CAR_Public/100412.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Monday, April 12, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 70

                            Headlines

BALTIMORE CITY JAIL: Court Okays Settlement in Healthcare Suit
BELL MICROPRODUCTS: Being Sold Through Unfair Process, Suit Says
BOUCHARD TRANSPORTATION: Fairhave Plaintiffs Encouraged by Award
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Courts Won't Dismiss Social Service Suits
FORIA INTERNATIONAL: Recalls 800 Women's Peacoats

FORTINET INC: Accused of Misleading Info on Price of Common Shares
GOOGLE INC: Visual Artists Sue Over Images in Digitized Books
HAMMARY FURNITURE: Recalls 7,000 Chests and Tables
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Accused in Calif. of Violating Medicaid Laws
KMART CORP: Ind. Court Preliminarily Okays "Airborne" Settlement

LOS ANGELES: County Prosecutors Union Files Class Action Lawsuit
MARINE PRODUCTS: Price-Fixing Lawsuit Filed in C.D. Calif.
MCAFEE INC: Accused of Placing Unauthorized Pop-Ups in Web Site
MDL 1409: Four Banks Agree to Modify Cardholder Arbitration Rules
MONEYGRAM INTERNATIONAL: $80 Million Shareholder Settlement

NEW CENTURY: Sued in Ohio for Charging Illegal Mortgage Fees
NOVARTIS PHARMACEUTICALS: Sex Discrimination Trial Underway
ORIENTAL FURNITURE: Recalls 25,000 Roman Shades and Roll-Up Blinds
PREMERA BLUE CROSS: IT Worker Overtime Suit filed in W.D. Wash.
PULTEGROUP INC: Centex Lawsuits Dismissed with Prejudice

PURDUE FARMS: Class-Action Suit Alleges Immigration Violations
SERCO INC: Accused of Not Paying Overtime Compensation
SONY CORPORATION: Fifth Optical Drive Price-Fixing Suit Filed
SONY OPTIARC: Sixth Optical Drive Price-Fixing Suit Filed
STANDARD & POOR: Israel Securities Authority Funds Class Action

TOYOTA MOTOR: Pa. Pension Funds Wants to Serve as Lead Plaintiff
UMB BANK: Missouri Lawsuit Contests Overdraft Fee Practices
UNITED STATES: Native American Farmers' Status Report Due Apr. 15
WESTERN UNION: Sued in Colorado for Deceptive Business Practice

                            *********

BALTIMORE CITY JAIL: Court Okays Settlement in Healthcare Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal judge in Baltimore
approved a class-action settlement requiring the Baltimore City
Jail to step up its medical and mental health care for detainees.
The deal settles claims that detainees with untreated diabetes
have died, and others have gone months without necessary
medication or screening.

The settlement, reached in August, requires jail officials to
respond to sick calls within 72 hours, provide ongoing treatment
to detainees with chronic diseases, provide an on-site
psychiatrist five days a week, and ensure that detainees continue
to receive all necessary medication.

Officials also agreed to fix any broken plumbing in a timely
manner, to prevent the risk of a health threat.

U.S. District Judge J. Frederick Motz called the settlement
"fair, reasonable and adequate."

Elizabeth Alexander, the lead attorney and former director of the
ACLU National Prison Project, called the settlement a "major step
forward."

Her sentiments were echoed by attorney Wendy Hess with the Public
Justice Center, which joined the ACLU's fight to improve prison
conditions.

"The court's approval of the settlement agreement is a
significant step toward improving the safety conditions in the
Baltimore City Jail," Ms. Hess said.  "The human rights of men,
women and youth awaiting trial will now be protected."

About 40,000 people pass through the jail each year, and the jail
holds about 4,500 people on any given day.

The settlement stems from a consent decree dating back three
decades.  A federal judge agreed to reopen the case in 2004, and
the ACLU and the Public Justice Center began negotiating the
settlement in 2007.

A copy of the Honorable J. Frederick Motz's April 6, 2010, Order
in Duvall, et al. v. O'Malley, et al., Case No. 94-cv-02541 (D.
Md.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/04/07/Jail%20approval.pdf


BELL MICROPRODUCTS: Being Sold Through Unfair Process, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Bell Microproducts is
selling itself too cheaply to Avnet through an unfair process,
for $594 million or $7 a share, shareholders say in Santa Clara
County Court, Calif.

A copy of the Complaint in Hung v. Bell Microprducts Inc., et
al.,
Case No. 1-10-CV-168304 (Calif. Super. Ct., Santa Clara Cty.), is
available at:
     
     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/04/07/SCA.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:
          
          Marc M. Umeda, Esq.
          S. Benjamin Rozwood, Esq.
          Arshan Amiri, Esq.
          Alejandro E. Moreno, Esq.
          ROBBINS UMEDA LLP
          600 B St., Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: 619-525-3990


BOUCHARD TRANSPORTATION: Fairhave Plaintiffs Encouraged by Award
----------------------------------------------------------------
Peggy Aulisio at SouthCoastToday.com reports that Fairhaven,
Mass., is one of nine towns with individual property owners also
seeking to sue Bouchard Transportation Company, Inc., in a class
action suit, according to their lawyer:

          Jason B. Adkins, Esq.
          ADKINS, KELSTON & ZAVEZ, P.C.
          90 Canal Street, Suite 500
          Boston, MA 02114
          Telephone: 617.367.1040

Mr. Adkins said the recent court decision awarding damages to
eight property owners in Mattapoisett was encouraging to their
cause.

"I thought it was a very good outcome," he said.

Mr. Adkins said his firm "is seeking to represent all towns in
Massachusetts from the Rhode Island border to the Cape. He said
they include Dartmouth, Gosnold on Cuttyhunk, Bourne, New
Bedford, Marion and Falmouth - but not Mattapoisett.

He said they filed the class action suit in 2006 in federal court
"to represent all property owners who were oiled."

Mr. Adkins said his firm won a recent victory when former Supreme
Court Justice David H. Souter, acting for the U.S. First Circuit
Court of Appeals, agreed with his clients, who were appealing a
decision of a district court.

"Judge Souter wrote a good decision," he said.  A copy of the
slip opinion in Gintis, et al. v. Bouchard Transportation
Company, Inc., et al., No. 09-1717 (1st Cir.), is available at
http://www.akzlaw.com/pdfs/First%20Circuit%20Decision.pdf

In its Feb. 23, 2010, ruling in the class action case Adkins'
firm is litigating, the U.S. Court of Appeals disputes Bouchard's
claim that records of contamination of individual parcels are
inadequate.

It states, "The common evidence goes beyond Bouchard's admission
of negligence in causing the spill, and includes the
contamination and clean-up records that will be offered to show
harm to individual parcels."

The decision says Bouchard raised questions about appraisal
methodology but the plaintiffs are employing an "expert
economist" in that field.

Its says individual property owners are likely to be awarded
"$12,000 to $39,000," which makes it unaffordable for them to
file suit on their own "especially with the prospect of expert
testimony required."

Mr. Adkins said he hopes the decision will provide guidance for
certifying the towns that may be involved. He said the legal
process will take time because it includes discovery and
depositions.

Mr. Adkins is not with the same law firm handling the class
action suit in Mattapoisett but he went to court to listen to the
arguments in that case.

In that case, tried in Plymouth, a 13-person jury agreed last
week that Bouchard must pay eight Mattapoisett residential
property owners damages for oil that polluted their beaches
following the April 27, 2003, Buzzards Bay oil spill.

The property owners were randomly selected to have their claims
decided in the first phase of the class action trial involving
1,100 Mattapoisett property owners.

Among the eight were two shore-front properties and six
properties with easement rights in neighborhood beaches impacted
by the spill. They ranged from "very lightly" oiled to "heavily"
oiled, according to Bouchard's own "Maximum Degree of Oiling"
maps.

The awarded damages range from $3,150 to $45,300 after being
doubled in accordance with state law. In addition, the plaintiffs
will receive 12 percent annual interest going back to the filing
date of the lawsuit in September 2004.


DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Courts Won't Dismiss Social Service Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Henri E. Cauvin at The Washington Post reports that the District
of Columbia was dealt another setback last week in its effort to
end the class action lawsuits covering three of the city's social
services agencies.

In an 84-page decision issued Wednesday morning, U.S. District
Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle rejected the city's argument that under
a recent Supreme Court decision, the city was not obligated to
comply with the consent decree agreed to in the long-running
case.

Judge Huvelle had announced her decision at a hearing in
December, but she had not laid out her reasoning until the
issuance of her opinion last week. She has scheduled a hearing
for this afternoon and required Attorney General Peter Nickles to
be present.

Known as Evans v. Fenty, the suit was filed in 1976 over
conditions at Forest Haven, which was the city's institution for
people with severe developmental disabilities. Forest Haven was
closed almost two decades ago, but the city failed to provide
adequate services to the many of the former Forest Haven
residents, and the litigation has lived on.

Mr. Nickles and Mayor Adrian M. Fenty have made ending the suit
and others involving the child welfare and mental health agencies
a key administration priority.

The judge in the child welfare case, Thomas F. Hogan, issued his
long-awaited decision on the District's effort to the end that
case, known as LaShawn v. Fenty, last week.  Judge Hogan said
that the city had not met the standards set out last year by the
Supreme Court in the institutional reform case Horne v. Flores.

Judge Hogan also found Mr. Fenty in civil contempt for failing to
involve the plaintiffs in the selection of a new child welfare
director.


FORIA INTERNATIONAL: Recalls 800 Women's Peacoats
-------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission in cooperation with
Foria International Inc., of City of Industry, Calif., announced
a voluntary recall of about 800 Women's Peacoats.  Consumers
should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise
instructed.

The peacoats fail to meet the federal flammability standard for
wearing apparel and pose a risk of burn injury.

No incidents or injuries have been reported.

This recall involves women's peacoats that are double-breasted
and have long sleeves.  They are made from 100 percent cotton
fleece in large blue and white plaid print.  "Authentic" is
printed on the label at the center back neckline of the garments.  
A picture of the recalled product is available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10192.html

The recalled peacoats were manufactured in China and sold at Bass
Pro Shops nationwide from October 2009 through January 2010 for
about $60.

Consumers should stop using the recalled coats immediately and
return them to Foria International for a full refund of retail
price including shipping.  Foria International address is 18689
Arenth Avenue, City of Industry, CA 91748.  For additional
information, contact Foria International toll free at (888) 999-
6568 between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Pacific Time, Monday through
Friday, or visit the firm's Web site at http://www.foria.com/


FORTINET INC: Accused of Misleading Info on Price of Common Shares  
------------------------------------------------------------------
Tony Ashraf, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. Fortinet, Inc., Case No. BC434948 (Calif. Super. Ct., Los
Angeles Cty. Apr. 1, 2010), accuses the network security provider
of intentionally deceiving shareholders of the Company by
concealing the true valuation of its common stock when, during
the first half of 2009, it offered to repurchase his shares in
the Company's common stock for $4.25 per share in spite of the
Company's internal estimates showing that Fortinet's common stock
was in fact valued at $6.61 per share at Jan. 28, 2008, $7.25 at
April 30, 2009, and $9.05 per share at July 22, 2009, in
violation of the California Corporations Code.  Mr. Ashraf
asserts that had he known about the stock's true valuation, he
would not have sold his Fortinet stock.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert G. Loewy, Esq.
          TEUTON, LOEWY & PARKER LLP
          3121 Michelson Drive, Suite 250
          Irvine, CA 92612
          Telephone: (949) 442-7100
          E-mail: rloewy@tlpfirm.com

               - and -     

          Steven L. Marchbanks, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF STEVEN L. MARCHBANKS
          2550 Fifth Avenue, 9th Floor
          San Diego, CA 92103
          Telephone: (619) 235-3200
          E-mail: steve@premierlegalcenter.com


GOOGLE INC: Visual Artists Sue Over Images in Digitized Books
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sheri Qualters at The National Law Journal reports that eleven
photography and graphic arts organizations, and individual
illustrators and photographers have hit Google Inc. with a
copyright infringement class action over the company's ongoing
project to digitize the world's books.

The American Society of Media Photographers Inc., et al., v.
Google Inc., Case No. 10-cv-02977 (S.D.N.Y.), filed last week,
claims the company's Google Book Search project involves massive
infringement of copyrighted images. The plaintiffs seek an
injunction against the company and a declaratory judgment that
the company infringed the plaintiffs' and class members'
copyrights.

The plaintiffs seek unspecified actual damages. They're also
asking the court to award statutory damages of at least $30,000
per infringed visual work or at least $150,000 per infringed
visual work if the court finds that Google acted willfully.

The plaintiffs are not trying to hamper Google's business, said
their lawyer, James McGuire, the managing partner of the New York
office of London-based Mishcon de Reya.

"The issue in the case is that Google has been misappropriating
and misusing the property and rights of the class without
authorization and compensation," McGuire said. "It may be that we
can work out an arrangement with Google, but we can only do so if
it pays proper attention to the rights of the plaintiffs."

In an e-mailed statement, Google said the company is "confident
that Google Books is fully compliant with U.S. and international
copyright law."

The statement went on: "Google Books is an historic effort to
make all of the knowledge contained within the world's books
searchable online. It exposes readers to information they might
not otherwise see, and it provides authors and publishers with a
new way to be found."

Four of the five photography groups and four individuals not
named in the recently filed suit tried unsuccessfully to
intervene in a pending Southern District of New York consolidated
lawsuit brought by authors, The Authors Guild v. Google Inc.  On
Sept. 2, 2009, Judge Denny Chin issued an order concluding that
it was "simply too late to permit new parties into the case." In
a Nov. 4, 2009, memorandum decision about the photography
plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration of their request to
intervene, Chin wrote that it "makes more sense" for them to file
their own lawsuit.

A copy of the Complaint is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/04/08/GoogleArt.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          James J. McGuire, Esq.
          Mark A. Berube, Esq.
          Vincent Filardo, Jr., Esq.
          Julian D. Perlman, Esq.
          MISHCON DE REYA NEW YORK LLP
          200 Park Avenue, 44th Floor
          New York, NY 10166
          Telephone: 212-612-3270
          E-mail: james.mcguire@mishcon.com
                  mark.berube@mishcon.com
                  vincent.filardo@mishcon.com
                  julian.perlman@mishcon.com

               - and -  

          Ronny L. Kurzman, Esq.
          1200 Avenue of the Americas, 3rd Floor
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: 646-448-9990


HAMMARY FURNITURE: Recalls 7,000 Chests and Tables
--------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission in cooperation with
Hammary Furniture Co., of Lenoir, N.C., announced a voluntary
recall of about 7,000 Decorative Wood Chests and Tables.  
Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless
otherwise instructed.

The surface coating paint on the furniture could contain
excessive levels of lead in violation of the federal lead paint
standard.

No incidents or injuries have been reported.

The recall products involve several styles of decorative wooden
chests and tables.  The model number, style and average price
are:

                                                         Retail
     Model Number   Style                                Price
     ------------   -----                                ------
     T71037-00      Vincent Rattan Entertainment Center    $700
     T71274-00      World Map Drum Table                   $720
     T71522-00      Oval Game Cocktail Table               $900
     T71946-00      Roulette Accent Table                  $640
     T72345-00      Console Table                          $880
     T72706-00      Entertainment Console                  $900
     T72858-00      Bachelor's Chest                       $800
     T73064-00      Bar Cabinet                            $700
     T73069-00      Accent Table                           $500
     T73070-00      CD Storage                             $360
     T73112-00      Old Western Rifle Accent Table         $500
     T73174-00      Box on Stand                           $280
     T73175-00      Round Accent Table                     $200
     T73229-22      Nest of Tables                         $460
     T73292-00      Bombe Chest                            $700
     T73293-00      Octagonal Drum Table Brown             $240
     T73294-00      Octagonal Drum Table                   $240
     T73319-00      Black Bedside Chest                    $260
     T73346-00      Door Chest                             $900

Furniture manufactured since April 2009 will have a label that
specifies the date of manufacture, the item number, and the
country of origin, a product description and the name "Hammary
Furniture."  This label is located on the unfinished back of the
item or, if the back is finished, on the underside.  Products
manufactured earlier than April 2009 will not have any
identifiable markings on them.  Visit the firm's Web site
http://www.regcen.com/hammaryrecall/for photos of all furniture  
items included in this recall.

The recalled products were manufactured in China, Philippines,
and Vietnam and sold at major department stores and furniture
retail stores from November 2001 through November 2009 for
between $200 and $900.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled furniture,
keep young children away from it and contact Hammary to receive a
free replacement.  For additional information, contact Hammary
toll-free at (888) 577-4098 anytime or visit the firm's Web site
at http://www.regcen.com/hammaryrecall


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Accused in Calif. of Violating Medicaid Laws
---------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Dinzeo at Courthouse News Service reports that Johnson &
Johnson conspired with pharmaceutical consultant and dispensary
Omnicare to monopolize drug supplies to nursing homes and violate
Medicaid laws, an antitrust class action claims in Federal Court.
And they did it "in such a brazen manner that they named one of
the programs 'one extra script per patient,'" the complaint
states.

Using Omnicare's consulting contacts with nursing homes, the two
companies pushed Johnson & Johnson-made drugs to residents,
including the anti-dementia drug Risperdal, the class claims.

Medicaid's best-price law "was intended to ensure that Medicaid
paid the lowest price available for drugs," but the companies
sidestepped this law "and then covered up the violations by a
program of rebates, kickbacks, and illusory service agreements in
order to increase market share, revenue and profitability,"
according to the complaint.

The companies created a program designed to increase the use of
drugs among nursing home patients "in such a brazen manner that
they named one of the programs 'one extra script per patient,'"
the complaint states.

As a result, approximately 1.4 million seniors were overcharged
for prescriptions, had extra drugs administered unnecessarily and
"were unlawfully switched to Johnson & Johnson drugs all as part
and parcel of the conspiracy to increase revenue," according to
the complaint.

Johnson & Johnson "paid handsomely" for Omnicare's pharmaceutical
consultants to list its drugs as "preferred" and to dispense them
to 90 percent of U.S. nursing homes, for which Johnson & Johnson
"enjoyed over $100 million in revenues," according to the
complaint.

"Omnicare is the nation's largest provider of pharmacy dispensing
services and pharmacy consulting services to long-term care
facilities in the country," the complaint states.  It operates in
47 states.

The class demands restitution, disgorgement, imposition of a
trust and punitive damages.  

A copy of the Complaint in Spindler, et al. v. Johnson & Johnson
Corp., et al., Case No. 10-cv-01414 (N.D. Calif.), is available
at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/04/07/Omnicare.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:
          
          Thomas V. Girardi, Esq.
          Stephen G. Larson, Esq.
          Graham B. Lippsmith, Esq.
          GIRARDI IKEESE
          1126 Wilshire Blvd.
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: 213-977-0211
          E-mail: tgirardi@girardikeese.com
                  slarson@girardikeese.com
                  glippsmith@girardikeese.com

               - and -

          Casey A. Hatton, Esq.
          WILKES & MCHUGH
          3780 Kilroy Airport Way, Suite 220
          Long Beach, CA 90806
          Telephone: 562-424-3003


KMART CORP: Ind. Court Preliminarily Okays "Airborne" Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Amelia Flood at The St. Clair Record reports that one of several
class actions suits filed in St. Clair County over "Airborne"
knockoffs is on track to settle for less than $200,000.

A case against Kmart's immune supplement "Germ Defense" got an
initial settlement approval in February by Circuit Judge Lloyd
Cueto after settlement talks in the 2008 case concluded in
November.

Attorneys for lead plaintiff Larry Adams -- Kevin Hoerner and
Brian Kreisler of Belleville, Paul Weiss of Chicago and Richard
Burke of St. Louis -- filed a motion asking for simultaneous
certification and preliminary of approval of the settlement in
January.

Under the proposed settlement, Kmart and Sears Roebuck and Co.
would pay out up to $130,000 in vouchers to class members. The
vouchers, up to two per claimant, total $5 each and are good
toward any $20 Kmart purchase.

The class counsel will receive $55,000 in fees and costs. Adams
would get $1,500 to be paid out of the attorney fees.

Judge Cueto authorized preliminary approval Feb. 9. He has not
yet ordered final approval.

As part of the settlement, the plaintiff class was allowed to
instantly file an amended complaint amending the class of the
suit to a nationwide class. That complaint is subject to review
by the defense, however.

Two other suits over Target and CVS pharmacy's versions of the
immune system supplement have remained pending but with no recent
activity.

All of the immune supplement class actions were filed at the end
of 2008 by the same team of attorneys.

The claims in all of the class actions, although led by different
lead plaintiffs, have been the same. The suits allege that the
makers of the Airborne generics misled the public and sold a
product that did not boost the immune system. The classes sued on
the basis of violations of consumer fraud laws and unjust
enrichment. The suits seek damages of no more than $75,000 per
class member and other relief.

Two other class actions were filed by lead plaintiffs Brian
Buehlhorn and Iean Finley against Target and CVS Pharmacies
respectively.

There have been no filings in the Buehlhorn case since Target
filed its answer to his claims in October 2009. Buehlhorn's suit
encompasses Illinois, Minnesota, California and Florida to date.

Finley's suit against CVS was certified by Judge Cueto Jan. 25.
There have been no filings in the two months since it was
certified.

St. Clair County Circuit Judge Patrick Young presides over the
Buehlhorn suit against Target.

In the Kmart suit, the defendants are represented by William
Knapp of Edwardsville and Mark Brandt of Chicago.

In the Target and CVS suits, Robert Bassett and others represent
the defendants.

The cases are case numbers:

Kmart is St. Clair case number 08-L-599.

Finley's suit is case number 08-L-616.

Buehlhorn's suit is case number 08-L-667.


LOS ANGELES: County Prosecutors Union Files Class Action Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Troy Anderson at the Contra Costa Times reports that the union
representing Los Angeles County prosecutors has filed a class-
action lawsuit against District Attorney Steve Cooley, alleging
his office committed "what amounts to identity theft" by
obtaining a list of 650 prosecutors who supported the union,
officials said last week.

The lawsuit alleges Cooley's office obtained a confidential list
of the prosecutors who supported the Association of Deputy
District Attorneys and subsequently used the list to intimidate
and harass them, damaging prosecutor's careers and prospects for
advancement.

"This is an uprising of principled prosecutors who are seeking
damages for the anti-union retaliation that has been inflicted
upon them by the Cooley administration," said Matthew Monforton,
a Boseman, Mont. attorney representing the ADDA.

District Attorney's Office spokeswoman Sandi Gibbons declined to
comment, referring the matter to Jones Day law firm partner
Elwood Lui.

"We dispute the allegations and believe the evidence will show
that the allegations are untrue and we look forward to presenting
that evidence to the court," Mr. Lui said.

The filing of the amended complaint comes as a federal judge last
month issued a preliminary injunction ordering Cooley to stop
discriminating and retaliating against employees on the basis of
their union membership.

The injunction was issued in response to the initial lawsuit the
300-member ADDA filed against Cooley, alleging he retaliated
against veteran prosecutors by transferring them to remote parts
of the county, increased their health insurance payments, demoted
them and downgraded their performance evaluations.

"Despite the judge's finding that the actions by the DA are
`rampant,' rather than remedying the situation, the county has
increased its legal team by bringing in Jones Day, one of the
nation's largest law firms," ADDA President Steve Ipsen said.
In the amended complaint, Mr. Monforton wrote the list revealed
one of the most personal and sensitive decisions employees ever
make in their careers -- whether to unionize.

"As explained by the head of Los Angeles County's independent
labor agency, this disclosure may subject any union supporter to
`retaliation by management, which may include discipline up to
and including termination under a pretense,"' Mr. Monforton
wrote.

"Plaintiffs therefore seek damages on behalf of all prosecutors
who are victims of what amounts to identity theft committed
against them by Mr. Cooley and his agents."


MARINE PRODUCTS: Price-Fixing Lawsuit Filed in C.D. Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------
Baron & Budd, P.C. attorneys, working with attorneys from Los
Angeles-based Glancy Bingow & Goldberg LLC, New York securities
law firm Labaton Sucharow LLP, Mobile-based Vickers, Riis, Murray
and Curran, L.L.C. and Galveston attorney A. Craig Eiland, have
filed suit in federal district court in Los Angeles over a web of
conspiracies to fix prices and rig bids on several marine
products.  The Board of Trustees of the Galveston Wharves, the
Board of Commissioners of the Port of New Orleans and OSG
Lightering LLC, who all purchased marine products that were the
subject of the conspiracies, have sued on behalf all those
affected by the schemes.

The interrelated conspiracies, which involved many of the same
industry players, concerned three types of marine products:  
foam-filled fenders and buoys, marine pilings, and marine
fenders.  Because of the defendants' unlawful actions, consumers
of these products, including many public entities, were charged
inflated prices.  

"The City of New Orleans has had so many challenges and
obstacles," says Burton LeBlanc, Baron & Budd shareholder and
Louisiana native.  "I'm proud to represent the port's
commissioners in standing up to the companies that have conspired
to cheat New Orleans and so many other U.S. cities."

Some co-conspirators have already pleaded guilty in an antitrust
suit brought against them by the Department of Justice.  A
pending whistleblower lawsuit has attracted the attention and
participation of the Department of Justice, as well as States of
California and Florida.  The qui tam, or whistleblower, lawsuit
was filed in 2005 but only became public in February 2010 after
it was partially unsealed by Judge George H. Wu, a federal
district judge in California.

"These companies defrauded the federal and state governments,
cities, ports, and untold numbers of private consumers," says
Russell W. Budd, managing shareholder of Baron & Budd, P.C.  "It
is critical that we hold them accountable, and our attorneys are
working hard to make that happen."

                     About Baron & Budd, P.C.

Dallas-based Baron & Budd, P.C., with offices in Baton Rouge,
Austin and Beverly Hills, is a nationally recognized firm with
more than three decades of experience representing people and
communities harmed by corporate negligence. The firm resolved one
of the first asbestos cases in the United States in the 1970s and
continues to serve people diagnosed with mesothelioma and
asbestos-related lung cancer as well as communities and consumers
dealing with the costs of fraud and corporate misconduct.


MCAFEE INC: Accused of Placing Unauthorized Pop-Ups in Web Site
---------------------------------------------------------------
Melissa Ferrington and Cheryl Schmidt, individually and on behalf
of a class v. McAfee Incorporated, Case No. 10-cv-01455 (N.D.
Calif. Apr. 6, 2010), assert breach of the covenant of good faith
and fair dealing and violations of the California Business and
Professions Code and California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act.  
Plaintiffs allege that when consumers buy software products
directly from the security technology provider, a misleading pop-
up display on the Company's Web site leads them to unwittingly
enroll in subscription-based services by a third party.  
Plaintiffs further claim that McAfee allows this third party to
market its products and services on its Web site and that the
Company passes customer billing information to this third-party
in return for a undisclosed fee, without adequately disclosing
the nature, terms of the subscription services and the manner by
which termination of the service may be made.  Purchasers of
McAfee products are then charged for unwanted products and
services.  McAfee customers are made to believe that they are
merely completing the purchase of the McAfee software, when in
truth they have purchased an unwanted product from this third
party.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew N. Friedman, Esq.
          Victoria S. Nugent, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLER & TOLL PLLC
          1100 New York Avenue, N.W., Suite 500 West
          Washington, D.C. 20005-3964
          Telephone: (202) 408-4600
          E-mail: vnugent@cohenmilstein.com

               - and -   

          Matthew N. Metz, Esq.
          METZ LAW GROUP, PLLC
          701 Fifth Ave., Suite 7230
          Seattle, WA 98104-7042
          Telephone: (206) 583-2745
          E-mail: matthew@metzlaw.net

A copy of the Complaint is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/04/08/McAfee.pdf


MDL 1409: Four Banks Agree to Modify Cardholder Arbitration Rules
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Subject to final approval by the Court, settlements have been
reached with Bank of America, Capital One, Chase and HSBC in
Ross, et al. v. Bank of America, N.A., (USA), et al., MDL No.
1409; No. 05-cv-7116 (S.D.N.Y.), concerning arbitration clauses
and class action lawsuit waivers buried in credit cardholder
agreements.  

This lawsuit involves claims that the settling defendants Bank of
America, Capital One, Chase and HSBC and the non-settling
defendants Discover, Citibank and National Arbitration Forum
violated federal law by conspiring, with each other and certain
non-defendants, to require that their cardholders (a) take all
legal disputes to arbitration rather than court and (b) give up
any right to participate in class actions against these credit
card companies. This case is on behalf of cardholders who are
subject to arbitration clauses.  Cardholders who are not subject
to arbitration clauses, including any Discover cardholders who
have opted out of arbitration, are not included in the case.
All settling defendants and all non-settling defendants deny that
they conspired with each other or that they violated any law, and
assert that they have done nothing wrong or improper.

IMPORTANT DEADLINES.  The deadline for submitting an objection to
the settlements is June 11, 2010. The date of the hearing for
final approval of the settlements is July 15, 2010 at 11:00 AM at
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York,
500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007-1581.

More information about these four settlements is available at
http://www.arbitration.ccfsettlement.com/documents/

More information about the settlement in the related matter, In
re Currency Conversion Fee Antitrust Litigation (MDL No. 1409),
concerning foreign transaction fees, is available at
http://www.ccfsettlement.com/

Bank of America, N.A., is represented by:

          Mark P. Ladner, Esq.
          William R. Wade-Gery, Esq.
          Jodi K. Miller, Esq
          MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
          1290 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10104-0050
          Telephone: 212-468-8000

Capital One Bank (USA), N.A., and Capital One, N.A., are
represented by:

          Andrew J. Frackman, Esq.
          Edward D. Hassi, Esq.
          Peter C. Herrick, Esq.
          O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
          Times Square Tower
          7 Times Square
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: 212-236-2000
          E-mail: afrackman@omm.com
          ehassi@omm.com
          pherrick@omm.com

JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Chase Bank USA, N.A., are represented
by:

          Robert D. Wick, Esq.
          Zachary G. Parks, Esq.
          COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
          1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20004
          Telephone: 202-662-6000
          E-mail: rwick@cov.com
                  zparks@cov.com

               - and -  

          Andrew A. Ruffino, Esq.
          COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
          620 Eighth Avenue
          New York, NY 10018
          Telephone: 212-841-1000
          E-mail: aruffino@cov.com

Citigroup Inc., Citibank (South Dakota), N.A., Universal
Financial Corp., and Citicorp Diners Club Inc., are represented
by:

          Benjamin R. Nagin, Esq.
          Catherine B. Winter, Esq.
          SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
          787 Seventh Avenue
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: 212-839-5300

               - and -  

          David F. Graham, Esq.
          Theodore R. Scarborough, Esq.
          Eric H. Grush, Esq.
          SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
          One South Dearborn Street
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: 312-853-7000

               - and -  

          James A. Huizinga, Esq.
          John K. Van De Weert, Esq.
          SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
          1501 K Street, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: 202-736-8000

DFS Services LLC, Discover Bank, and Discover Financial Services
are represented by:

          Robert Y. Sperling, Esq.
          Ronald S. Betman, Esq.
          Linda T. Coberly, Esq.
          WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
          35 West Wacker Drive
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: 312-558-5600
          E-mail: rsperling@winston.com
                  rbetman@winston.com
                  lcoberly@winston.com

               - and -  

          Davis E. Mollon, Esq.
          Christopher C. Costello, Esq.
          WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
          200 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10166
          Telephone: 212-294-2605
          E-mail: dmollon@winston.com
                  cccostello@winston.com

HSBC Finance Corporation and HSBC Bank Nevada, N.A., are
represented by:

          Harry T. Robins, Esq.
          Sarah Sandok Rabinovici, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          101 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10178-0060
          Telephone: 212-309-6000
          E-mail: hrobins@morganlewis.com
                  srabinovici@morganlewis.com

               - and -  

          Kent M. Roger, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          One Market, Spear Tower
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: 415-442-1198
          E-mail: kroger@morganlewis.com

The National Arbitration Forum, Inc., is represented by:

          Richard H. Silberberg, Esq.
          Christopher G. Karaghuezoff, Esq.
          DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP
          250 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10177-1500
          Telephone: 212-415-9200


MONEYGRAM INTERNATIONAL: $80 Million Shareholder Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
                  UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                      DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

                                 )
In re MoneyGram International,   )  Consolidated Case No.
Inc., Securities Litigation      )  08-cv-00883 (DSD/JJG)
_________________________________)


If you purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of
MoneyGram International, Inc., between January 24, 2007, and
March 25, 2008, inclusive, you may be a member of the Class in
this action and entitled to share in a $80,000,000 settlement.

You are herby notified, pursuant to an Order of the United States
District Court for the District of Minnesota, that a settlement
class has been certified and that a settlement of $80,000,000 has
been proposed in the above-captioned action. A hearing will be
held in the Courtroom of The Honorable David S. Doty, U.S.
Federal Building. 300 South Fourth Street, Minneapolis, Minnesota
55415, at 10:00 a.m., on June 18, 2010 to determine whether: (1)
the proposed settlement should be approved by the Court as fair,
reasonable and adequate; (2) Lead Counsel's application for an
award of attorneys' fees and reimbursements of expenses should be
approved; (3) the claims against the Defendants should be
dismissed with prejudice; and (4) such other matters as the Court
deems appropriate to rule upon. If approved, the Settlement will
resolve all of the claims in this litigation as further described
in the full printed Notice of Class Action, Proposed Settlement,
Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Fairness Hearing.

If you are a member of the class described above, your rights
will be affected and you may be entitled to share in the
settlement fund. If you are a member of the class and you do not
request exclusion, you will be bound by the settlement and barred
from asserting the released claims. If you have not yet received
the full printed Notice and Proof of Claim and Release form, you
may obtain copies of these documents by downloading them from the  
Web site http://www.MGIsettlement.com/or by contacting:

          In re MoneyGram Securities Litigation Settlement
          c/o Rust Consulting, Inc., Claims Administrator
          P.O. Box 2304
          Faribault, MN 55021-9004

Inquiries, other than requests for the forms of Notice and Proof
of Claim, may be made to Lead Counsel:

          Bradley E. Beckworth, Esq.        
          NIX, PATTERSON & ROACH, LLP       
          205 Linda Drive
          Daingerfield, Texas 78638         

               - and -  

          Jeffrey J. Angelovich, Esq.
          NIX, PATTERSON & ROACH, LLP
          3600B North Capital of Texas Highway, Suite 350
          Austin, Texas 78746

To participate in the Settlement, you must submit a Proof of
Claim postmarked not later than July 22, 2010.  The deadline for
submitting objections and requests for exclusion is June 4, 2010.

Further information may also be obtained by directing your
inquiry in writing to the Claims Administrator, Rust
Consulting, Inc., at the address listed above; by phone,
toll-free at 866-880-0070; or visiting the Web site at
http://www.MGIsettlement.com/

                                   By Order of The Court


NEW CENTURY: Sued in Ohio for Charging Illegal Mortgage Fees
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that New Century Mortgage charges
customers "illegal and exploitative fees, refused to credit their
payments . . . placed insurance on property that was sufficiently
insured" and abused its powers "to make loans and continue
practices that were illegal and unconscionable," according to a
class action in Cuyahoga County Court, Cleveland.

A copy of the Complaint in Ford v. New Century Mortgage
Corporation, et al., Case No. CV10723334 (Ohio C.P. Ct., Cuyahoga
Cty.) (Suster, J.), is available at:
     
     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/04/07/NewCentury.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by;
                    
          Gary Cook, Esq.
          3655 Prospect Ave. East, 3rd Floor
          Cleveland, OH 44115
          Telephone: 216-965-4410
          E-mail: gcookesq@yahoo.com


NOVARTIS PHARMACEUTICALS: Sex Discrimination Trial Underway
-----------------------------------------------------------
Duff Wilson at The New York Times reports that a class-action
lawsuit alleging that Novartis Pharmaceuticals practiced sex
discrimination against female employees was set to go to trial
last Wednesday in federal court in New York.

The complaint seeks more than $200 million in damages on behalf
of more than 5,600 female sales employees.

The suit alleges that Novartis, the United States subsidiary of
the Swiss drug giant, discriminated against women in pay and
promotions - especially women who became pregnant. Women in sales
positions at the company received an average of $105 a month less
than men in comparable jobs from 2002 through 2007, according to
their lawyers.

Novartis denies the claims and is proud of its record in hiring
and promoting women, Amy L. Bess, a lawyer for the company, said
on Tuesday. She noted that Novartis had been cited by Working
Mother magazine as one of the 100 best companies in the nation
for 10 years in a row, through 2009.

David W. Sanford, the lead lawyer for the 17 current and former
Novartis workers who filed the suit in 2004, says Novartis
continues to routinely discriminate against women.

"We will have overwhelming evidence to show how pregnant women
are treated by Novartis once they declare they are pregnant and
take maternity leave," Mr. Sanford said in an interview by phone
on Tuesday. "If we win this case, we will have accomplished quite
a bit for women not only at Novartis, but all across the United
States."

Mr. Sanford said the case was one of the largest class-action
discrimination lawsuits to ever reach trial, based on the size of
the class. The trial is scheduled to last five weeks. Most such
cases are settled before trial.

"When these cases go to trial, it means there are extremely
different views of the evidence and the risks by both sides,"
Brad Seligman, a California lawyer who is leading a class-action
sex discrimination case against Wal-Mart, said in a telephone
interview last week.

The Wal-Mart suit, on behalf of about two million employees, is
the nation's largest sex discrimination case yet, but Mr.
Seligman said it was tied up in appeals over class certification
and years from a possible trial.

Judge Gerard E. Lynch, who was then on the United States District
Court, certified the Novartis class action in 2007. Judge Lynch
is now a federal appellate judge. In October, District Judge
Colleen McMahon denied Novartis's motion for partial summary
judgment.

"The fact is, a massive amount of paper has been wasted by
defendant in a quixotic quest to keep much of the plaintiffs'
case from the jury," Judge McMahon wrote. "Plaintiffs have
demanded a jury, and a jury they shall have."

Fourteen women from across the country will testify, Mr. Sanford
said. More than 30 former Novartis employees have filed
affidavits.

The plaintiffs as a class are seeking $54 million in back pay,
plus compensatory and punitive damages, he said.

One woman's affidavit states that her Novartis manager told her
he preferred not to hire young women, saying, "First comes love,
then comes marriage, then comes flex time and a baby carriage."

Another, who is scheduled to be the second to testify, claims she
was encouraged to get an abortion.

A third woman, Amy Velez of Laurel, Md., the lead plaintiff, had
twins in 2001. She said in an affidavit that she was repeatedly
passed over for promotion by men who had inferior sales numbers.
Ms. Velez also said she heard a manager asking recruiters if
prospective employees were married or had children.

Mr. Sanford accused Novartis of attitudes that he said reflected
long-held discriminatory views "from the top of the company in
Basel." Switzerland, he noted, did not give women full voting
rights until 1971. And he said Swiss saleswomen had complained to
him of unfair treatment. But those issues will not be part of
this trial, he said.

Ms. Bess, the Novartis lawyer, said the company looked forward to
telling its story in court. Novartis will call as witnesses a
number of female sales workers who were automatically part of the
class action, but had "incredibly positive" experiences at the
company while raising families, she said.

"Novartis is adamant that it has absolutely done the right
thing," Ms. Bess said in a telephone interview on Tuesday. "It
doesn't discriminate against women. Its policies and practices
are absolutely cutting edge and are very, very favorable to
women."

Asked whether any of the men accused of discrimination had been
disciplined, Ms. Bess said Novartis could not talk about
personnel matters, but investigated every complaint thoroughly
and took corrective action where warranted.

The Working Mother Web site lists benefits that Novartis offers
working mothers, including flexible time, job shares,
telecommuting and $1,000 to anyone who saves $4,000 in a child
care account. The Web site says the company also offers "lunch
and learn" seminars on pediatric issues at its United States
headquarters in East Hanover, N.J.

Women make up 52 percent of Novartis employees and 44 percent of
its managers. Novartis made $8.5 billion in profit on $44.3
billion in sales last year, led by the blood pressure drug Diovan
and leukemia therapy Gleevec.

Female pharmaceutical representatives have recently won two sex
discrimination cases. Last month, Sanofi-Aventis, the French drug
giant, agreed to pay $15.4 million to settle a suit on behalf of
4,000 female sales representatives in the United States.

Also last month, a federal court jury in the District of Columbia
found in favor of a former Novartis sales representative in a
separate case who said the company cut her sales territory in
half after she announced she was taking maternity leave. The
court awarded her $579,338.


ORIENTAL FURNITURE: Recalls 25,000 Roman Shades and Roll-Up Blinds
------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission in cooperation with
Oriental Furniture of Cambridge, Mass, announced a voluntary
recall of about 25,000 Roman Shades and Roll-Up Blinds.  
Consumers should stop using the product immediately unless
otherwise instructed.

Strangulations can occur when a child places his/her neck between
the exposed inner cord and the fabric on the backside of the
Roman Shades or when a child pulls the cord out and wraps it
around his/her neck.  

Strangulations can occur if the lifting loop slides off the side
of the blind and a child's neck becomes entangled on the Roll-Up
Blinds' free-standing loop or if a child places his/her neck
between the lifting loop and the roll-up blind material.

No incidents or injuries have been reported.

The recall products involve all styles and sizes of Roman shades
and roll-up blinds sold by Oriental Furniture.  "Oriental
Furniture" is printed on the packaging.  Pictures of the recalled
products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10729.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold online
at http://www.orientalfurniture.com/and http://www.amazon.com/
and http://www.overstock.com/from March 2009 through December  
2009 for between $20 and $60.

Consumers should stop using the recalled Roman shades and roll-up
blinds immediately and contact the Window Covering Safety Council
for a free repair kit at (800) 506-4636 anytime or visit
http://www.windowcoverings.org/  

Oriental Furniture is contacting all known consumers.  For
additional information, contact Oriental Furniture at (800) 978-
2100 between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday through
Friday, or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.orientalfurniture.com/


PREMERA BLUE CROSS: IT Worker Overtime Suit filed in W.D. Wash.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Attorney Kelly M. Dermody of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein,
LLP, filed Sherrill v. Premera Blue Cross, et al., Case No.
10-cv-00590 (W.D. Wash.), last week.  This class action lawsuit
charges that Premera Blue Cross has a common practice of
misclassifying its technical support workers as exempt and
failing to pay them for all overtime hours worked in violation of
federal overtime pay laws.  Premera, and its subsidiaries
LifeWise Health Plan of Oregon and LifeWise Assurances, Co., who
are also named in the lawsuit, employ hundreds of technical
support workers nationwide.  

"We technical support workers work long days, nights, and
weekends to keep Premera's technology infrastructure up and
running," stated plaintiff Jeff Sherrill.  "We work through meals
and sacrifice our time and health for the company.  We just ask
to be paid for the hours we have worked, according to what the
law requires."

Plaintiff's counsel Kelly M. Dermody added, "This lawsuit is
about economic justice for the hundreds of Premera Blue Cross
technical support workers, without whom the company could not
operate.  Their tireless overtime work has helped enable
Premera's success."

Premera's technical support workers, who work in titles such as
System Administrator, System Engineer, IT Analyst, Software Test
Engineer, Database Administrator, EDI Specialist, Information
Security Administrator, Network Administrator, and Network
Specialist, among others, are responsible for installing,
maintaining, and/or supporting computer software and hardware.  
The lawsuit alleges that these workers were unlawfully denied
overtime pay.

Current and former Premera and LifeWise employees who perform
hardware or software installation, maintenance, or support work
who wish to report their work experiences or learn more about the
lawsuit should visit http://www.bluecrossovertime.com/

The web site allows witnesses and claimants to contact
plaintiffs' counsel.

The Seattle law firm of Frank Freed Subit & Thomas LLP will serve
as co-counsel for plaintiff on the case.

                      About Lieff Cabraser

Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP --
http://www.lieffcabraser.com/-- is a sixty-plus attorney law  
firm that has represented plaintiffs nationwide since 1972. We
have offices in San Francisco, New York, and Nashville. Lieff
Cabraser has a comprehensive and diverse practice which includes
representing employees in wage and hour class action lawsuits
seeking overtime pay.  Since 2003, the National Law Journal has
selected Lieff Cabraser as one of the top plaintiffs' law firms
in the nation.  


PULTEGROUP INC: Centex Lawsuits Dismissed with Prejudice
--------------------------------------------------------
On March 31, 2010, PulteGroup, Inc., disclosed last week, the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California dismissed with prejudice a putative class action
lawsuit filed against Centex Homes.  The lawsuit alleged, among
other things, that Centex engaged in misconduct that contributed
to the mortgage crisis. The Court simultaneously dismissed seven
other identical class actions that the same plaintiff law firm
filed against seven other large homebuilders.

According to press releases issued by plaintiffs' attorneys at
McCune Wright, LLP, at the time the eight class actions were
originally filed, the suits were based on reports issued by the
Laborer's International Union of North America ("LiUNA") that
attempt to blame large homebuilders for the nationwide mortgage
crisis.

According to PulteGroup, Inc. (Centex is a subsidiary of
PulteGroup), for some time, LiUNA and other union groups have
engaged in an intimidation campaign against PulteGroup in order
to coerce the Company to force its independent trade partners to
sign union agreements. As part of that campaign, these union
groups have been behind false claims that PulteGroup and other
residential homebuilders engaged in improper practices with
respect to the sale of homes. They have pressed these same false
claims through official-looking, but misleading, reports,
lawsuits, media articles and testimony before various State and
Federal regulatory and rulemaking proceedings.

The Court found that the injuries alleged by the plaintiffs were
speculative and could not be linked to the alleged misconduct of
the homebuilders. The Court concluded that factors beyond the
control of the homebuilders such as rising unemployment in the
region, changes in the housing market, and the general economic
downturn, all contributed to plaintiffs' claims of injury.

The swift dismissals, which came only six months after the cases
were filed, were all with prejudice, meaning that the plaintiff's
attorneys cannot amend their complaints. With these eight
decisions, there have now been a total of eleven cases in which
courts have dismissed lawsuits that attempt to blame the mortgage
crisis on homebuilders.  

                           About Centex

Centex is a wholly owned subsidiary of PulteGroup, Inc. In
August, 2009, Centex Corp. and Pulte Homes, Inc. merged to become
one of the largest homebuilders in America. Serving the first-
time and value-conscious homebuyer segments, Centex homes provide
smart design at affordable prices.

                         About PulteGroup

PulteGroup, Inc., based in Bloomfield Hills, Mich., is one of
America's largest home building companies with operations in 69
markets, 29 states and the District of Columbia. The Company has
an unmatched capacity to meet the needs of all buyer segments
through its brand portfolio that includes Pulte Homes, Centex
Homes and Del Webb. In 2009, PulteGroup brands received more top
rankings than any other homebuilder in the annual J.D. Power and
Associates 2009 New-Home Builder Customer Satisfaction Studysm.
Pulte Mortgage LLC is a nationwide lender offering PulteGroup
customers a variety of loan products and superior service.


PURDUE FARMS: Class-Action Suit Alleges Immigration Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gwenn Garland at The Daily Times reports that Perdue Farms plant
managers and human resources personnel are the target of a class-
action lawsuit alleging that the poultry giant knowingly hired
illegal aliens, depressing wages for hourly workers in its
processing facilities.

Motley Rice LLC, a South Carolina-based law firm, along with
Jacoby & Meyers LLC and Foster P.C., announced that they have
filed a putative class action lawsuit against numerous plant
managers and human resource personnel of Perdue Farms.

The complaint was filed on behalf of plaintiffs who allege that
the defendants have conspired to knowingly hire large numbers of
illegal aliens. According to the complaint, this "Illegal
Immigrant Hiring Scheme" violates the federal immigration laws
and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, and
depresses the wages of legal workers below market levels.

Luis A. Luna, vice president of corporate communications for
Perdue Farms, says Perdue does not think the lawsuit any merit.

"Perdue follows all hiring laws and uses the Department of
Homeland Security's E-Verify system to determine an employee's
eligibility to work in the U.S.," Luna said. "We also use
auditors to independently verify that Perdue is following correct
hiring practices."

The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Alabama Southern Division, on behalf of all hourly-
paid workers legally authorized to be employed in the United
States who are or have been employed by Perdue Farms Inc. since
March 2006 at 16 poultry processing facilities.

Those facilities include the Accomac, Showell, Salisbury,
Georgetown and Milford poultry processing plants, along with
Bridgewater, Va.; Concord, N.C.; Cromwell, Ky.; Dillon, S.C.;
Dothan, Ala.; Fayetteville, N.C.; Lewistown, N.C.; Monterey,
Tenn.; Perry, Ga.; Rockingham, N.C.; and Washington, Ind.

"The lawsuit mentions poultry plants that have not been in
operation for years," Luna noted. "I can assure you we will
vigorously fight it."

In particular, the Showell plant closed down in November 2004, so
former workers there wouldn't even be eligible to participate in
the case; the Fayetteville, N.C., facility closed in September
2006.

The defendants named in the complaint are all from Alabama,
Tennessee and Georgia, as are the plaintiffs. But the plaintiffs
believe that there are likely thousands of Perdue Farms employees
who qualify as putative class members.

"Our clients have alleged that this hiring scheme is perpetrated
everyday as an integral part of Perdue's regular hiring and
employment practices and that it will continue unabated,
victimizing legal workers until halted by judicial intervention,"
Motley Rice attorney Lance Oliver stated.

The complaint, which is not a criminal case but a civil one,
alleges that Perdue managers not only knowingly hired workers
with false documents, but even " 'tip off' the illegal aliens
prior to any government raid."

Ultimately, the plaintiffs are hoping for a financial settlement
to compensate for what they say were wages depressed below a fair
rate due to the hiring of low-paid illegal workers.

A copy of the 43-page Complaint in Walters, et al. v. McMahen, et
al., Case No. 10-cv-00259 (M.D. Ala.), is available at:

     http://www.delmarvanow.com/assets/pdf/A715525348.PDF

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Lance H. Swanner, Esq.
          JACOBY & MEYERS, LLC
          111 E. Main Street
          P.O. Box 5551
          Dothan, AL 36302
          Telephone: 334-794-8000
          E-mail: lance.swanner@jacobymeyers.com

               - and -  

          Howard W. Foster, Esq.
          Matthew A. Galin, Esq.
          FOSTER, P.C.
          55 West Wacker Drive, 14th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: 312-372-2209
          E-mail: hfoster@fosterpc.com
                  mgalin@fisterpc.com

               - and -  

          William H. Narwold, Esq.
          Rebecca P. Merritt, Esq.
          Lance Oliver, Esq.
          MOTLEY RICE, LLC
          28 Bridgeside Blvd.
          Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464
          Telephone: 843-216-9219
          E-mail: bnarwold@motleyrive.com
                  rmerritt@motleyrice.com
                  loliver@motleyrice.com


SERCO INC: Accused of Not Paying Overtime Compensation
------------------------------------------------------
Eric Contreras, on behalf of himself and others similary situated
v. Serco Inc., Case No. BC435022 (Calif. Super. Ct., Los Angeles
Cty. Apr. 1, 2010), charges the transportation management
services provider of not paying overtime, unpaid meal and rest
period premiums, failing to pay wages on time, and untimely
payment of wages upon termination, in violation of the California
Labor Code and the California Business & Professions Code.  Mr.
Contreras was employed as a "Parking Meter Revenue" and as a
"Crew Leader" from September 2007 to roughly November 2009 at the
Company's Los Angeles location.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Monica Balderrama, Esq.
          David Cheng, Esq.
          Joshua Carlon, Esq.
          INITIATIVE LEGAL GROUP APC
          1800 Century Park East, 2nd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 556-5637
          E-mail: MBalderrama@InitiativeLegal.com
                  Dcheng@InitiativeLegal.com
                  Jcarlton@InitiativeLegal.com


SONY CORPORATION: Fifth Optical Drive Price-Fixing Suit Filed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Alireza Tabatabai, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Sony Corporation, et al., Case No. 10-cv-01450 (N.D.
Calif. Apr. 6, 2010), charges the multinational conglomerate with
conspiracy to fix the price of optical disk drive products sold
in the United States, in violation of Sec. 1 of the Sherman
Antitrust Act.  The Plaintiff says that as a result of Sony
Corporation and the other Defendants' illegal actions, purchasers
of optical disk drive products ended up paying more than what
they would have paid absent the price-fixing.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Pierce O'Donnell, Esq.
          Robert M. Partain, Esq.
          O'DONNELL & ASSOCIATES PC
          800 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 500
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 347-0290
          E-mail: pod@oslaw.com
                  rpartain@oslaw.com

Coverage of Slavin v. Sony Optiarc, Inc., et al., Case No.
10-cv-01291 (N.D. Calif.), appeared in the Class Action Reporter
on Mon., Apr. 5, 2010; coverage of Herman v. Sony Corporation, et
al., Case No. 10-cv-01362 (N.D. Calif.), appeared in the Class
Action Reporter on Tues., Apr. 6, 2010; coverage of Bay Area
Systems, LLC v. Sony Corporation, et al., Case No. 10-cv-01403
(N.D. Calif.), appeared in the Class Action Reporter on Thurs.,
Apr. 8, 2010; and coverage of Carney v. Sony Corporation, et al.,
Case No. 10-cv-01406 (N.D. Calif.), appeared in the Class Action
Reporter on Fri., Apr. 10, 2010.


SONY OPTIARC: Sixth Optical Drive Price-Fixing Suit Filed
---------------------------------------------------------
Aaron Wagner, on behalf of himsel and others similarly situated
v. Sony Optiarc, Inc. et al., Case No. 10-cv-01451 (N.D. Calif.
Apr. 6, 2010), charges the optical disc drive distributor with
conspiracy to fix the price of optical disk drive products sold
in the United States, resulting to artificially inflated prices
of ODD products sold in the market, in violation of Sec. 1 of the
Sherman Act.  Sony Optiarc, Inc. is a subsidiary of Sony
Corporation with headquarters located at Kanagawa, Japan.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeff D. Friedman, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          715 Hearst Ave., Suite 202
          Berkeley, CA 94710
          Telephone: (510) 725-3000
          E-mail: jefff@hbsslaw.com

               - and -
  
          Steve W. Berman, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          1918 Eight Ave., Suite 3300
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 623-7292
          E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com
  
               - and -

          Robert B. Carey, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          11 West Jefferson, Suite 1000
          Phoenix, AZ 85003
          Telephone: (602) 840-5900
          E-mail: rcarey@hbsslaw.com

Coverage of Slavin v. Sony Optiarc, Inc., et al., Case No.
10-cv-01291 (N.D. Calif.), appeared in the Class Action Reporter
on Mon., Apr. 5, 2010; coverage of Herman v. Sony Corporation, et
al., Case No. 10-cv-01362 (N.D. Calif.), appeared in the Class
Action Reporter on Tues., Apr. 6, 2010; coverage of Bay Area
Systems, LLC v. Sony Corporation, et al., Case No. 10-cv-01403
(N.D. Calif.), appeared in the Class Action Reporter on Thurs.,
Apr. 8, 2010; and coverage of Carney v. Sony Corporation, et al.,
Case No. 10-cv-01406 (N.D. Calif.), appeared in the Class Action
Reporter on Fri., Apr. 10, 2010.


STANDARD & POOR: Israel Securities Authority Funds Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hila Raz at Haaretz.com reports that the Israel Securities
Authority made a rare decision to help fund a class-action suit.

The NIS 85 million suit names as defendants the Israeli credit
rating agency Standard & Poor Maalot, the Excellence Nessuah
investment house, Bank Leumi Trust Company and the company World
Currencies, as well as its directors and controlling shareholder.

The request for a class-action was filed a year ago, in Tel Aviv
District Court, by Amiram Deutsch. He claimed that S&P Maalot,
headed by CEO Dorit Salingar, was negligent in not downgrading
World Currencies' structured bonds, which were based on
underlying assets secured by Lehman Brothers, an American
investment bank that collapsed in September 2008.

Deutsch, no relation to Gil and Avi Deutsch, chairmen of
Excellence Nessuah, says the suit represents investors who bought
structured bonds issued by World Currencies, which is a
subsidiary of Excellence Nessuah.

World Currencies had raised about NIS 400 million from Israeli
investors. It transferred that money to Lehman Bankhaus in
exchange for a note promising interest of 8.75% a year. Repayment
of the principal, due to mature in March 2010, would be based on
the performance of a basket of currencies against the U.S.
dollar. But with doubt swirling about Lehman Bros.' survival,
doubt had to rise about Lehman Bankhaus' ability to pay that
interest and the principal, says Deutsch.

Deutsch claimed that there were many clear warnings well before
September 2008 that Lehman Brothers' condition was deteriorating,
but Maalot nonetheless neglected to downgrade World Currencies'
bonds. The bonds retained their blue-chip rating until the day
Lehman fell, at which point Maalot scrambled to downgrade them to
D for default.

The plaintiff claims Maalot was duty-bound to regularly monitor
the assets backing the bonds, and adjust the ratings
appropriately.

After the downgrade, the price of the bonds plunged, between
September 3 and 15, 2008, and their yields rocketed from 10% to
more than 70%.

Deutsch charges that World Currencies committed securities fraud
by neglecting to advise the investing public of the extent to
which the bonds' value depended on the state of Lehman Brothers.

The ISA, headed by chairman Zohar Goshen, is legally allowed to
help finance class-action suits. The criteria include that the
case be in the public interest. Also, there must be a "reasonable
chance" that the court will approve the request for a class-
action.

"The approval for funding is only in principle. The sum and
conditions will be determined by the ISA in the future. The level
of funding will be set in relation to specific funding requests,
including details of the expenses required for the suit," wrote
the ISA's deputy general counsel in a letter to the plaintiff's
attorney.

The ISA said that it was not committing itself to funding the
suit fully or in part, and that if the plaintiffs won the case
and were awarded compensation, the money would be returned to the
ISA with linkage and interest.

ISA General Counsel Samson Albek told a conference on class-
action suits four months ago, "If a class-action suit is handled
the way we think it should be handled, we will finance 80% of the
legal costs."

S&P Maalot stated that the lawsuit is baseless. It said it would
defend itself decisively in court. "We are happy for any dialogue
with the Israel Securities Authority, which did not join as a
party to the suit," the agency added.


TOYOTA MOTOR: Pa. Pension Funds Wants to Serve as Lead Plaintiff
----------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Kemeny at The Patriot-News reports that Pennsylvania's
Public School Employees' Retirement System is seeking to become
the co-lead plaintiff in a class action lawsuit filed against
Toyota Motor Corporation in U.S. District Court in California.

The suit seeks to reimburse losses experienced by investors,
including PSERS, that resulted from Toyota's alleged failure to
disclose defects in its vehicles' acceleration systems, PSERS'
spokeswoman Evelyn Tatkovski said. The amount of PSERS' losses
will be determined in a few months, Ms. Tatkovski said.  As of
Dec. 31, the state agency had $46.7 billion in assets.

The agency's board of trustees voted on the action at its Monday
meeting, where it also requested the appointment of an
independent attorney to pursue the matter.

It filed documents in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California last week, Ms. Tatkovski indicated.

Toyota has recalled more than 6 million vehicles in the U.S., and
more than 8 million worldwide, because of acceleration problems
in multiple models and braking issues in the Prius hybrid.


UMB BANK: Missouri Lawsuit Contests Overdraft Fee Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Joplin Independent reports that David Johnson, a Missouri
resident who was assessed hundreds of dollars of overdraft fees,
recently filed a lawsuit against UMB Bank, N.A. (his bank since
1998) and UMB Financial Corporation (UMB). The class action
lawsuit alleges that the plaintiff, and other UMB customers in
Missouri, were charged overdraft fees because of UMB's unfair and
deceptive overdraft fee practices. The lawsuit alleges that these
practices violate Missouri's consumer protection law and UMB's
contracts with its customers.

"It is one thing to charge an overdraft fee when someone has
actually overdrawn their account. It is entirely another to
charge an overdraft fee when the customer's account has
sufficient funds for the purchase. Even worse, in some cases UMB
charges overdraft fees and additional fees for every day an
account is overdrawn - even when an account is overdrawn solely
because of bank fees charged by UMB. The bank is essentially
charging overdraft fees on overdraft fees," said Patrick Stueve,
a lawyer with the Kansas City-based law firm Stueve Siegel Hanson
LLP, which represents the plaintiff.

According to the lawsuit, FDIC-regulated banks charge an
estimated $27 billion annually in overdraft fees. The plaintiff
alleges, among other things, that UMB: (a) engages in a
systematic policy of re-ordering debit card transactions from
highest dollar amount to lowest dollar amount so as to deplete
the customer's available funds as quickly as possible while
maximizing the number of overdraft fees; (b) charges overdraft
fees even in situations where in fact a customer has not
overdrawn his checking account; (c) charges overdraft fees even
in situations where UMB in fact did not pay out more funds than
were in the customer's checking account; and (d) fails to provide
accurate account balance information on the bank's website or at
the point of sale.

The plaintiff alleges, for example, that through these practices
UMB charged him 17 overdraft fees of $36 each over a single
weekend, including a $36 overdraft fee for a $0.85 purchase.
Then, according to the class action petition, UMB charged the
plaintiff additional overdraft fees and negative balance fees
after these 17 fees depleted the hundreds of dollars of available
funds in his account.

The law firms of Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP, Gray, Ritter & Graham,
P.C., and Tycko & Zavareei LLP are representing the plaintiff in
the lawsuit, which was filed April 5, 2010 in the Circuit Court
of Jackson County, Missouri. These firms are investigating other
banks in Missouri and around the country.

A copy of the Complaint is available at:

     http://www.stuevesiegel.com/CM/Investigations/UMB_Complaint.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Patrick J. Stueve, Esq.
          Barrett J. Vahle, Esq.
          STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
          460 Nichols Road, Suite 200          
          Kansas City, MO 64112
          Telephone: 816-714-7100
          E-mail: stueve@teuevesiegel.com
                  vahle@stuevesiegel.com

               - and -  

          Don M. Downing, Esq.
          Jason D. Sapp, Esq.
          GRAY, RITTER & GRAHAM, P.C.
          701 Market Street, Suite 800
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: 314-241-5620
          Telephone: ddowning@grgpc.com
                     jsapp@gegpc.com

               - and -  

          Hassan A. Zavareei, Esq.
          Jeffrey Kaliel, Esq.
          TYCKO & ZAVAREEI, LLP
          2000 L Street, N.W., Suite 808
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: 202-973-0900
          E-mail: hzavareei@tzlegal.com
                  jkaliel@tzlegal.com


UNITED STATES: Native American Farmers' Status Report Due Apr. 15
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Marcia Coyle at The National Law Journal reports that the clock
is ticking on negotiations to settle another mammoth
discrimination lawsuit against the U.S. Department of
Agriculture, this one brought by Native American farmers and
ranchers.

The class action, filed in Washington, D.C., federal court in
November 1999, accuses the department of denying thousands of
Native American farmers and ranchers the same opportunity to
obtain farm loans that it routinely gave to white farmers. The
discrimination allegedly caused the loss of billions of dollars
in credit over a 25-year period. The suit also charges the
department with failure to accept and investigate many civil
rights complaints filed by those farmers and ranchers.

This past December, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack asked the
plaintiffs in Keepseagle, et al. v. Vilsack, et al., Case No.
99-cv-_____ (D. D.C.), to join the department in seeking a stay
of the class action in order to focus on settlement negotiations.
U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan of the District of Columbia
agreed to halt the litigation for 60 days. Although that initial
stay expired in mid-February, the parties won another stay, which
runs out April 21.

A status report on the negotiations is due to be filed with the
judge on April 15.

"We are nowhere close to a settlement, but it remains to be seen
what our clients are prepared to do in connection with the stay,"
said lead counsel Joseph Sellers, head of the civil rights and
employment practice group at Washington's Cohen Milstein Sellers
& Toll.

Mr. Sellers said his clients are frustrated by the slow pace.
"Given the case has been pending more than 10 years and has lost
some of the named plaintiffs, the passage of time can be very
cruel," he said. "The concern is moving the case along, whether
through settlement or continuing the litigation."

U.S. Reps. Dale Kildee, D-Mich., and Tom Cole, R-Okla., co-chairs
of the Native American Caucus, sent a letter on March 26 urging
Vilsack to settle the litigation on terms comparable to the
department's recent settlement with African-American farmers. The
department settled late-filed claims of black farmers for $1.25
billion, in addition to the $1 billion previously awarded for
timely filed claims in that litigation.

"We trust that you will agree that Native American farmers and
ranchers should have their claims resolved and be provided
comparable relief, since they were victims of the same
discrimination committed by the same agency over the same time
period, and since they too lost substantial revenue and lands
that had been in their families for generations," wrote the two
lawmakers.

An Agriculture Department spokesperson said, "The Secretary has
repeatedly made clear that he is committed to resolving all of
the large civil rights cases quickly and fairly. He believes it
is time to move past this sad chapter of USDA's history so that
USDA can focus on helping all farmers be successful."

Mr. Sellers said his clients believe the Obama administration
genuinely wishes to resolve the litigation. "The question isn't
whether the administration will settle the case, but when," he
added.

His clients also agree with Kildee and Cole that any settlement
should be comparable to the black farmers deal, said Mr. Sellers.
"It's hard to imagine why different amounts would be awarded,
although the path to a settlement and funding it is different,"
he said.

The late-filed claims of black farmers were resurrected by
Congress, not the court, and the $1.25 billion must be funded by
an act of Congress, which has not yet happened. The claims in the
Keepseagle litigation could be paid from the government's
Treasury Judgment Fund, which does not require congressional
action, according to Mr. Sellers.

The Judgment Fund, established by Congress in the 1950s, is
available to pay court judgments and settlement agreements
negotiated by the Justice Department on behalf of federal
agencies. Congress established the fund as a permanent,
indefinite appropriation.

Discovery has been completed in the Keepseagle litigation. The
class action includes all Native Americans who farmed or ranched
between 1981 and 1999, applied to the Agriculture Department for
participation in a farm program during that time period and filed
a discrimination complaint with the department during that time
period.

Mr. Sellers said he does not know yet whether his clients are
willing to postpone the court case again if the department asks
for more time to negotiate.

"I know from my own experience that cases of this magnitude take
some time to resolve," Mr. Sellers said. "I didn't expect this to
settle in 60 days or 120 says. I think our clients remain
resolute in their belief that statements by the secretary of
Agriculture that he wants to settle case are ones they can rely
on."


WESTERN UNION: Sued in Colorado for Deceptive Business Practice
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Hull at Courthouse News Service reports that Western Union
holds unclaimed money for years without notifying senders that
the intended recipients never got the money, and even "brags" to
investors that its policy gives it access to more than $100
million in ready cash, a class action claims in Denver Federal
Court.

"Western Union brags about this unfair and deceptive business
practice in its financial statements, telling investors it always
has access to more than $100 million in cash from these
unremitted funds that is essentially better than an interest-free
loan because Western Union gets to both make use of the money and
then ultimately, after using the money for years, charge the
customer a fee to return the money instead of paying the customer
interest," the complaint states.

The class claims that Western Union keeps the unclaimed money
until abandoned-property laws require it to give the money back -
-in some cases not for 6 years.  Meanwhile, Western Union "makes
use" of the money, says lead plaintiff Robert Smet.

Mr. Smet says he found out about the policy in 2004 after he
tried to send $100 to a child in Vietnam to pay for hospital
expenses.

Western Union refused to give the money to the child because she
was a minor, but did not tell Mr. Smet until 2010 that the
transaction had not gone through and it still had his money,
Mr. Smet says.

"The letter was entirely silent as to why Western Union was only
now, six years later, reaching out to plaintiff when it had been
in possession of plaintiff's contact information the entire time
that it had been holding and making use of his money," according
to the complaint.

Mr. Smet says that asked for his $100 back, Western Union had the
brass to send him just $40, saying it was keeping $60 for the
"administrative" cost of holding the money all those years.

But Mr. Smet says a company official acknowledged that holding
his money "had not caused Western Union any hardship and that
Western Union could have easily notified him at any time that it
still had his money."

In its own defense, Mr. Smet says, the company told him that
"Western Union was in the business of making money."

He cites Western Union's "Form l0-K for the period ending
December 31, 2007," which refers to unredeemed funds as
"settlement assets" that "are not used to support [Western Union]
operations" but rather to "earn income" for the company.

"Western Union brags about this unfair and deceptive business
practice in its financial statements, telling investors it always
has access to more than $100 million in cash from these
unremitted funds," Mr. Smet says.  He adds that the company
reported it had $203.5 million of such "settlement assets" on
hand in 2007, and $348.8 million in 2006.

Mr. Smet seeks class damages for violations of various state
consumer laws, conversion and unjust enrichment.  He also seeks
declaratory relief barring the company from holding unredeemed
money for longer than 60 days.

A copy of the Complaint in Smet v. The Western Union Company,
Case No. 10-cv-00765 (D. Colo.), is available at:
     
     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/04/07/WesternUnion.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:
          
          Seth A. Katz, Esq.
          BURG SIMPSON ELDREDGE HERSH & JARDINE, P.C.
          40 Inverness Drive East
          Englewood, CO 80112
          Telephone: 303-792-5595

               - and -

          Eric D. Freed, Esq.
          Jeffrey A. Leon, Esq.
          George K. Lang, Esq.
          Jamie E. Weiss, Esq.
          FREED & WEISS LLC
          111 West Washington St., Suite 1331
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: 312-220-0000

               - and -

          Jim S. Calton, Jr., Esq.
          CALTON & CALTON
          Post Office Box 895
          Eufaula, AL 36072-0895
          Telephone: 334-687-3563

                            *********

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, Joy A. Agravante,
Ronald Sy 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  * * *