voluntary
recall of about 163,000 Roman Shades.  Consumers should stop
using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed.

Strangulation can occur when a child places his/her neck between
the exposed inner cord and the fabric on the backside of the
shade or when a child pulls the cord out and wraps it around
his/her neck. Also, strangulation can occur when a child's neck
become entangled on the free-standing loop.

No incidents or injuries have been reported.   

This recall involves all styles and sizes of Roman shades sold
under the Ethan Allen brand name. These custom-ordered, made-to-
order shades were sold in a variety of colors, fabrics, and
sizes. The shades have no labels or markings making reference to
the Ethan Allen brand.  Pictures of the recalled product are
available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10156.html

The recalled window treatments were manufactured in the United
States and sold at Ethan Allen Design Centers since at least 1999
through December 2009. Most are priced between $400 and $1,000.

Consumers should stop using the recalled Roman shades immediately
and contact their local Ethan Allen Design Center for a free
repair kit.  For additional information, contact Ethan Allen
toll-free at (888) 339-9398 between 8:30 a.m. and 4:45 p.m.,
Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, contact the local Ethan
Allen Design Center, or visit the firm's web site at
http://www.ethanallen.com/


GEORGIA: Judge Testifies in Unrepresented Indigent Defendant Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Rankin at The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reports from
Elberton, Ga., that instead of sitting on the bench Wednesday,
where he has presided as judge for 15 years, John Bailey Jr. sat
a few feet away -- below on the witness stand.

Chief Judge Bailey, of the Northern Judicial Circuit, recounted
how the court system here almost collapsed two years ago when
lawyers began abandoning their indigent clients because they
weren't being paid.

At taxpayer expense, defendants sat in jail for prolonged periods
because there was no one to represent them at bond hearings,
Bailey testified. Some defendants appeared without counsel at
their criminal arraignments. The District Attorney's Office
struggled to bring cases to trial because there was no one to
defend the accused, the judge said.

Chief Judge Bailey, who grew up down the street from the towering
Elbert County courthouse, was the first witness in a hearing to
determine whether a class-action lawsuit on behalf of
unrepresented indigent defendants in this five-county rural
circuit in northeast Georgia can go forward. The lawsuit also
seeks a court order to ensure that indigent defendants will have
legal representation.

The suit, filed in April 2009, is one of a number of lawsuits
slapped on the struggling state public defender system. The suits
contend that funding issues plaguing the agency are
disintegrating its ability to provide adequate representation.

Last month, a Fulton County judge ordered the state to provide
attorneys to indigent inmates, some of whom have been waiting
years for representation to file their appeals. Last week, a
legislative oversight committee criticized the litigation,
accusing "ideological crusaders" of trying to hijack and
manipulate the defender system.

On Wednesday, Superior Court Judge David Roper, a visiting judge
from Augusta, peppered lawyers and witnesses with questions that
indicated he wants to find a solution to the problems. He did not
issue an immediate ruling and plans to hear more testimony.

Judge Roper shook hands with Chief Judge Bailey before swearing
him in on the stand.  He interrupted Chief Judge Bailey's
testimony at one point to ask his fellow judge for his take on
the situation.  Chief Judge Bailey, with a chuckle, asked Judge
Roper how much time he had.

"It would be helpful if the funds were available" to pay for
enough lawyers, Chief Judge Bailey said, who has served as chief
judge here since 1999.  "The whole system would run a whole lot
smoother."

The litigation involves hundreds of "conflict" cases being
prosecuted in the Northern circuit. These are multi-defendant
cases in which a state-salaried public defender can represent
only one person.  Private attorneys are hired to represent the
co-defendants.

In 2007, the defender council signed contracts with private
attorneys to handle conflict cases in the Northern circuit. But
when contracts were not renewed the following year because of
budget constraints, some lawyers were granted permission to
withdraw from their cases, leaving scores of defendants without
representation.

A lawyer from the state Attorney General's Office, Stefan Ritter,
Esq., argued that the council has fixed the problem and is doing
all it can to provide counsel to indigent defendants here. "That
is their mission," he said.

All of the six plaintiffs, who filed suit, now have counsel,
Ritter said. As for potential problems on the horizon, he said,
"We can't speculate what will happen in the future."

Gerry Weber, Esq., a Southern Center for Human Rights attorney
who represents the indigent defendants, said that while the
defender council signed new contracts after the lawsuit was
filed, some lawyers have already reached their caseload limits.

Warren Caswell, Esq., one of four contract attorneys for the
circuit, testified that last July he signed a contract to handle
175 cases through the end of June. Even though he reached that
limit before last Thanksgiving, he testified, he is still being
asked to take on new cases.


GROUPOON INC: CEO Says He'll "Fight Fire with Fire"
---------------------------------------------------
The Chicago Tribune reports that Groupon Inc. CEO and founder
Andrew Mason responded to the lawsuit filed last week by Edelson
McGuire on his blog, saying he would fight fire with fire.

"In fact, we've decided that the best way to respond is by
organizing our own class action," he wrote. "If there actually
are customers out there that feel like we've let them down, we
want to get them their money as quickly as possible.  Join our
class action here."

Groupon, which launched in October 2008, has 2.6 million
subscribers in 38 cities.  The company's rapid growth has spawned
a slew of rivals. Last month, Groupon filed a lawsuit in Florida
accusing another company of trademark infringement.

News about the filing of the lawsuit appeared in the Class Action
Reporter on Fri., Mar. 5, 2010.


H&R BLOCK: 3rd Cir. Blesses Electronic Tax Return Filing Fees
-------------------------------------------------------------
Shannon P. Duffy at The Legal Intelligencer reports that the fees
charged by H&R Block and other tax preparers for electronic
filing of federal tax returns are not illegal and the IRS's
agreement with the preparers didn't violate antitrust laws, the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has ruled.

In its 27-page opinion in Byers v. Intuit Inc., a unanimous
three-judge panel refused to revive a proposed nationwide class
action against H&R Block, Intuit Inc. and the Internal Revenue
Service brought by taxpayers who claim the IRS effectively
"outsourced" its statutory responsibility for accepting and
processing electronically filed tax returns to private companies.

Plaintiffs attorneys Thomas Martin, Alan M. Feldman and Thomas
More Marrone of Feldman Shepherd Wohlgelernter Tanner Weinstock &
Dodig complained in the suit that the IRS agreed to prohibit
individual taxpayers from filing electronically, instead
requiring that all e-filing be handled by registered tax
preparers that had joined the "Free File Alliance."

In 2005, the suit alleged, the IRS agreed to modify the deal to
limit the number of taxpayers who would be allowed to e-file for
free in order to guarantee that the program would remain
lucrative to the tax preparers.

The agreement, the suit alleged, amounted to "an illegal
horizontal agreement" among the FFA members to restrict output,
which had the effect of causing the plaintiffs to pay
"supracompetitive prices" for e-filing and related services.

In the first round of the litigation, Senior U.S. District Judge
Thomas N. O'Neill Jr. dismissed the suit after finding that the
tax preparers were entitled to "implied antitrust immunity" and
were therefore shielded from antitrust liability, since their
anti-competitive behavior was required by the IRS.

O'Neill also dismissed an Administrative Procedures Act claim
against the IRS after finding that the agency cannot be sued for
the fees charged by the tax preparers because the Independent
Offices Appropriations Act (IOAA), also known as the "federal
user charge statute," cannot be applied to fees charged by a
private company unless the company is performing a service that a
federal agency is statutorily required to perform.

The tax preparers, O'Neill found, were also entitled to dismissal
of the IOAA claim because the law regulates only government
agencies and simply doesn't apply to private entities. On appeal,
the plaintiffs argued that O'Neill failed to recognize that the
suit qualified for several important legal exceptions that would
have preserved the claims.

Since the tax preparers provided e-filing services pursuant to
agreements with the IRS, the plaintiffs argued, the IOAA applies
to any fees that the tax preparers charged under the exception
that allows the federal user charge statute to apply to private
entities that perform governmental duties. The 3rd Circuit
disagreed, finding that the plaintiffs had confused the roles of
the IRS and the tax preparers.

Writing for the court, U.S. Circuit Judge Leonard I. Garth found
that the plaintiffs' argument "erroneously conflates the
statutory duty delegated to the IRS -- i.e., collecting and
processing tax returns -- with the services provided by the [tax
preparers] -- i.e., preparing and filing the returns."  By
offering e-filing services to the public, Garth said, the tax
preparers "do not perform any of the tasks statutorily assigned
to the IRS, but rather serve the very same private-sector
functions as accountants (who aid with preparation of returns)
and delivery services such as Federal Express (which aid with the
filing of returns)."

Judge Garth, who was joined by Judges Thomas L. Ambro and Jane R.
Roth, said the plaintiffs "cannot sustain an argument that the
IRS effectively controlled the conduct of the FFA members" since
the plaintiffs had acknowledged that, despite the agreement with
the IRS, the FFA members were "free to charge whatever they saw
fit for their e-filing services."

The plaintiffs also argued that O'Neill erred in failing to apply
the Otter Tail exception in his analysis of the antitrust claim.

In its 1973 decision in Otter Tail Power Co. v. United States,
the U.S. Supreme Court established an exception to the doctrine
of implied antitrust immunity, holding that even when the
circumstances otherwise dictated that a private entity was
entitled to implied antitrust immunity, the protection would not
be accorded if: (1) the private entity had "insisted" on anti-
competitive restrictions in its contract with a government
agency; and (2) those restrictions "hindered" the government.

Judge Garth found that the exception didn't apply because the
plaintiffs couldn't prove either prong of the test.

Plaintiffs lawyers pointed to a report from the Treasury
Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA), which, they
said, revealed that the 2005 agreement came at the insistence of
the FFA members and had the effect of hindering the IRS's ability
to fulfill the goal to increase electronic filing.

Judge Garth disagreed, finding that only the IRS can declare its
policy and that the agency, in its official response to the TIGTA
report, had flatly contradicted the findings.

"The IRS's official stance," Judge Garth wrote, ". . . is, under
the law, the final word as to whether the [provisions of the 2005
agreement] were foisted upon the IRS at the insistence of the FFA
members, and whether they have proved a hindrance."

Mr. Martin, who argued the appeal for the plaintiffs, declined to
comment on the ruling.

A copy of the decision in Byers, et al. v. Intuit, Inc., et al.,
No. 09-1997 (3rd Cir.), is available at:

     http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/091997p.pdf

The Plaintiff-Appellants are represented by:

          Thomas Martin, Esq.
          Alan M. Feldman, Esq.
          Thomas More Marrone, Esq.
          FELDMAN, SHEPHERD, WOHLGELERNTER, TANNER, WEINSTOCK &
          DODIG
          1845 Walnut St., 25th Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19103

Appellee Internal Revenue Service is represented by:

          Judith A. Hagley, Esq.
          Jonathan S. Cohen, Esq.
          Gilbert S. Rothenberg, Esq.
          Tax Division
          Department of Justice
          950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
          P.O. Box 502
          Washington, DC 20044

Appellee Free File Alliance, LLC is represented by:

          Stephen M. Ryan, Esq.
          Jason A. Levine, Esq.
          Rahul Rao, Esq.
          Paul M. Thompson, Esq.
          MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP
          600 13th St., N.W.
          Washington, DC 20005

Appellee Intuit Inc. is represented by:

          Aaron B. Hewitt, Esq.
          Scott A. Stempel, Esq.
          MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS
          1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Suite 800 North
          Washington, DC 20004

               - and -

          Jami W. McKeon, Esq.
          MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS
          One Market St.
          Spear Street Tower
          San Francisco, CA 94105

               - and -

          Patrick A Particelli, III, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS
          1701 Market St.
          Philadelphia, PA 19103

Appellee H&R Block Digital Tax Solutions, LLC is represented by:

          Laurence Z. Shiekman, Esq.
          Larry R. Wood, Jr., Esq.
          PEPPER HAMILTON
          18th & Arch Sts.
          3000 Two Logan Square
          Philadelphia, PA 19103


INTEGRAL SYSTEMS: Vidmar Class Action Lawsuit Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------
Integral Systems, Inc. (ISYS) disclosed that an order was filed
on February 25, 2010, granting the motion to dismiss sought by
the Company on behalf of all defendants in the class action case
of Anthony Vidmar, et al. v. Integral Systems, Inc., et al.  The
plaintiffs have 30 days to appeal the court's decision.

With this dismissal, all pending litigation against the Company
has been withdrawn by plaintiffs or dismissed by the courts
without any findings against the Company or its current
management team, and without payment of any settlement amount.

                      ABOUT INTEGRAL SYSTEMS

Integral Systems, Inc. -- http://www.integ.com/-- of Columbia,  
MD, applies more than 25 years experience to provide integrated
technology solutions for satellite communications-interfaced
systems. Customers have relied on the Integral Systems family of
companies (Integral Systems, Inc., Integral Systems Europe,
Lumistar, Inc., Newpoint Technologies, Inc., RT Logic, and SAT
Corporation) to deliver on time and on budget for more than 250
satellite missions. Our dedication to customer service has
solidified long-term relationships with the U.S. Air Force, NASA,
NOAA, and nearly every satellite operator in the world. Integral
Systems was named the Region III Prime Contractor of the Year by
the U.S. Small Business Administration in 2009.


L.A. FITNESS: Class Action Suit Challenges Early Termination Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Fernicola at Chicago Now reports that a class action
lawsuit has been filed against L.A. Fitness alleging that its
"early termination fees" in its personal training agreements is
designed to lock-in clients and deter dissatisfied clients from
canceling or switching personal trainers.

Jay Mau says that in October 2009 he entered into a fitness
service agreement for four personal training sessions per month
for two people -- Mr. Mau and his fiance -- for twelve months but
when he scheduled his sessions, trainers either didn't show up or
a non-certified personal trainer was sent.

Mau cancelled his contract and was charged $660 -- 50% of the
remaining balance of the contract -- as an "early termination
fee," the complaint states.  

The complaint also states that Mr. Mau complained to the fitness
club manager who advised that nothing could be done and to the
defendant's corporate representative who refused to issue a full
refund but gave Mr. Mau "five minutes to either take a partial
refund [of $120] or take nothing."

The complaint alleges, among other things, that L.A. Fitness
violated the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business
Practices Act.

A copy of the Complaint in Mau v. L.A. Fitness International LLC,
Case No. 10-cv-01411 (N.D. Ill.), is available at:
     
     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/03/04/CCA.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard J. Doherty, Esq.
          James M. Smith, Esq.
          BOCK & HATCH, LLC
          134 North LaSalle St., Suite 1000
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: 312-658-5500


LDK SOLAR: Resolves Securities Class Action Suit for $16 Million
----------------------------------------------------------------
LDK Solar Co., Ltd. (NYSE: LDK), a leading manufacturer of
multicrystalline solar wafers, has reached an agreement to settle
the securities class action lawsuit pending in the U.S. District
Court of Northern California. After submitting the proposed
settlement agreement to the court on February 16, 2010, the court
granted preliminary approval of the settlement on February 17,
2010. The settlement is not final until the class receives notice
of the settlement and the court grants final approval of the
settlement terms.

Under the terms of the agreement, all of the claims in the
securities class action lawsuit will be dismissed with prejudice.
All of the defendants will receive a complete release of all the
claims alleged in the case. The settlement agreement expressly
states that it does not include any finding that any defendant
committed any wrongful act. The defendants continue to maintain
that the allegations in the case have no merit at all. To avoid
legal expenses, uncertainties and distraction of management, LDK
Solar elected to settle the case. As part of the settlement
terms, LDK Solar and its insurance carrier will pay a total of
$16 million (approximately 5% of the alleged damages) to
compensate the class members and to cover all legal and
administrative expenses.

"After more than a two year-period of litigation, LDK Solar
believes the settlement is in the best interest of the Company
and its shareholders," stated Xiaofeng Peng, Chairman and CEO of
LDK Solar. "The resolution of this matter puts the litigation
behind us and reduces the Company's ongoing legal expenses."

                         About LDK Solar

LDK Solar Co., Ltd. is a leading manufacturer of multicrystalline
solar wafers, which are the principal raw material used to
produce solar cells. LDK Solar sells multicrystalline wafers
globally to manufacturers of photovoltaic products, including
solar cells and solar modules. In addition, LDK Solar provides
wafer processing services to monocrystalline and multicrystalline
solar cell and module manufacturers. LDK Solar's headquarters and
manufacturing facilities are located in Hi-Tech Industrial Park,
Xinyu City, Jiangxi Province in the People's Republic of China.
LDK Solar's office in the United States is located in Sunnyvale,
California.


LELE & COMPANY: Recalls 2,700 Children's Hooded Sweatshirts
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
LELE & Company Inc., of Los Angeles, Calif., announced a
voluntary recall of about 2,700 Children's hooded sweatshirt sets
with drawstrings. Consumers should stop using recalled products
immediately unless otherwise instructed.

The sweatshirts have a drawstring through the hood, which can
pose a strangulation hazard to young children. In February 1996,
CPSC issued guidelines (which were incorporated into an industry
voluntary standard in 1997) to help prevent children from
strangling or getting entangled at the neck and waist by
drawstrings in upper garments, such as jackets and sweatshirts.

No incidents or injuries have been reported.   

This recall involves hooded sweatshirts sold under the "Maria
Elena" and "Eddie" brand names.  The sweatshirts were sold in
children's sizes 8 through 14, and have various character designs
on the front including "Princess," "Prince" and "Champion." Style
number 4282 is printed on the back of the tag attached to the
label.  A picture of the recalled product is available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10155.html

The recalled garments were manufactured in Vietnam and sold at
Dd's Discount, Frine Solarzvo and Toro Wholesale stores in
California, El Carrusel and Hana Hosiery in Georgia, Lacala
Design in Illinois, and La Revoltosa stores in Florida from
August 2008 through August 2009 for between $6.50 and $9.

Consumers should immediately remove the drawstrings from the
sweatshirts to eliminate the hazard or return the product to the
store where purchased for a refund.  For additional information,
contact LELE collect at (213) 745-8979 between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30
p.m., Pacific Time, Monday through Friday, or visit the firm's
Web site at http://www.leleforkids.com/


MERCK & CO: Loses Vioxx Class Action Suit in Australian Fed. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Lindsay at Dow Jones Newswires reports from Sydney that
Australian law firm Slater & Gordon Ltd. (SGH.AU) said last week
that the Federal Court has found in favour of the plaintiff
leading a class action against U.S. pharmaceutical firm Merck &
Co. related to its now withdrawn painkiller Vioxx.

In a statement, the law firm said that Merck has the right to
appeal the judgment handed down by Justice Jessup in Melbourne,
or "may decide to work towards a negotiated settlement that is
satisfactory to the clients and to the court."

RTT News reports that Slater & Gordon said that Federal Court win
by occupational health and safety consultant Graeme Peterson,
paves the way for hundreds of other Australians who suffered
heart attacks after using the arthritis drug.  Slater & Gordon
deputy chairman Peter Gordon said that Merck should now end the
court battle and settle its liabilities, just as it compensated
US VIOXX victims with a A$4.85 billion package in 2007.

In response to this statement, Merck and MSD Australia disagree
with the limited portions of the Court's findings that were
against MSD Australia and intend to appeal them, Merck stated.


METROPOLITAN LIFE: Judge Weinstein Approves $50 Mil. Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Fass at the New York Law Journal reports that Eastern
District of New York Judge Jack B. Weinstein has approved a
combined $50 million settlement in two class actions that had
accused the Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. of making false
claims to shareholders in 2000 as part of the company's attempt
to privatize.

Under the agreement, MetLife will pay $32.5 million to a yet-to-
be-named health-related non-profit organization, $2.5 million to
the National Institutes of Health and a total of $15 million to
about two dozen attorneys.

The biggest checks for fees and expenses will go to Stamell &
Schager, which will receive a total of $7.2 million, and Lovell
Stewart Halebian, which will receive $4.2 million.

The case is In re MetLife Demutualization Litigation, Case No.
00-cv-02258 (E.D.N.Y.).


OPEN DOOR: Accused in Ill. Suit of Leaking Patient Information
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that the Open Door Clinic of
Greater Elgin exposed patients to identity theft and privacy
breaches, including revelation of their HIV status, by allowing
its peer-to-peer file-sharing network to become publicly
available, including to "criminal actors," a class action claims
in Kane County Court, Ill.

A copy of the Complaint in John Doe, et al. v. Open Door Clinic
of Greater Elgin, Case No. 10L107 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Kane Cty.)
(Spence, J.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/03/04/Medical.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Terry Heady, Esq.
          PRESBREY & ASSOCIATES, PC
          821 West Galena Blvd.
          Aurora, IL 60506
          Telephone: 630-264-7300


PFIZER INC: Class Decertification in Listerine Suit Affirmed
------------------------------------------------------------
Avery Fellow at Courthouse News Service reports that a California
appeals court once again decertified a class of Californians who
accused Pfizer of falsely touting its Listerine mouthwash as
being "as effective as dental floss" in reducing plaque and
gingivitis.

The court of Appeal of the State of California, Second Appellate
District, affirmed its July 2006 ruling that the class, which
covered everyone who bought Listerine in California from June
2004 through January 2005, was "grossly overbroad."

Many, if not most, of the proposed class members were never
exposed to Pfizer's "as effective as floss" labels or TV
commercials, the court noted.

The Supreme Court had sent the case back to the appeals court in
August 2009 with instructions to vacate or reconsider in light of
Tobacco II, which covered consumers affected by the tobacco
industry's decades-long campaign to hide the addictive nature of
nicotine and the link between tobacco and disease.

But the California appeals court saw few similarities between
Listerine buyers and smokers affected by the tobacco industry's
"pervasive fraudulent campaign."

It noted that 34 different Listerine mouthwash bottles were sold
in California at the time, 19 of which did not contain a label
comparing Listerine to floss.

TV commercials suggesting that Listerine could replace floss
can't be linked to consumer purchases, the court ruled, and the
lead plaintiff's experience of reading a label and taking it to
heart did not represent all consumers' reactions to the marketing
campaign.

The court granted Pfizer's petition for an order forcing the
Superior Court to decertify the class, saying not all proposed
class members are entitled to restitution under unfair
competition law.

"[I]t is one thing to say that restitution can be awarded to
purchasers of cigarettes where the cigarettes were marketed as
part of a massive, sustained, decades-long fraudulent advertising
campaign . . . ," Justice Joan Klein wrote.

"It is entirely another to say that restitution can be awarded to
all purchasers of Listerine in California over a six-month period
where the undisputed evidence shows many, if not most, class
members were not exposed to the 'as effective as floss' campaign
and therefore did not purchase Listerine because of it."

A copy of the decision in Pfizer Inc. v. Superior Court of Los
Angeles County, No. B188106 (Calif. App. Ct.), is available at:
     
     http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/B188106.PDF

Pfizer Inc. is represented by:

          Thomas A. Smart, Esq.
          Richard A. De Sevo, Esq.
          Jeffrey S. Gordon, Esq.
          KAYE SCHOLER LLP
          1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1700
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-6048
          Telephone: 310-788-1000

               - and -

          Natasha Mosley, Esq.
          SHOOK, HARDY BACON LLP
          Jamboree Center
          5 Park Plaza, Suite 1600
          Orange County, Irvine, CA 92614-8502
          Telephone: 949-475-1500

               - and -

          Victor E. Schwartz, Esq,
          Cary Silverman, Esq.
          SHOOK, HARDY BACON LLP
          600 14th St., N.W., Suite 800
          Washington, DC 20005-2004
          Telephone: 202-783-8400

               - and -

          Erika Cuneo Frank, Esq.
          CALIFORNIA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
          1215 K St., Suite 1400
          Sacramento, CA 95814
          Telephone: 916-444-6670

               - and -

          Robin S. Conrad, Esq.
          NATIONAL CHAMBER LITIGATION CENTER, INC.
          1615 H St., N.W.
          Washington, DC 20062
          Telephone: 202-463-5337


RIVERS EDGE: Accused in Pa. Suit of Charging Illegal Loan Fees
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Rivers Edge National Land
Services and Franklin First Financial charge Franklin's mortgage
clients "for services not performed as a way to pay referral fees
and kickbacks," a class action claims in Philadelphia Federal
Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Polinski v. Rivers Edge National Land
Services, Inc., et al., Case No. 10-cv-00890 (E.D. Pa.), is
available at:
     
     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/03/04/RealEstate.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David A. Searles, Esq.
          DONOVAN SEARLES, LLC
          1845 Walnut St., Suite 1100
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: 215-732-6067

               - and -

          Richard S. Gordon, Esq.
          Martin E. Wolf, Esq.
          QUINN, GORDON & WOLF, CHTD.
          102 W. Pennsylvania Ave., Suite 402
          Towson, MD 21204
          Telephone: 410-825-2300


SAVINGS BANK LIFE: Settles 11-Year-Old Mass. Suit for $18.6 Mil.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in an eleven-year class action lawsuit in the
Massachusetts Suffolk Superior Court announced today that they
had reached a proposed settlement and that notice of the
settlement is being sent out tomorrow to certain policyholders of
The Savings Bank Life Insurance Company of Massachusetts, also
known as SBLI, who are members of the Class.  A Web site
dedicated to the proposed settlement is also being launched at
http://www.SBLISETTLEMENT.com/where additional information is  
available.

Judge Margaret Hinkle preliminarily approved the proposed
settlement of a class action lawsuit between SBLI and the court-
certified class of certain of its policyholders, and directed
that legal notice be sent to those Class members by March 5,
2010. The settlement, which must receive final court approval
after a fairness hearing scheduled for May 20, 2010, would
resolve a lawsuit that began in May 1998 and involved claims by
the plaintiff-policyholders that SBLI had underpaid annual
dividends on their policies as well as Special Dividends required
as a result of SBLI's 1992 reorganization. SBLI has denied the
allegations from the outset, maintaining in the litigation that
it paid dividends consistent with all its legal requirements. The
settlement contains no admission of liability by SBLI.

The plaintiffs and SBLI agreed to settle this lawsuit for
$18,675,330 plus the costs of noticing and administering the
settlement. A Settlement Fund was created containing $15,000,000,
which is in addition to the $3,675,330 already paid in 2005 to a
subset -- called a Subclass -- of policyholders in the case.
After the payment of attorneys' fees and expenses to plaintiffs'
class counsel in an amount to be determined by the Court, the
remainder of the Settlement Fund will be used to pay, on a pro
rata basis, settlement dividends to the owners of the
approximately 515,000 policies in the Class. Current and former
policyholders in the Class who receive notice will be sent their
Settlement payments without having to file a claim form, but
former policyholders may need to update their address.

"We are glad to have resolved this case with these substantial
benefits to the Class after nearly 12 years of heavily-fought
litigation," said Jason B. Adkins, plaintiffs' lead counsel from
the Boston law firm of Adkins, Kelston & Zavez, P.C.

SBLI President and CEO Robert K. Sheridan said, "We are pleased
to be able to resolve the litigation in a mutually acceptable
fashion that is in the best interests of our policyholders and
the Company."

The policyholders entitled to receive a settlement dividend under
prior Court rulings are limited to owners (or their beneficiaries
or eligible heirs) of (a) policies in effect during the period
from December 31, 2000 to December 31, 2002 that paid dividends
(the "Main Class"), or (b) policies issued prior to 1992 that
were entitled to Special Dividends as the result of SBLI's
reorganization in 1992 (the "Subclass"). Such persons should look
for a settlement notice in the mail next week to learn more about
the settlement and their rights and interests, and to ensure that
the Settlement Administrator has their correct address. Excluded
from the Class are policies that were not entitled to receive
dividends or were not in effect during the relevant time periods.
SBLI and its legal representatives, shareholders, directors,
officers, successors-in-interest and assigns, are also excluded
from the Class.

The Main Class members will be entitled to receive a minimum of
five dollars ($5.00) per eligible policy, but may receive more
depending on the amount of calculated annual dividends deemed to
have been paid on such policies in 2001. Those Subclass members
who did not already receive a portion of the $3,675,330 payment
made in 2005 will be entitled to receive a settlement dividend,
that is based on the pro rata share of their previously paid
Special Dividends. Many members of the Class are members of both
the Main Class and the Subclass.

Where a Class member has died, the policy beneficiary is eligible
to receive the Settlement payment, or where there is no known
living beneficiary who has timely filed a claim, the heirs may do
so. Beneficiaries and eligible heirs will be required to submit a
brief "Affidavit of Beneficiary or Heir" (where the settlement
dividend is likely to exceed a threshold amount, a Proof of Claim
form by beneficiaries or heirs may be required). No claim forms
are required of the Members of the Class.

All Class Member inquiries or change of address information
should be directed to the Settlement Administrator toll-free at
1-800-254-7328 or by visiting http://www.SBLISETTLEMENT.com/and  
should not be made to the Court or SBLI.

SBLI is a registered trademark of The Savings Bank Life Insurance
Company of Massachusetts, which is in no way affiliated with SBLI
USA Mutual Life Insurance Company, Inc.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jason B. Adkins, Esq.
          Adkins, Kelston & Zavez, P.C.
          Telephone: 617-367-1040

               - and -  

          Richard A. Johnston, Esq.
          WilmerHale
          Telephone: 617-526-6000


TEN WEST APPAREL: Recalls 75 Boys' Hooded Jackets
-------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Ten West Apparel, of New York, N.Y., announced a voluntary recall
of about 75 Boys' Hooded Jackets.  Consumers should stop using
recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed.

The children's jackets have drawstrings through the hood which
can pose a strangulation hazard to children. In February 1996,
CPSC issued guidelines (which were incorporated into an industry
voluntary standard in 1997) to help prevent children from
strangling or getting entangled on the neck and waist drawstrings
in upper garments, such as jackets or sweatshirts.

No incidents or injuries have been reported.

This recall involves Ten 1 West boys' jackets with a drawstring
through the hood. They were sold in size 10/12 and are black
cotton with a white fleece lining. "TEN 1 WEST" is printed on a
hang tag on the center of the back neck.  Pictures of the
recalled product are available at:
          
     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10152.html

The recalled garments were manufactured in China and sold
exclusively at Burlington Coat Factory stores nationwide from
November 2006 through September 2009 for about $12.

Consumers should immediately remove the drawstring from the
jacket to eliminate the hazard or return the garment to
Burlington Coat Factory or to Ten West Apparel for a full refund.  
For additional information, contact Ten West Apparel collect at
(212) 564-1007 between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Eastern Time,
Monday through Friday, or visit Burlington Coat Factory's Web
site at http://www.burlingtoncoatfactory.com/


TOYOTA MOTOR: Electronic Throttle Lawsuit Filed in S.D. Fla.
------------------------------------------------------------
Leading Coral Gables-based trial law firm Colson Hicks Eidson
filed a class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida on March 3rd on behalf of Plaintiffs
Sharlene Cohen-Goldberg, Tiffany Jones, Thelma Reid and other
Florida and national class members and similarly situated
Plaintiffs against Defendants Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc.;
Toyota Motor Corporation and their affiliates, the firm announced
today.  The complaint alleges the Defendants knowingly designed,
manufactured, distributed and sold certain automobiles equipped
with the Electronic Throttle Control System with Intelligence
(ETCS-i) that is defective and can cause sudden unintended
acceleration (SUA) of the vehicle engine.

Lewis S. "Mike" Eidson, Esq., founding partner at Colson Hicks
Eidson, will serve as lead counsel on behalf of the Plaintiffs. A
nationally recognized authority on automotive recalls, Eidson, at
age 29, and his partners, tried and won the first case alleging
that the Ford Pinto fuel system was defective. He was also
involved in the Chrysler Minivan latch case that led to the
recall of 4 million vehicles, and was national co-lead counsel in
the Ford Explorer/Firestone tire litigation.

According to the suit, the Plaintiffs allege that Toyota and
Lexus vehicles equipped with the ETCS-i are defective and unsafe
and are susceptible to incidents of sudden unintended
acceleration rendering such vehicles uncontrollable. The
Plaintiffs further allege that the Defendants failed to
incorporate important failsafe measures critical to assisting a
driver in maintaining control of the vehicle during a sudden
unintended acceleration event. One such failsafe measure is a
computer algorithm that will direct the ETCS-i to automatically
reduce the engine to idle when the brakes are being applied while
the throttle is in an unintended open position. This measure,
also referred to as "brake-to-idle" algorithm or simply "brake
over-ride", has been incorporated by other automobile
manufactures in vehicles designed with electronic throttle
control for years. According to the suit, brake override will
eliminate sudden unintended acceleration problems regardless of
the cause and many other manufacturers already incorporate this
feature in their vehicles. Toyota has announced that it will
incorporate brake override in its vehicles beginning with the
2011 model year.

Since the introduction of ETCS-i, more than 2,600 complaints of
sudden unintended acceleration have been made to the Toyota
Defendants and government agencies. According to the suit, ETCS-i
has resulted in automobile accidents causing more than 34 deaths
and hundreds of accidents and injuries over the past decade and
these numbers are likely underreported. More than six million
vehicles have been recalled by Toyota.

"Toyota was fully aware of the recurring problem of sudden
unintended acceleration in their Toyota and Lexus vehicles
equipped with ETCS-i and the serious risk of injury or death that
it presented to drivers of these vehicles and they continued to
manufacture and sell the cars," says Eidson. "This action seeks
to hold Toyota accountable for damages sustained by Toyota owners
and to force Toyota to take appropriate steps to eliminate sudden
unintended acceleration in its vehicles."

                      About Colson Hicks Eidson

The Coral Gables-based law Firm of Colson Hicks Eidson --
http://www.colson.com/-- is a trial firm with more than 40 years  
of experience handling local, national and international
litigation. Partners at the firm have also had the distinction of
holding the following offices: President of the 60,000-member
Association of Trial Lawyers of America; President of the
International Academy of Trial Lawyers; President of the Academy
of Florida Trial Lawyers; President of the Dade County Bar
Association; Untied States Attorney for the Southern District of
Florida and Chairman of the Florida Federal Judicial Nominating
Commission.


UNITED STATES: Capitol Police Sue for Race Discrimination
---------------------------------------------------------
Emily Yehle at the Roll Call reports that about 300 black police
officers are hoping to file a class action lawsuit against the
Capitol Police, more than eight years after they originally filed
individual discrimination lawsuits against the department.

But their plight seems full of obstacles. Calls to Congressional
leadership to intervene have gone mostly unheeded, and the
Capitol Police's attorneys argue that 250 of the officers are not
actually represented by the firm that filed their cases.

The cases have been dragging on since 2001, when former Capitol
Police Lt. Sharon Blackmon-Malloy initiated the lawsuit in her
capacity as president of the U.S. Capitol Black Police
Association. Blackmon-Malloy's claim -- along with that of the
other officers -- is that the department has a long history of
discriminating against black officers, with superiors creating a
hostile working environment and denying promotions to qualified
black officers.

Since then, the cases were dismissed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Columbia, only to recently win an appeal in a
federal appeals court.

Now the case is back at square one in the district court, where
Judge Emmet Sullivan on Friday will hold its first status
hearing. Joe Gebhardt, one of the officers' attorneys, has
refiled the complaints and the motion for a class action
clarification -- but he's also approached Members of Congress
with appeals to force a settlement.

Sen. Arlen Specter (D-Pa.) is so far the only Member to respond.
In a recent letter to both parties, he suggests mediation as a
way "to bring closure to this long running lawsuit."

"The long and short is that the plaintiffs brought the dispute to
Sen. Specter's attention in his capacity as chairman of the Crime
and Drugs Judiciary Subcommittee," a Specter spokeswoman said.
"Sen. Specter then urged both parties, through their counsel, to
resolve the dispute with mediation as this could free both
parties from remaining bogged down in what has become a costly
and lengthy lawsuit."

So far, however, the U.S. Attorney's Office -- which is
representing the Capitol Police -- has declined to take the case
to the settlement table. Instead, attorneys are hoping to
convince the court that the cases of 250 officers were dismissed
back in 2007 and never went through the appeals process.

In a recently filed motion to strike, the department's attorneys
argue that the firm Gebhardt & Associates and attorney Nathaniel
D. Johnson "do not appear to have an extant attorney-client
relationship." In short: Since each officer did not submit an
individual appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals, they should not
benefit from the overturning of the lower court's dismissal.

"As an initial matter, no attorney should be pursuing claims on
behalf of individuals that he or she does not represent. Such
conduct is patently inappropriate by the attorney," the motion
states. "Filing or pursuing claims on behalf of individuals that
an attorney does not represent also needlessly burdens the Court
and the other parties with litigation that is being pursued by
and for counsel alone rather than on behalf of a client."

But Mr. Gebhardt claims that Blackmon-Malloy has always been the
lead plaintiff and thus has the authority to secure
representation for the rest of the affected officers.

Though Capitol Police officials won't comment on ongoing
litigation, they have taken steps to increase diversity in recent
years by retooling their administrative arm. Earlier this year,
they hired a diversity officer in response to a report that
discovered that the same office that represents the department in
Equal Employment Opportunity complaints was determining the
"legal sufficiency" of those same complaints.

Mr. Gebhardt predicted that it would be a "long road ahead" to a
resolution.

"We had been hoping that the Democratic Congressional leaders and
Attorney General Eric Holder would have stepped in and asked for
a settlement," he said Tuesday. "The black officers are deeply
disappointed."

                            *********

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,
Editors.

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  * * *