CAR_Public/100419.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Monday, April 19, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 75

                            Headlines

AT&T CORP: Sued in California for Failing to Pay Overtime Wages
BECK'S FURNITURE: Retailer Sued Over Flubbed Grocery Promotion
CAPITAL ONE: Bank Faces 3 Suits Over Marketing Practices
CAPITAL ONE: Bank's Appeal on Certification Ruling Pending
CAPITAL ONE: Plaintiffs' Appeal on Dismissal Still Stayed

CAPITAL ONE: Savings Bank Defends Suit on Interchange Fees
DEUX PAR DEUX: Recalls 4,500 Children's Snowsuits and Coats
DOW CHEMICAL: La. Suit Complains About Hazardous Chemical Leak
EASTWIND INDUSTRIES: Recalls 4,600 Kuuma IR Stow and Go Grills
ELECTRICAL & INSTRUMENTATION: Violations of Labor Code Alleged

FRESH & EASY: Sued for Failing to Provide Meal and Rest Periods
GOULDS PUMPS: Named as Co-Defendant in Fla. Explosion Suits
HOLLAND & KNIGHT: Ponzi Victims Try to Revive Negligence Suit
JONES SODA: Plaintiffs Appeal on Suit Dismissal Still Pending
JONES SODA: Faces Two Suits Over Planned Reeds Merger

LANDSCAPE CONCEPTS: Sued for Not Paying Overtime Wages
LINCOLN BENEFIT: Sued in Illinois for Overcharging Policyholders
LOCATEPLUS HOLDINGS: Appeal of Plaintiff in "Taylor" Pending
LOCATEPLUS HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend "Wiles" in Missouri
MARES USA: Recalls 755 Mares Nemo Air Dive Computers

MARVELL TECH: Court Gives Final Approval to $72 Mil. Settlement
MASCHOLE PROPERTY: Sued for California Labor Code Violations
MC MILLAN'S HOME: Sued in New York for Not Paying All Wages Due
NEVADA: D. Nev. Lawsuit Charges Child Welfare System is Illegal
NORTHERN REFRIGERATED: Sued for Not Providing Meal & Rest Breaks

OVERSTOCK.COM INC: Agrees to Settle Suit Over "Facebook Beacon"
OVERSTOCK.COM INC: Appeal in "Hines" Suit Pending in New York
RUTH'S CHRIS: 11th Circuit Revives Employees' Racketeering Suit
SAJAN INC: MathStar Continues to Pursue Complaint vs. Tiberius
SMART ONLINE: Agrees to Settle Securities Suit for $350,000

SONY CORPORATION: 8th Optical Disc Drive Price-Fixing Suit Filed
SOVEREIGN BANK: Suit Complains About Excessive Overdraft Fees
TABATA USA: Recalls 250 TUSA RS-670 Regulators
UAS PROPERTIES: Accused of Mismanagement of Rental Properties
UNITED STATES: Census Bureau Accused of Hiring Discrimination

UNIVERSAL PLASTIC: Sued for Non-Payment of Termination Wages Due
YMCA OF METROPOLITAN: Sued for Failing to Pay Split-Shift Premiums
ZENITH NATIONAL: Faces Suit in Delaware Over Fairfax Merger
ZENITH NATIONAL: Faces Consolidated Suit Over Fairfax Merger

                            *********

AT&T CORP: Sued in California for Failing to Pay Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Francine Marie Arthur, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated v. AT&T Corp., Case No. BC435740 (Calif. Super. Ct., Los
Angeles Cty. Apr. 13, 2010), accuses AT&T of failing to pay
overtime wages, failing to provide meal and rest periods, and not
providing itemized statements, in violation of the Labor Code and
the Bus. & Prof. Code.

Ms. Arthur claims to be a non-exempt employee of the telecom
giant.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher J. Hamner, Esq.
          Jill L. Feiberg, Esq.
          Manu J. Elloie, Esq.
          HAMNER LAW OFFICES, LP
          15760 Ventura Blvd., Suite 860
          Encino, CA 91436
          Telephone: (818) 386-0444

               - and -
          
          Glenn C. Nunes, Esq.
          Benjamin Cohen, Esq.
          THE NUNES LAW GROUP
          101 California St., Suite 2450
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 946-8894


BECK'S FURNITURE: Retailer Sued Over Flubbed Grocery Promotion
--------------------------------------------------------------
CBS Channel 13 in Sacramento, Calif., reports that Beck's
furniture is now facing a class action lawsuit over a grocery
offer that went bad.

An attorney representing several customers filed a case against
the store last week.

Beck's ads promised hundreds of dollars in free groceries if
people bought furniture.

But many customers say they never got the groceries.

The company Beck's hired for the promotion went belly up.

Beck's had been taken to small claims court before but say
they're a victim too.

Beck's says they plan to fight lawsuits and appeal rulings
against them.


CAPITAL ONE: Bank Faces 3 Suits Over Marketing Practices
--------------------------------------------------------
Capital One Bank (USA), National Association and Capital One
Services, LLC, face three suits challenging various marketing
practices relating to the Bank's payment protection product,
according to Capital One Multi-Asset Execution Trust's March 31,
2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

The lawsuits were filed in January 2010 by three individual
plaintiffs, each purporting to represent a nationwide class of
cardholders.

The suits are:

     -- Sullivan v. Capital One Bank, et al, (U.S. District
        Court for the District of Connecticut);

     -- McCoy v. Capital One Bank, et al. (U.S. District Court
        for the Southern District of California); and

     -- Salazar v. Capital One Bank, et al. (U.S. District Court
        for the District of South Carolina).

These three purported nationwide class actions seek a range of
remedies, including compensatory damages, punitive damages,
restitution, disgorgement, injunctive relief, and attorneys'
fees. The Bank and Capital One Services have not yet filed
responsive motions to any of these suits.

The primary asset of Capital One Multi-Asset Execution Trust is
the collateral certificate, Series 2002-CC, representing an
undivided interest in Capital One Master Trust, whose assets
include the receivables arising in a portfolio of credit card
accounts.


CAPITAL ONE: Bank's Appeal on Certification Ruling Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Capital One Bank (USA), National Association's motion for
reconsideration with respect to the class certification order in
a statewide class action remains pending, according to Capital
One Multi-Asset Execution Trust's March 31, 2010, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

In September 2009, the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Florida certified a statewide class action in
Spinelli v. Capital One Bank, et al. with respect to the
marketing of the payment protection product in Florida.

The Bank and Capital One Services, LLC, have filed a motion for
reconsideration with respect to the class certification order and
are awaiting a ruling on the motion from the Court.

The primary asset of Capital One Multi-Asset Execution Trust is
the collateral certificate, Series 2002-CC, representing an
undivided interest in Capital One Master Trust, whose assets
include the receivables arising in a portfolio of credit card
accounts.


CAPITAL ONE: Plaintiffs' Appeal on Dismissal Still Stayed
---------------------------------------------------------
The appeal of the plaintiffs on the dismissal of a consolidated
suit against several issuing banks, including Capital One
Financial Corporation, remains stayed.  

In 2007, a number of individual plaintiffs, each purporting to
represent a class of cardholders, filed antitrust lawsuits in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
against several issuing banks, including Capital One Financial
Corporation.  These lawsuits allege, among other things, that the
defendants conspired to fix the level of late fees and over-limit
fees charged to cardholders, and that these fees are excessive.

In May 2007, the cases were consolidated for all purposes and a
consolidated amended complaint was filed alleging violations of
federal statutes and state law.  The amended complaint requests
civil monetary damages, which could be trebled.

In November 2007, the court dismissed the amended complaint.  
Plaintiffs have appealed that order to the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals.  In June 2009, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals stayed
the matter pending the bankruptcy proceedings of one of the
defendant financial institutions.

No further updates were reported in Capital One Multi-Asset
Execution Trust's March 31, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31,
2009.

The primary asset of Capital One Multi-Asset Execution Trust is
the collateral certificate, Series 2002-CC, representing an
undivided interest in Capital One Master Trust, whose assets
include the receivables arising in a portfolio of credit card
accounts.


CAPITAL ONE: Savings Bank Defends Suit on Interchange Fees
----------------------------------------------------------
Capital One, F.S.B., continues to defend an antitrust suit in
relation to its interchange fees.  

In 2005, a number of entities, each purporting to represent a
class of retail merchants, filed antitrust lawsuits against
MasterCard and Visa and several member banks, including Capital
One Financial Corporation and its subsidiaries (including the
Bank and Capital One, F.S.B. (Savings Bank) alleging among other
things, that the defendants conspired to fix the level of
interchange fees.

The complaints seek injunctive relief and civil monetary damages,
which could be trebled.  Separately, a number of large merchants
have asserted similar claims against Visa and MasterCard only.

In October 2005, the class and merchant interchange lawsuits were
consolidated before the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York for certain purposes, including discovery.  
Fact Discovery has closed and limited expert discovery is
ongoing.  The parties have briefed motions to dismiss and class
certification and await oral argument before the court.

No further updates were reported in Capital One Multi-Asset
Execution Trust's March 31, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31,
2009.

The primary asset of Capital One Multi-Asset Execution Trust is
the collateral certificate, Series 2002-CC, representing an
undivided interest in Capital One Master Trust, whose assets
include the receivables arising in a portfolio of credit card
accounts.


DEUX PAR DEUX: Recalls 4,500 Children's Snowsuits and Coats
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Deux par Deux Minimome Inc. located in Montreal, Quebec, Canada,
announced a voluntary recall of about 4,500 Children's Snowsuits
and Coats.  Consumers should stop using products immediately
unless otherwise instructed.

The snowsuits and coats have drawstrings through the hood that
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 and sweatshirts.

No incidents or injuries have been reported.

This recall involves children's snowsuits and coats sold in sizes
2 through 12.  The snowsuits and coats were sold in various
colors and prints.  The brand name "Deux par Deux" and the style
number is printed on the neck tag.

                    Children's Snowsuit Style Numbers

        Style                 Style                 Style
  Year  Number  Size   Year   Number  Size   Year   Number   Sizes
  ----  ------  ----   ----   ------  ----   ----   ------   -----
  2005  B504    2-12   2007   B503    2-12   2009    C804     2-12
        B514                  C804                   D805
        D506                  D515                   E806
        D516                  G516                   F807
        E807                  J518                   G808
        F508                  J511                   I510
        F808                  K512                   I810
        G809                  K912                   K812
        H510                  L513                   M815
        H810                  P817
        K523
        K813
        L524

        Style                 Style                 Style
  Year  Number  Size   Year   Number  Size   Year   Number   Sizes
  ----  ------  ----   ----   ------  ----   ----   ------   -----
  2006  B502    2-12   2008   D802    2-12   2010   C803      2-12
        D504                  E803                  D804
        F506                  G806                  D804
        I819                  J807                  D904
        J510                  I808                  E805
        K511                  J809                  F806
        M813                  K810                  G807
        N514                  L811                  H808
        P516                  N813                  K810
        T820                  P815                  L811

                       Children's Coat Style Numbers

        Style                 Style                 Style
  Year  Number  Size   Year   Number  Size   Year   Number   Sizes
  ----  ------  ----   ----   ------  ----   ----   ------   -----
  2005  D906    2-12   2007   I910    2-12   2009   C904      2-12
        F098                  L913                  D905          
                                                    I910

        Style                 Style                 Style
  Year  Number  Size   Year   Number  Size   Year   Number   Sizes
  ----  ------  ----   ----   ------  ----   ----   ------   -----
  2006  I909    2-12   2008   H907    2-12   2010   C903      2-12
        P916                  J909                  I909
                              P915                  J910

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10194.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
small boutique retailers in the United States from 2005 through
2010 for $190 for the snowsuits and $120 for the coats.

Consumers should immediately remove the drawstrings from the
jackets to eliminate the hazard or return the garment with
drawstring to the place of purchase for a full refund.  Consumers
also can return the jackets with the drawstring intact to Deux
par Deux, 433 Chabanel West, Suite 1102, Montreal, Quebec Canada
H2N 2J8 for a full refund.  For additional information, contact
Deux par Deux toll-free at (866) 557-2222 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.DeuxparDeux.com/


DOW CHEMICAL: La. Suit Complains About Hazardous Chemical Leak
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sabrina Canfield at Courthouse News Service reports that a
hazardous chemical leak early Tuesday morning forced dozens of
Norco residents to evacuate homes and businesses, and cancel
school.  Evacuees filed a federal class action against Dow
Chemical and Hexion Specialty Chemicals Tuesday afternoon.

Citizens say their neighborhood was contaminated with titanium
tetrachloride and other hazardous chemicals when an electrical
pipe at the Dow Chemical Plant malfunctioned at about 4:30 a.m.
and released the chemical into the air.

Titanium tetrachloride can convert into hydrochloric acid and
cause eye and throat irritation and other serious health
problems.

The plaintiffs say roads were closed and homes and businesses
evacuated.

Norco is in St. Charles Parish, close to New Orleans, on the
Bonnet Carre Spillway, which connects Lake Pontchartrain and the
Mississippi River.  Its population is about 4,000.

The name of the town derives from the New Orleans Refining
Company.  Several chemical companies are located in Norco,
including Dow.

The class claims that Dow failed to properly inspect and maintain
its equipment.

Officials said early Wednesday that residents evacuated from 42
homes can return, and the three schools that closed on Tuesday
can reopen.

"No further protective actions are necessary, and those evacuated
may return home," according to the St. Charles Parish Web site.

The class seeks medical monitoring and damages for injuries,
emotional distress, and the possible effects the leak will have
on their property values.

The class is represented by Hugh Lambert of New Orleans.

A copy of the Complaint in Savery, et al. v. The Dow Chemical
Company, et al., Case No. 10-cv-01095 (E.D. La.), is available
at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/04/14/DowHexion.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by;
                    
          Hugh P. Lambert, Esq.
          Linda J. Nelson, Esq.
          LAMBERT & NELSON, PLC
          701 Magazine St.
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: 504-581-1750
          E-mail: hlambert@lambertandnelson.com
                  lnelson@lambertandnelson.com

               - and -

          Daniel E. Becnel, Jr., Esq.
          Darryl J. Becnel, Esq.
          BECNEL LAW FIRM, LLC
          106 West 7th St.
          P.O. Drawer H
          Reserve, LA 70084
          Telephone: 985-536-1186
          E-mail: dbecnel@becnellaw.com
                  darrylbecnel@becnellaw.com


EASTWIND INDUSTRIES: Recalls 4,600 Kuuma IR Stow and Go Grills
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission and Health Canada, in
cooperation with Eastwind Industries Inc., of San Leandro,
Calif., announced a voluntary recall of about 4,600 Kuuma IR Stow
and Go Grills.  Consumers should stop using products immediately
unless otherwise instructed.

If the fuel container is not completely threaded on the regulator
during installation, the propane tanks can leak fuel.  This poses
a fire hazard to consumers.

Eastwind Industries has received three reports of fires from
leaking propane tanks, resulting in reports of minor burns to the
hands.

This recall involves Kuuma IR Stow and Go barbecue grills.  The
rectangle grill is stainless steel with the word "Kuuma" embossed
on the front. The grill's main housing measures 18 1/2 inches
long x 8 1/2 inches tall x 10 inches deep.  Model number 83726 is
printed on the barcode label affixed to the packaging.  A picture
of the recalled product is available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10196.html


The recalled products were manufactured in Thailand and sold at
West Marine stores nationwide from January 2009 through August
2009 for between $100 and $140.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled barbecue
grills and contact Eastwind for a new operator's manual with
revised graphic installation instructions.  Consumers will also
receive a new tool to use for maintenance and cleaning of the
fuel system.  For additional information, contact Eastwind
Industries toll-free at (866) 995-8862 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.kuumaproducts.com/


ELECTRICAL & INSTRUMENTATION: Violations of Labor Code Alleged
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Canales and Hollis Burns, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Electrical & Instrumentation
Unlimited of California, Inc., Case No. BC435653 (Calif. Super.
Ct., Los Angeles Cty. Apr. 12, 2010), asserts unfair business
practices and violations of the labor code.  Messrs. Canales and
Burns accuse the electrical contracting company of failing to pay
overtime wages, failing to provide meal and rest periods, not
paying compensable travel expenses, failing to provide itemized
wage statements, and untimely payment of all wages due upon
termination or voluntary resignation.

Mr. Canales was formerly employed as a foreman electrician at the
Valero refinery in Long Beach, Calif., and Mr. Burns worked as a
journeyman electrician at the Valero refinery in Wilmington,
Calif.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Eric A. Grover, Esq.
          Robert Spencer, Esq.
          KELLER GROVER LLP
          425 Second Street, Suite 500
          San Francisco, CA 94107
          Telephone: (415) 543-1305

               - and -

          Scot Bernstein, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF SCOT D. BERNSTEIN, APC
          101 Parkshore Drive, Suite 100
          Folsom, CA 95630
          Telephone: (916) 447-0100

               - and -

          Ellyn Moscowitz, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF ELLYN MOSCOWITZ, P.C.
          1629 Telegraph Ave., Fourth Floor
          Oakland, CAS 94612
          Telephone: (510) 899-6240


FRESH & EASY: Sued for Failing to Provide Meal and Rest Periods
---------------------------------------------------------------
Deanna Weatherspoon and Rene F. Luna, on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated v. Fresh & Easy Neighborhood Market
Inc.. Case No. BC435637 (Calif. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty. Apr.
9, 2010), accuse the supermarket operator of failing to provide
meal and rest periods, failing to pay wages for all hours worked,
untimely payment of compensation upon termination, and not
providing itemized employeee wage statements, in violation of the
Labor Code and the California Bus. & Prof. Code.

Ms. Weatherspoon and Mr. Luna were former supermarket employees
at Fresh & Easy.

The Plaintiffs demand a trial by jury and are represented by:

          Roger Carter, Esq.
          THE CARTER LAW FIRM
          2030 Main St., Suite 1300
          Irvine, CA 92614
          Telephone: (949) 260-4737
       
               - and -           

          Scott B. Cooper, Esq.
          THE COOPER LAW FIRM, P.C.
          2030 Main St., Suite 1300
          Irvine, CA 92614
          Telephone: (949) 724-9200

               - and -          
    
          Sameul A. Wong, Esq.
          Kashif Haque, Esq.
          AEGIS LAW FIRM, PC
          8001 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 1090
          Irvine, CA 92618-2900
          Telephone: (949) 379-6250


GOULDS PUMPS: Named as Co-Defendant in Fla. Explosion Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bob Anderson at The Advocate reports that Eden Church Road in
Denham Springs, Fla., will remain closed to through traffic for
up to a month as cleanup of Coco Resources Warehouse fire debris
continues, Perry Rushing of the Livingston Parish Sheriff's
Office said last week.

Three class-action lawsuits have been filed in connection with
the explosions and fire that occurred on March 30.  News about
the lawsuits against Coco Resources appeared in the Thurs., Apr.
15, 2010, edition of the Class Action Reporter.

Cleanup of the site is going more quickly than expected, said
Mary Gray, a mitigation specialist for the Livingston Parish
Office of Emergency Preparedness.

Most of the chemical containers have been removed, she said last
week.  She said she hopes that portion of the work would be
completed by the end of the week.

Reports from air monitoring being done around the site have been
good, Gray said.

About 1,000 people were ordered to leave their property because
of danger posed by the fire and explosions at the 17,000-square-
foot warehouse.

Only one or two residents haven't been able to return home
because of damage, Rushing said.

The class action suits filed on behalf of area residents all name
Coco Resources Inc. as defendant.  Mr. Anderson couldn't reach
the company last week.  

One suit on behalf of Rose Dillon, Pete Dillon and Patricia
Ballard says "the petitioners suffered severe injuries to their
respiratory systems," as well as other injuries, damages and
expenses.

That suit alleges that Coco Resources Inc. and the plant manager,
referred to as John Doe, failed to operate the facility in a safe
manner, misled plaintiffs about the safety of its operations and
allowed "an unreasonably dangerous condition to exist" at the
site.

That suit also names an insurer referred to as "XYZ Insurance
Company," which the suit asserts is believed to be a foreign
firm.

A separate suit on behalf of Nathalan Perkins, Gillis Jenkins and
all other similarly situated persons says Perkins suffers from
"inhalation of noxious and/or hazardous fumes."

The suit maintains the release was caused by improper handling of
combustible materials.

Among other things, the suit alleges that hazardous and toxic
materials were handled "with reckless disregard for the safety of
the inhabitants of the area affected by the release."

That suit also names Goulds Pumps Industrial Products Inc. and
Goulds Pumps Inc. as defendants

It maintains that Goulds Pumps Inc. owns the property on which
Coco Resources Warehouse is located.

Officials at Goulds Pumps Inc. referred calls to the headquarters
of Goulds Pumps Industrial Products Inc.

Margaret Gan, director of communications for that firm, said that
she was not prepared to comment because she had not had a chance
to view the suits.

A third suit on behalf of a number of area residents names Coco
Resources Inc. and Goulds Pumps Inc.

It says Coco Resources Inc. is a subsidiary of Goulds Pumps Inc.

Like the other suits, it maintains that a class-action suit is
the most efficient way to handle the claims.


HOLLAND & KNIGHT: Ponzi Victims Try to Revive Negligence Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Julie Kay at the Daily Business Review reports that investors are
asking a Tampa federal judge to reconsider her dismissal of a
class action lawsuit filed against Holland & Knight for alleged
negligence tied to a Sarasota investment adviser accused of
running a $400 million Ponzi scheme.

U.S. District Judge Elizabeth Kovachevich ruled the proposed
class action filed by six investors against the law firm did not
meet the requirements of the Securities Litigation Uniform
Standards Act and ordered the case closed March 31.

The investors' lawyer:

          Guy M. Burns, Esq.
          JOHNSON POPE BOKOR RUPPEL & BURNS LLP
          403 East Madison Street, Suite 400
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 225-2500
          E-mail: guyb@jpfirm.com

followed up with a motion asking Judge Kovachevich to reconsider
based on a recent ruling in a similar New York case. That ruling
should carve out an exception for some hedge fund lawsuits in
federal court even when SLUSA does not apply, Mr. Burns said.

"The case is directly on point," he said.  "Her opinion did not
reference this case.  Our belief is she did not pick up that
case, so we wanted to direct her attention to it."

If Judge Kovachevich does not change her mind, Mr. Burns said a
decision will be made on whether to appeal.

"The firm is very pleased that the court granted our motion,"
said:

          Richard H. Critchlow, Esq.
          KENNY NACHWALTER, P.A.
          1100 Miami Center
          201 South Biscayne Boulevard
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 373-1000
          E-mail: rhc@kennynachwalter.com

which represents Holland & Knight in the case.

A similar case against Holland & Knight brought by a receiver for
Nadel's companies is moving forward in Sarasota Circuit Court
after surviving a motion to dismiss.

Mr. Burns filed both suits, which accuse the law firm of
negligence in its representation of convicted Ponzi schemer
Arthur Nadel.

Nadel, 77, pleaded guilty in February to 15 counts of operating a
$168 million Ponzi scheme in Sarasota from 1999 to 2009. Nadel's
investors thought they were investing in a variety of hedge funds
under Nadel's control or association. He is awaiting sentencing
and faces up to 300 years.

Burton Wiand of Wiand Guerra King of Tampa was appointed receiver
of the Nadel companies in January 2009.

The suits accuse Holland of preparing disclosure documents for
investors that failed to mention Nadel was a disbarred New York
attorney who had drained a client's escrow account. The suit also
accuses Holland of a conflict of interest for representing Nadel
and his investment funds simultaneously.

About 300 investors could be covered in the class action if it is
certified, Burns said. Another 100 investors who turned a profit
are subject to lawsuits themselves.

The federal ruling should have no effect on the state court case,
which is "totally separate," he said.


JONES SODA: Plaintiffs Appeal on Suit Dismissal Still Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
The appeal of the plaintiffs on the dismissal of an amended
complaint against Jones Soda Co. remains pending in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Washington, according
to the company's March 31, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31,
2009.

On Sept. 4, 2007, a putative class action complaint was filed
against the company, its then serving chief executive officer,
and then serving chief financial officer, alleging claims under
Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

The case was entitled Saltzman v. Jones Soda Company, et al.,
Case No. 07-cv-1366-RSL, and purported to be brought on behalf of
a class of purchasers of our common stock during the period March
9, 2007 to Aug. 2, 2007.

Six substantially similar complaints subsequently were filed in
the same court, some of which alleged claims on behalf of a class
of purchasers of the company's common stock during the period
Nov. 1, 2006 to Aug. 2, 2007.  Some of the subsequently filed
complaints added as defendants certain current and former
directors and another former officer of the company.

The complaints generally alleged violations of federal securities
laws based on, among other things, false and misleading
statements and omissions about the company's financial results
and business prospects.  The complaints sought unspecified
damages, interest, attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses.

On Oct. 26, 2007, these seven lawsuits were consolidated as a
single action entitled In re Jones Soda Company Securities
Litigation, Case No. 07-cv-1366-RSL.

On March 5, 2008, the Court appointed Robert Burrell lead
plaintiff in the consolidated securities case.  On May 5, 2008,
the lead plaintiff filed a First Amended Consolidated Complaint,
which purports to allege claims on behalf of a class of
purchasers of the company's common stock during the period of
Jan. 10, 2007, to May 1, 2008, against the company and Peter van
Stolk, the company's former Chief Executive Officer, former
Chairman of the Board, and former director.

The First Amended Consolidated Complaint generally alleges
violations of federal securities laws based on, among other
things, false and misleading statements and omissions about our
agreements with retailers, allocation of resources, and business
prospects.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on
July 7, 2008.  After hearing oral argument on Feb. 3, 2009, the
Court granted the motion to dismiss in its entirety on Feb. 9,
2009.  Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file an amended
complaint on March 25, 2009.

On June 22, 2009, the Court issued an order denying plaintiffs'
motion for leave to amend and dismissed the case with prejudice.  
On July 7, 2009, the Court entered judgment in favor of the
company and Mr. van Stolk.

On Aug. 5, 2009, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the
Court's orders dismissing the complaint and denying plaintiffs'
motion for leave to amend, and the resulting July 7, 2009
judgment.  The parties' briefing on the appeal was completed on
March 4, 2010.  The Court has not yet scheduled a date for oral
argument on the appeal.

Jones Soda Co. -- http://www.myjones.com/-- develops, produces,  
markets and distributes a range of beverages, which includes
Jones Pure Cane Soda, a carbonated soft drink; Jones 24C, a water
beverage; Jones GABA, a tea juice blend; Jones Organics, a ready-
to-drink organic tea; Jones Naturals, a non-carbonated juice and
tea, and Whoop Ass Energy Drink, a citrus energy drink.  The
company sells and distributes its products primarily throughout
the United States and Canada through its network of independent
distributors, national retail accounts, as well as through
licensing and distribution arrangements. It also sells various
products online.


JONES SODA: Faces Two Suits Over Planned Reeds Merger
-----------------------------------------------------
Jones Soda Co. faces two suits in relation to its plan to merge
with Reed's, Inc., according to the company's March 31, 2010,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

On March 12, 2010, a shareholder filed suit against Jones Soda,
its Chief Executive Officer, and its directors, alleging that the
defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the company, or
aided and abetted such breaches, by entering into a March 9, 2010
letter of intent to merge Jones Soda with Reed's, Inc.

The case is entitled Gharabikou v. Jones Soda Co., et al., King
County Superior Court Case No. 10-2-10226-4  SEA (March 12,
2010).  A substantially similar case was initiated on March 19,
2010, entitled Bates v. Jones Soda Co., et al., King County
Superior Court Case No. 10-2-10932-3  SEA (March 19, 2010).

Both cases purport to have been brought on behalf of a class
comprising all current Jones Soda shareholders.  The shareholder
plaintiffs seek to prevent a merger of Jones Soda and Reed's,
Inc. on the terms announced in the March 9th letter of intent,
and also request attorneys' fees and costs.  Although neither
case seeks monetary damages against the company, the company may
be required throughout the pendency of the actions to advance
payment of legal fees and costs incurred by the defendants, and
the litigation may result in significant obligations for payment
of defense costs and indemnification.

Jones Soda Co. -- http://www.myjones.com/-- develops, produces,  
markets and distributes a range of beverages, which includes
Jones Pure Cane Soda, a carbonated soft drink; Jones 24C, a water
beverage; Jones GABA, a tea juice blend; Jones Organics, a ready-
to-drink organic tea; Jones Naturals, a non-carbonated juice and
tea, and Whoop Ass Energy Drink, a citrus energy drink.  The
company sells and distributes its products primarily throughout
the United States and Canada through its network of independent
distributors, national retail accounts, as well as through
licensing and distribution arrangements. It also sells various
products online.


LANDSCAPE CONCEPTS: Sued for Not Paying Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------
Gustavo Manzanares, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. Landscape Concepts Management Inc. and Michael
Kerton, Case No. 2010-CH-16284 (Ill. Cir. Ct. Cook Cty. Apr. 14,
2010), accuses Landscape Concepts of not paying overtime wages in
violation of the Illinois Minimum Wage Law.  Mr. Manzanares was
employed by Landscape Concepts to cut grass for the Company's
customers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglas M. Werman, Esq.
          Maureen A. Bantz, Esq.
          David E. Stevens, Esq.
          WERMAN LAW OFFICE, P.C.
          77 West Washington, Suite 1402
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 419-1008

               - and -

          Jamie G. Sypulski, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JAMIE G. SYPULSKI
          122 South Michigan Avenue, Suite 1720
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 360-0960


LINCOLN BENEFIT: Sued in Illinois for Overcharging Policyholders
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a class action claims
Lincoln Benefit Life Co. overcharges customers "by adding
expenses, taxes, and profits to COI [cost of insurance] charges,"
in Chicago Federal Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Norem v. Lincoln Benefit Life Company,
Case No. 10-cv-02233 (N.D. Ill.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/04/14/Insure.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jan H. Ohlander, Esq.
          Scott A. Calkins, Esq.
          RENO & ZAHM, LLP
          2902 McFarland Rd., Suite 400
          Rockford, IL 61107
          Telephone: 815-987-4050

               - and -

          Patrick J. Stueve, Esq.
          Richard M. Paul III, Esq.
          Lee R. Anderson, Esq.
          STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
          460 Nichols Rd., Suite 200  
          Kansas City, MO 64112
          Telephone: 816-714-7100

               - and -

          Stephen R. Miller, Esq.
          John J. Schirger, Esq.
          Matthew W. Lytle, Esq.
          MILLER SCHIRGER LLC
          W. 47th St., Suite 630
          Kansas City, MO 64112
          Telephone: 816-561-6500


LOCATEPLUS HOLDINGS: Appeal of Plaintiff in "Taylor" Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
The appeal of the plaintiff on the dismissal of the suit Sharon
Taylor, et al. v. Biometric Access Company, et al., C.A. No.
2:07-CV-00018, remains pending in the US District Court for the
Eastern District of Texas.

The matter is styled as a class action suit brought by the
plaintiff class against a group of defendant companies under the
Driver Privacy Protection Act, 18 USC Section 2721 et seq.

The defendants filed a joint Motion to Dismiss which was granted
by the Court.  The plaintiff class has filed an appeal of the
dismissal of the case, which is being vigorously opposed.  

No further developments were reported in the company's March 31,
2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

LocatePLUS Holdings Corporation -- https://www.locateplus.com/ --
along with its wholly owned subsidiaries, LocatePLUS Corporation,
Worldwide Information, Inc. and Entersect Corporation, is a
business-to-business, business-to-government and business-to-
consumer providers of public information via its data integration
solutions.  The company's LocatePLUS product contains searchable
and cross-referenced public information on individuals throughout
the United States, including individuals' names, addresses, dates
of birth, Social Security numbers, prior residences, and, in
certain circumstances, real estate holdings, recorded
bankruptcies, liens, judgments, drivers' license information and
motor vehicle records.


LOCATEPLUS HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend "Wiles" in Missouri
------------------------------------------------------------
LocatePLUS Holdings Corporation continues to defend the matter of
Sam Wiles, Carol Watkins, Jackson Wills and Sarah Smith,
Individually and on behalf of all others Similarly Situated, C.A.
No. 09-4164-CV-C-NKL, in the US District Court for the Western
District of Missouri.  

The matter is styled as a class action suit brought by the
plaintiff class against the company, alleging a violation of the
Driver Privacy Protection Act, 18 USC Section 2721, et. seq., and
is one of several similar actions brought by the class against a
number of companies in the same industry as the company.

No additional information were disclosed in the company's March
31, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

LocatePLUS Holdings Corporation -- https://www.locateplus.com/ --
along with its wholly owned subsidiaries, LocatePLUS Corporation,
Worldwide Information, Inc. and Entersect Corporation, is a
business-to-business, business-to-government and business-to-
consumer providers of public information via its data integration
solutions.  The company's LocatePLUS product contains searchable
and cross-referenced public information on individuals throughout
the United States, including individuals' names, addresses, dates
of birth, Social Security numbers, prior residences, and, in
certain circumstances, real estate holdings, recorded
bankruptcies, liens, judgments, drivers' license information and
motor vehicle records.


MARES USA: Recalls 755 Mares Nemo Air Dive Computers
----------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission and Health Canada, in
cooperation with Mares USA, of Boca Raton, Fla., announced a
voluntary recall of 600 Mares Nemo Air Dive Computers in the
United States, 140 in Canada and 15 in Puerto Rico.  Consumers
should stop using products immediately unless otherwise
instructed.

An O-ring in the high pressure air connector can fail and leak
air, causing a continuous but slow loss of breathing gas, which
could require a diver to surface quickly, posing a drowning
hazard to divers.

No incidents or injuries have been reported.

This recall involves the Mares Nemo Air Dive Computer, Nemo Air
Dive Computer with Compass, Mares High Pressure Hose with Quick
Connector for Nemo Air, and Quick Connector Assembly for Nemo
Air. These computers have a digital screen which allows scuba
divers to measure the time and depth of a dive and process other
information to help divers determine safe dive times and ascent
rates.  Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10197.html

The recalled products were manufactured in Italy and sold at
specialty dive shops nationwide from July 2008 through July 2009
for between $800 and $900 (U.S.) and between $880 and $990
(Canadian).

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled dive
computer and connectors, and return the products to their
authorized Mares dive shop for a free replacement O-ring
connector assembly.  The O-rings in some units may already have
been replaced, but this recall requires replacing the metal quick
connector fitting at the end of the high pressure air hose that
holds the O-ring.  Replacement connector assemblies have a groove
machined around the middle of the fitting, but recalled units do
not.  All consumers should take their Nemo Air dive computers to
a Mares dive shop to confirm whether this connector fitting has
been replaced.

For additional questions, contact Mares at (800) 874-3236 between
9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Eastern Time, or visit the firm's Web
site at http://www.mares.com/or e-mail the firm at  
kflood@us.mares.com


MARVELL TECH: Court Gives Final Approval to $72 Mil. Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
gave its final approval to the $72 million settlement of a
consolidated class-action complaint filed against Marvell
Technology Group Ltd., according to the company's March 31, 2010,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended Jan. 30, 2010.

Between Oct. 5 and Nov. 13, 2006, four putative class-action
suits were filed against the company and certain of its officers
and directors.

The complaints allege that the company and certain of its
officers and directors violated the federal securities laws by
making false and misleading statements and omissions relating to
the grants of stock options.

The complaints seek, on behalf of persons who purchased the
company's common shares during the period from Oct. 3, 2001 to
Oct. 3, 2006, unspecified damages, interest, and costs and
expenses, including attorneys' fees and disbursements.

Pursuant to an order of the court dated Feb. 2, 2007, these four
putative class actions were consolidated as a single action
entitled In re Marvell Technology Group, Ltd. Securities
Litigation.

On Aug. 16, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated class-
action complaint.  On Oct. 18, 2007, the company filed a motion
to dismiss the consolidated class action complaint.  The motion
is fully briefed and was argued on Feb. 15, 2008.

On Sept. 29, 2008, the District Court issued an order granting in
part and denying in part Marvell's motion to dismiss the
consolidated class action complaint.  The District Court gave the
plaintiffs 30 days to amend their complaint.  Plaintiffs
elected not to amend the complaint and instead will proceed with
the claims that the court did not dismiss.

The company filed its answer to the complaint on Jan. 12, 2009.

On June 9, 2009, the parties entered into a stipulation of
settlement to resolve the lawsuit.  The settlement provides for a
payment by the company to the class of $72 million.  On July 31,
2009, the Court granted preliminary approval of the proposed
settlement.

On Nov. 6, 2009, the Court held a hearing to consider whether to
grant final approval of the settlement.  The hearing for the
final Court approval was held on Nov. 6, 2009, and the Court
granted final approval of the settlement by written order on Nov.
13, 2009.

Marvell Technology Group Ltd. provides semiconductors of analog,
mixed-signal, digital signal processing, and embedded
microprocessor integrated circuits worldwide.  The company is
headquartered in Hamilton, Bermuda.


MASCHOLE PROPERTY: Sued for California Labor Code Violations
------------------------------------------------------------
Tamiko Jones, individually and on behalf of other members of the
general public similarly situated v. Mashcole Property
Management, Inc., Case No. BC435856 (Calif. Super. Ct., Los
Angeles Cty. Apr. 14, 2010), asserts violations of the California
Labor Code and the California Business & Professions Code.  Ms.
Jones accuses Mashcole of not paying overtime wages, failing to
pay meal and rest period premiums, not paying minimum wages,
untimely payment of final wages, failing to provide itemized wage
statements, untimely payment of all wages due, not providing
requisite payroll records, and not reimbursing business expenses.

Ms. Jones was employed as "property manager" for Mascole from
September 2006 until May 2007.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edwin Aiwazian, Esq.
          Ghazaleh Kekmatjah, Esq.
          THE AIWAZIAN LAW FIRM
          410 West Arden Ave., Suite 203
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone (818) 265-1020


MC MILLAN'S HOME: Sued in New York for Not Paying All Wages Due
---------------------------------------------------------------
Josefina A. Toledo Montero, on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated v. Mc Millan's Home Care Agency Inc., Index
No. 104779/2010 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty. Apr. 13, 2010),
accuses the health care provider of not paying all wages due and
failing to pay overtime wages, in violation of New York Labor
Law.  Ms. Montero is employed as a health care worker at Mc
Millan's.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Judith L. Spanier, Esq.
          Stephanie Amin-Giwner, Esq.
          ABBEY SPANIER RODD & ABRAMS, LLP
          212 East 39th St.
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 889-3700

               - and -

          Lindsey Schoenfelder, of counsel to
          Christopher D. Lamb, Esq.
          MFY LEGAL SERVICES, INC.
          299 Broadway, 4th Floor
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 417-3756

               - and-

          Catherine Ruckelshaus, Esq.
          Sarah Leberstein, Esq.
          NATIONAL EMPLOYMENT LAW PROJECT
          75 Maiden Lane, Suite 601
          New York, NY 10038
          Telephone: (212) 285-3025


NEVADA: D. Nev. Lawsuit Charges Child Welfare System is Illegal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Kanigher at the Las Vegas Sun reports that a federal class
action lawsuit filed last week in U.S. District Court in Las
Vegas accuses state and Clark County officials of overseeing a
child welfare system that violates state and federal law.

The lawsuit, filed on behalf of 13 children by the National
Center for Youth Law in Oakland, Calif., named as defendants
Nevada Department of Health and Human Services Director Michael
Willden, Nevada Division of Child and Family Services
Administrator Diane Comeaux, Clark County Manager Virginia
Valentine, and Clark County Department of Family Services
Director Tom Morton.

Those officials are accused of showing "deliberate indifference
to the health and safety of the children [they are] obligated to
protect." In addition to seeking unspecified damages for the
child plaintiffs, the lawsuit demands system improvements for
several classes of children in foster care.

Clark County spokesman Erik Pappa said today: "We're not
commenting because we haven't had a chance to review it."

Department of Health and Human Services spokesman Ben Kieckhefer
likewise said: "We haven't been served yet and we can't comment
until we've had a chance to review it with our attorneys."

The lawsuit alleges countless instances of blatant disregard of
federal and state law, substandard judgment, neglect, and active
indifference on the part of child welfare officials and
caseworkers. Those individuals were accused of perpetuating abuse
by routinely denying foster children stability, health care, and,
in many cases, even the most minimal level of safety. In fact,
many children are taken from their homes only to be subjected to
further abuse, including physical, sexual, or psychological
abuse, while in the county's custody, the lawsuit says.

In one cited example, defendants allegedly placed an infant and
her older brother in a foster home where the baby was locked in a
closet, and her brother was beaten when he tried to help her.
Another plaintiff, now 17, has been in foster care for 15 years
and has been shuttled through 40 placements.

The youth law center stated that since 2003, more than 10 studies
and reports have documented the defendants' failure to protect
the health, safety, and well being of child abuse victims and
children in foster care.

Other law firms representing the plaintiffs include Morrison &
Foerster LLP, an international, 1,000-lawyer firm with offices in
16 cities, including San Francisco, and Wolfenzon Schulman &
Ryan, with offices in Las Vegas, Reno, and San Diego.

The youth law center previously sued to reform the child welfare
system in Nevada on behalf of different plaintiffs and a
different class. The last suit, filed in 2006, was dismissed last
year after the federal court declined to certify the class, and
all the plaintiffs had either aged out of the system or been
adopted.

The center is renewing its efforts for current and future foster
care children who it says will continue to suffer until state and
county child welfare officials make changes to ensure the safety
and well-being of children in their custody.

"Our hope is that going forward, the county and state will commit
its time and resources to addressing the needs of children in its
care," says youth law center attorney Bryn Martyna.

The law center said that many of the problems cited in its
initial lawsuit persist or have worsened. A 2009 review of
Nevada's child welfare system by the U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services found the state did not meet federal standards
for child safety, staff and caregiver training, and children's
physical and mental health, among others.

Among the allegations in the lawsuit:

     * Many caseworkers lack even the most rudimentary training,
       have no supervision, and carry exceedingly high caseloads,
       resulting in serious injury to children.

     * Children are routinely denied mental health, medical,
       early intervention, and special education services.

     * Children as young as 7 are prescribed powerful
       psychotropic drugs, sometimes in combination, without
       adequate monitoring. Most of the drugs are not approved
       for use in children. One child named in the suit was twice
       hospitalized in the ICU for near organ failure due to an
       overdose of such drugs.

     * Caseworkers regularly fail to visit children in their
       placements.

     * Supervisors and caseworkers often "turn a deaf ear" to
       reports of abuse and neglect in foster care, allowing
       children to endure further abuse.

     * Children sent to out-of-state placements are essentially
       written off by defendants, who fail to evaluate or monitor
       such placements, allowing children to suffer further abuse
       and neglect.

The lawsuit is also demanding that the state and county agencies
develop case plans that contain the information foster parents
need to properly care for the children in their care, provide
representatives for children in court as required under both
Nevada and federal law, and provide early intervention services
for foster children.

"If defendants' unconstitutional and unlawful actions and
omissions are not halted, many more children will be harmed,"
said youth law center attorney Bill Grimm, lead counsel on the
case. "And another generation of children will suffer untold
misery in the form of abuse, instability, and absence of a loving
family. Some will suffer irreparable injury or even death, and
others will leave the foster care system ill-prepared to live
healthy, independent, and productive lives."

A copy of the Complaint in Henry A., et al., v. Willden, et al.,
Case No. 10-cv-00528 (D. Nev.), is available at
http://is.gd/bsMNuand the Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Bruno Wolfenzon, Esq.
          Gregory M. Schulman, Esq.
          WOLFENZON SCHULMAN & ROLLE
          6725 Via Austi Pkwy, Suite 260
          Las Vegas, NV 89119
          Telephone: (702) 836-3138
          
               - and -  

          Lori A. Schechter, Esq.
          Mary F. Hansbury, Esq.
          Jeffrey K. Rosenberg, Esq.
          MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
          425 Market Street, Suite 3200
          San Francisco, CA 94105-2482
          Telephone: (415) 268-7000

               - and -  

          William Grimm, Esq.
          Leecia Welch, Esq.
          Bryn Martyna, Esq.
          Camille Roberts, Esq.
          NATIONAL CENTER FOR YOUTH LAW
          405 - 14th Street, 15th Floor
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 835-8098


NORTHERN REFRIGERATED: Sued for Not Providing Meal & Rest Breaks
----------------------------------------------------------------
Patrick J. Marshall, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Northern Refrigerated Transportation, Inc.,
Case No. BC435731 (Calif. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty. Apr. 12,
2010), accuses the trucking company of failing to provide rest
and meal periods, not paying all wages due upon separation, and
not providing accurate and itemized wage statements, in violation
of California labor laws and the Industrial Welfare Commission
wage orders.

Mr. Marshall worked as a truck driver for Northern Refrigerated
from 1991 until his separation from the Company in February 2009.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James R. Hawkins, Esq.
          William S. Caldwell, Esq.
          JAMES HAWKINS, APLC
          9880 Research Drive, Suite 200
          Irvine, CA 92618
          Telephone: (949) 387-7200


OVERSTOCK.COM INC: Agrees to Settle Suit Over "Facebook Beacon"
---------------------------------------------------------------
Overstock.com, Inc., has entered into a settlement to resolve a
class action suit over its use of a product known as Facebook
Beacon, according to the company's March 31, 2010, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

On Aug. 12, 2008, the company along with seven other defendants,
was sued in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, by Sean Lane, and seventeen other individuals, on
their own behalf and for others similarly in a class action suit,
alleging violations of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act,
Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, Video Privacy Protection Act, and
California's Consumer legal Remedies Act and Computer Crime Law.

The complaint relates to the company's use of a product known as
Facebook Beacon, created and provided to the company by Facebook,
Inc.  Facebook Beacon provided the means for Facebook users to
share purchasing data among their Facebook friends.
The parties extended by agreement the time for defendants'
answer, including the company's answer, and thereafter, the
Plaintiff and Facebook proposed a stipulated settlement to the
court for approval, which would resolve the case without
requirement of financial contribution from the company.  Some
parties lodged objections, but the court has accepted the
proposed settlement.  Unless appealed, the company expects the
court's acceptance and the administrative details of settlement
to be finalized in the coming months.

Overstock.com, Inc. -- http://www.overstock.com/-- is an online  
retailer offering brand-name merchandise at discount prices.  The
company offers its customers an opportunity to shop for bargains
conveniently, while offering its suppliers an alternative
inventory distribution channel.


OVERSTOCK.COM INC: Appeal in "Hines" Suit Pending in New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
Overstock.com, Inc.'s appeal on the denial of dismissal of a
class action filed by Cynthia Hines remains pending in the U.S.
District Court, Eastern District of New York, according to the
company's March 31, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31,
2009.

On March 10, 2009, the company was sued in a class action filed
in the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York.

Cynthia Hines is the nominative plaintiff.  Ms. Hines alleges the
company failed to properly disclose its returns policy to her and
that it improperly imposed a "restocking" charge on her return of
a vacuum cleaner.  The nominative plaintiff on behalf of herself
and others similarly situated, seeks damages under claims for
breach of contract, common law fraud and New York consumer fraud
laws.

The company filed a motion to dismiss based upon assertions that
the company's agreement with its customers requires all such
actions to be arbitrated in Salt Lake City, Utah.  Alternatively,
the company asked that the case be transferred to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Utah, so that arbitration may
be compelled in that district.

On Sept. 8, 2009 the motion to dismiss was denied, the court
stating that the company's browsewrap agreement was insufficient
under New York law to establish an agreement with the customer to
arbitrate disputes in Utah.

On Oct. 8, 2009, the company filed a Notice of Appeal of the
court's ruling and the appeal is in the briefing stage.

Overstock.com, Inc. -- http://www.overstock.com/-- is an online  
retailer offering brand-name merchandise at discount prices.  The
company offers its customers an opportunity to shop for bargains
conveniently, while offering its suppliers an alternative
inventory distribution channel.


RUTH'S CHRIS: 11th Circuit Revives Employees' Racketeering Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Annie Youderian at Courthouse News Service reports that employees
at a Ruth's Chris Steakhouse in Alabama won reinstatement of
their class-action racketeering claim against the franchise for
allegedly hiring illegal aliens and supplying them with the names
and Social Security numbers of former employees.

A class action accused the Birmingham restaurant of actively
recruiting illegal workers, paying them in cash, and giving them
the names and Social Security numbers of former Ruth's Chris
employees.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in
Atlanta reversed dismissal of the workers' RICO claim, saying the
complaint "adequately pleads that the defendants encouraged or
induced an alien to reside in the United States" in violation of
federal immigration law.

Ruth's Chris had argued that the lawsuit only accuses it of
knowingly encouraging or inducing illegal immigrants to work in
the United States, not necessarily to live here.

"That argument borders on the frivolous," Judge Ed Carnes wrote.
"Their ability to find and keep jobs depends to a considerable
extent on improperly obtaining necessary documentation."

Employees also accused the restaurant of violating labor law by
withholding a percentage of their tips for "the house" and
pooling the rest of their tips, sometimes disbursing them to
workers who weren't eligible to participate in the tip pool.  
Ruth's Chris managers also persuaded customers to reduce tips or
not tip at all, and they occasionally clocked out workers while
they were still working, the lawsuit claimed.

The complaint further accused the restaurant of discriminating
against both black and white workers.  A white employee named
Kyle Edwards said the restaurant's management failed to stop
black and Latino co-workers from harassing and threatening him,
"out of fear of disrupting its supply of cheap illegal labor."

In addition to dismissing the racketeering claim, the district
court also dismissed two of the state-law wage claims as
pre-empted by the federal Fair Labor Standards Act, tossed
Edwards' bias claim and blocked the plaintiffs from seeking
punitive damages on their retaliation claims.

The 11th Circuit reversed dismissal of the RICO claim, upheld
dismissal of the state-law wage claims and Judge Edwards'
discrimination claim, and dismissed the rest of the appeal for
lack of jurisdiction.

"Our decision, like the complaint and the district court's
judgment, is a mixed bag," Judge Carnes wrote.

A copy of the decision in Edwards, et al. v. Prime, Inc., et al.,
No. 09-11699 (11th Cir.), is available at:

     http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200911699.pdf


SAJAN INC: MathStar Continues to Pursue Complaint vs. Tiberius
--------------------------------------------------------------
MathStar, Inc., continues to pursue its complaint against
Tiberius Capital II, LLC, resulting from Tiberius' plan to bring
a class action lawsuit against MathStar, according to Sajan,
Inc.'s March 31, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

Pursuant to an Agreement and Plan of Merger dated Jan. 8, 2010,
by and among MathStar and Sajan, Garuda Acquisition, LLC, a
wholly-owned subsidiary of MathStar, now known as Sajan, LLC; and
Thomas Magne, solely in his capacity as agent for the holders of
common stock of pre-Merger Sajan, Inc.  Under the terms of the
Merger Agreement, pre-Merger Sajan, Inc. was merged with and into
Sajan, LLC, which was formerly known as Garuda Acquisition, LLC,
and became a wholly-owned subsidiary of MathStar.  The Merger was
closed and effective on Feb. 23, 2010.

On Oct. 8, 2009, legal counsel for Tiberius Capital II, LLC, sent
by email to MathStar's legal counsel a copy of a Complaint
labeled "Draft - Subject to Completion".  The Tiberius Complaint
named Tiberius, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, as plaintiff.  It named MathStar, Feltl and
Company, Sajan, Inc., Perkins Capital Management, Inc., Richard
C. Perkins, Merrill A. McPeak, Benno G. Sand, John C. Feltl and
Joseph P. Sullivan, as defendants (Minnesota Parties).  Mr.
Perkins and Mr. Sand are members of MathStar's board of directors
and Merrill A. McPeak served as a director of MathStar from the
date the litigation commenced through the Effective Date.

The Tiberius Complaint stated that Tiberius was bringing a class
action lawsuit on behalf of a class consisting of all those who
purchased MathStar's securities between May 11, 2009 and Sept.
30, 2009.  The caption on the Tiberius Complaint stated that it
was to be filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.

The Tiberius Complaint alleged:

     (1) violations of Section 13(d) of the Exchange Act and the
         Rules of the SEC thereunder against the Minnesota
         Parties except Sajan, Inc. for alleged failure to
         report that such Minnesota Parties were acting as a
         "group" for purposes of purchasing MathStar's shares of
         common stock;

     (2) breaches of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and the
         Rules of the SEC thereunder against the Minnesota
         Parties except Sajan, Inc. for alleged misstatements in
         MathStar's proxy statement filed with the SEC on
         June 17, 2009 and in connection with MathStar's annual
         meeting of stockholders held on July 10, 2009;

     (3) violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and
         Rule 10b-5 promulgated by the SEC thereunder against
         the Minnesota Parties except Sajan, Inc. for alleged
         misstatements made in the Proxy Statement and in an
         alleged fraud on the market by such Minnesota Parties;

     (4) violations of Section 14 of the Exchange Act and
         Rule 14e-3 promulgated by the SEC thereunder against
         the Minnesota Parties except Sajan, Inc. for actions
         taken by such Minnesota Parties in connection with an
         alleged "creeping" tender offer;

     (5) control party liability under Section 20(a) of the
         Exchange Act against the MathStar Directors for alleged
         violations of Sections 14(a) and 14(e) of the Exchange
         Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder;

     (6) breach of fiduciary duty against the MathStar
         Directors; and

     (7) civil conspiracy against the Minnesota Parties.

In the Tiberius Complaint, Tiberius requested that the Court
enter a judgment in favor of Tiberius and the Class and against
the Minnesota Parties declaring that MathStar violated "Section
10b-5, Section 13d, Section 14a and Section 14e" of the Exchange
Act and rules promulgated thereunder, including Regulation FD;
enter judgment in favor of Tiberius and the Class and against the
MathStar Directors in the amount of $10 million in compensatory
and punitive damages; award Tiberius all of its costs incurred in
connection with the action, including reasonable attorneys' fees;
and grant such other and further relief as the Court deems to be
just and equitable.

                 The Minnesota Complaint

On Oct. 14, 2009, the Minnesota Parties filed a Complaint in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota captioned
"MathStar, Inc., Feltl and Company, Inc., Sajan, Inc., Perkins
Capital Management, Inc., Richard C. Perkins, Merrill A. McPeak,
Benno G. Sand, John C. Feltl and Joseph P. Sullivan, Plaintiffs,
v. Tiberius Capital II, LLC, Defendant."

In the Minnesota Complaint, the Minnesota Parties state that
Tiberius is threatening to bring a class action lawsuit against
them, as set forth in the Tiberius Complaint.  The Minnesota
Complaint also alleges a claim of tortious interference with
prospective economic advantage against Tiberius on behalf of
MathStar, Sajan, Inc. and Feltl.

The Minnesota Complaint requests judgment in favor of the
Minnesota Parties declaring that their actions described in the
Minnesota Complaint were lawful; declaring that the Minnesota
Parties have not violated any legal duties to Tiberius; declaring
that the proposed Tiberius Complaint is without merit; awarding
money damages to MathStar, Sajan, Inc. and Feltl in an amount to
be determined at trial to compensate such Minnesota Parties for
Tiberius' tortious interference with their economic advantage;
awarding the Minnesota Parties their costs, disbursements and
reasonable attorneys' fees; and awarding the Minnesota Parties
such other and further relief as the Court deems to be just,
proper and equitable.  The Minnesota Complaint was served on
Tiberius on Oct. 21, 2009.

On Nov. 9, 2009, Tiberius served and filed its Answer and
Counterclaim denying liability under the Minnesota Complaint and
asserting substantially the same claims set forth in the Tiberius
Complaint and, in addition, asserting common law claims for fraud
against the Minnesota Parties except Sajan, Inc. and against all
of the Minnesota Parties for wrongful interference with the
prospectively advantageous, successful completion of its tender
offer for MathStar's shares of common stock.  On Dec. 8, 2009,
Tiberius served and filed an Answer and Amended Counterclaim in
which it added a jurisdictional allegation and asserted claims
for declaratory relief under its other claims.  The Minnesota
Parties filed timely motions to dismiss the Counterclaim and
Amended Counterclaim on several grounds.

The motions were fully briefed, and oral arguments took place
before the Court on Feb. 9, 2010.  A ruling on the motions is
expected the spring of 2010.  A case scheduling conference was
held on Jan. 14, 2010, before the Magistrate Judge, at which it
was determined that a schedule will be established following a
ruling on the motions.  

Sajan, Inc. -- http://www.sajan.com/-- was merged with and into  
Garuda Acquisition, LLC, now a wholly owned subsidiary of Sajan,
Inc. (f/k/a/ MathStar, Inc.), on Feb. 23, 2010.  The Sub survived
the merger as a wholly owned subsidiary and changed its name to
Sajan, LLC.  Sajan(R) is a leading provider of global language
services and cloud-based translation management software.  
Through its two operating units, Sajan Global Language
Services(TM) and Sajan Software(TM), the company delivers people,
process and technology to help enterprises mature their
localization programs and global content lifecycle.  At the
center of Sajan's offerings is the industry's foremost
translation management system, GCMS(TM), used by over 650 clients
to date.  The company's spectrum of delivery models and nimble,
entrepreneurial culture enables Sajan to be a partner for any
size and shape of localization initiative, across any discipline
and industry.


SMART ONLINE: Agrees to Settle Securities Suit for $350,000
-----------------------------------------------------------
Smart Online, Inc., has reached a settlement in order to resolve
a lawsuit, according to the company's March 31, 2010, Form NT 10-
K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The company is a defendant in a lawsuit filed on behalf of all
persons who purchased the company's securities from May 2, 2005
through Sept. 28, 2007 and who claimed damages.  The complaint
asserts, among other things, violations of federal securities
laws, including violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act
and Rule 10b-5.  The complaint requested certification of the
plaintiff as class representative and sought, among other relief,
unspecified compensatory damages including interest, plus
reasonable costs and expenses including counsel fees and expert
fees.

The company and the lead plaintiff in the action have been
engaged in settlement negotiations, and have recently reached an
agreement in principle and tentative settlement, which has not
yet been signed, providing for the settlement of the securities
class action.  Once signed, the settlement would be subject to
court approval.  The tentative settlement contemplates a cash
payment of $350,000 to be made by the company and the issuance to
the class of 1,475,000 shares of company common stock, in
consideration for which all claims against the settling
defendants would be dismissed with prejudice, with no admission
of fault or wrongdoing by the Company or the other defendants.

The company discloses that the results of this tentative
settlement must be reviewed and analyzed in detail for inclusion
in the company's Form 10-K for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009 as a
subsequent event.  Additional  time is required to permit the
company to complete the review and analysis of this event for
proper inclusion in the Form 10-K.  The company anticipates that
its Form 10-K will be filed no later than  April 15, 2010.

Smart Online, Inc. -- http://www.smartonline.com/-- develops and  
markets software products and services targeted to small
businesses that are delivered via a software-as-a-service (SaaS)
model.  The company also provides Website consulting services,
primarily in the e-commerce retail industry.  The company's
principal products and services include SaaS applications for
business management, Web marketing and e-commerce; software
business tools that assist customers in developing written
content, and services that are designed to complement the
company's product offerings and allow it to create custom
business solutions that fit its end users' and channel partners'
needs.  Smart Online reaches small businesses primarily through
arrangements with channel partners that private label the
company's software applications and market them to their customer
bases through their corporate Websites.  Smart Online also offers
its products directly to end-user small businesses through its
OneBiz-branded Website.


SONY CORPORATION: 8th Optical Disc Drive Price-Fixing Suit Filed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Friedson, Guy Snowdy, and Sharon Defren, on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated v. Sony Corporation, et
al., Case No. 10-cv-01574 (N.D. Calif. Apr. 13, 2010), accuses
the multinational corporation of conspiring in restraint of trade
to fix the price of Optical Disc Drive products sold in the
United States, resulting to artificially inflated prices of ODD
products sold in the market.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael Ram, Esq.
          RAM & OLSON
          555 Montgomery St., Suite 820
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 4333-4949
          E-mail: mram@ramolson.com

               - and -
         
          Daniel R. Karon, Esq.
          GOLDMAN SCARLATO & KARON, P.C.
          700 W. St. Clair Ave., Suite 204
          Cleveland, OH 44113-1998
          Telephone: (216) 622-1851
          E-mail: karon@gsk-law.com

               - and -
             
          Isaac L. Diel, Esq.
          SHARP MCQUEEN PA
          6900 College Blvd., Suite 283
          Overland Park, KS 66223
          Telephone: (913) 661-9931
          E-mail: idiel@sharpmcqueen.com

               - and -

          Donna F. Solen, Esq.
          MASON LLP
          1625 Massachusetts Ave., NW, Suite 605
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 429-2290
          E-mail: dsolen@masonlawdc.com

               - and -
          
          Krishna B. Narine, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF KRISHNA B. NARINE
          2600 Philmont Ave., Suite 324
          Huntington Valley, PA 19006
          Telephone: (215) 914-2460
          E-mail: knarine@kbnlaw.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; 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; coverage of Tabatabai v. Sony
Corporation, et al., Case No. 10-cv-01450 (N.D. Calif.), appeared
in the Class Action Reporter on Monday, Apr. 12, 2010; coverage
of Wagner v. Sony Optiarc, Inc., et al., Case No. 10-cv-01451
(N.D. Calif.), appeared in the Class Action Reporter on Monday,
Apr. 12, 2010; and coverage of Berezin v. Hitachi, Ltd., et al.,
Case No. 10-cv-01533 (N.D. Calif.), appeared in the Class Action
Reporter on Apr. 14, 2010.


SOVEREIGN BANK: Suit Complains About Excessive Overdraft Fees
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Sovereign Bank collects
unfair and "unconscionable" assessment and overdraft fees for
debit card transactions, a class action claims in Manhattan
Federal Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Shalaby v. Sovereign Bank, Case No.
10-cv-03065 (S.D.N.Y.) (Scheindlin, J.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/04/13/Sovereign%20BAnk.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey M. Ostrow, Esq.
          David L. Ferguson, Esq.
          KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON WEISELBERG KEECHL
          200 S.W. First Ave., 12th Floor
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: 954-525-4100
          E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com
                  ferguson@kolawyers.com

               - and -

          Darren T. Kaplan, Esq.
          CHITWOOD HARLEY HARNES, LLP
          185 Great Neck Rd., Suite 340
          Great Neck, NY 11021
          Telephone: 516-773-6090
          E-mail: dkaplan@chitwoodlaw.com


TABATA USA: Recalls 250 TUSA RS-670 Regulators
----------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Tabata USA Inc. (TUSA), of Long Beach, Calif., announced a
voluntary recall of about 250 TUSA RS-670 Regulators.  Consumers
should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise
instructed.

The first stage balance chamber plug can loosen from the scuba
regulator causing a high-pressure leak and creating unstable
pressure.  This poses a drowning hazard to divers.

No incidents or injuries have been reported.

This recall involves R-600 first stage scuba regulators with the
following serial numbers: UR600022 through UR600029, UR600031
through UR600103, UR6000637 through UR6000676, UR600708 through
UR600716, UR600737 through UR600776.  The serial number and TUSA
logo are printed on the regulators.  Pictures of the recalled
products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10195.html

The recalled products were manufactured in Japan and sold through
authorized TUSA distributors and diving and equipment stores
nationwide from May 2009 through September 2009 for about $450.

Consumers should immediately stop using the scuba regulators and
return the product to TUSA or an authorized dealer for a free
inspection and replacement.  For additional information, contact
Tabata USA at (800) 482-2282 between 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.,
Pacific Time, Monday through Friday, or visit the firm's Web site
at http://www.tusa.com/


UAS PROPERTIES: Accused of Mismanagement of Rental Properties
-------------------------------------------------------------
John DeAngelis, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. UAS Properties, Inc., Case No. 2010-CH-15887 (Ill.
Cir. Ct., Cook Cty. Apr. 12, 2010), accuses UAS of violating its
agreement for the management of Mr. DeAngelis' three rental
properties in Cook County, Illinois, and breach of its fiduciary
duty to properly manage the rental properties.  Mr. DeAngelis
says UAS repeatedly failed to take proper steps to collect
housing subsidies from CHAC, the local agency that coordinates
housing subsidies for his Section 8 renters, which caused him to
lose rental income.  Further, Mr. DeAngeles says UAS also failed
to keep the rental units rented and occupied and failed to secure
the unoccupied rental units, resulting in at least two units
being burglarized, and causing damages in excess of $90,000.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adam J. Betzen, Esq.
          BETZEN LAW OFFICE, LLC
          2863 W. Leland Ave., Suite 1
          Chicago, IL 60625


UNITED STATES: Census Bureau Accused of Hiring Discrimination
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Gorman at Courthouse News Service reports that the U.S.
Census Bureau discriminates against minorities by requiring
arrest records of all potential employees when filling its one-
million temporary slots, a class action claims in federal court.
Plaintiffs say the requirement violates their civil rights
"because the arrest and conviction rates of African Americans,
Latinos, and Native Americans far exceeds those of whites
nationwide."

Eugene Johnson and Evelyn Houser say they are forced to produce
arrest records even when those arrests never led to convictions.

"Because this employment practice has significant adverse impact
upon African Americans, Latinos, and Native Americans, and it is
neither job-related nor a business necessity, it is unlawful
under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act," plaintiffs wrote.

Mr. Johnson and Ms. Houser complain that the bureau's policy
unfairly excludes many who haven't done anything wrong -- and
that they're losing out on about $18 an hour.

"Roughly a quarter of the U.S. adult population has a criminal
record, yet over 35 percent of arrests never lead to prosecution
or conviction," according to the complaint.

Plaintiffs also say they are victims of shoddy bookkeeping on the
part of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

"The FBI is missing final disposition information for roughly
half of its arrest records.  Thus, for millions of people, their
entire criminal history consists of having been arrested and
fingerprinted, but never convicted," the lawsuit states.

The class includes members of those racial minorities who applied
to be census takers, clerks, census crew leaders and recruiting
assistants.

Mr. Johnson and Ms. Houser want the court to abolish the bureau's
hiring practice and to give them and other class members priority
status for vacant census jobs.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Samuel R. Miller, Esq.
          OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
          3 Park Ave., 29th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: 212-245-1000


UNIVERSAL PLASTIC: Sued for Non-Payment of Termination Wages Due
----------------------------------------------------------------
Andrea L. Carvalho and Marc A. Barello, on behalf of themselves
and others similarly situated v. Universal Plastic Mold, Inc.,
Case No. BC435572 (Calif. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty. Apr. 9,
2010), asserts violations of the California Labor Code and the
California Bus. & Prof. Code.  Ms. Carvalho and Mr. Barello
accuses UPM of failing to provide meal and rest breaks and non-
payment of all wages due upon the involuntary discharge or the
voluntary termination of an employee.  Ms. Carvalho worked as a
machine operator in UPM's production department commencing on
November 2009 until January 10, 2010.  Mr. Barello was employed
as a machine operator from December 2009 to March 2010.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Armond Marcarian, Esq.
          Marc L. McCulloch, Esq.
          MARCARIAN LAW FIRM
          15260 Ventura Blvd., Suite 2250
          SHERMAN OAKS, CA 91403
          Telephone: (818) 995-8787


YMCA OF METROPOLITAN: Sued for Failing to Pay Split-Shift Premiums
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jamie Nelson, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. YMCA of Metropolitan Los Angeles, Case No. BC435814
(Calif. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty. Apr. 13, 2010), accuses the
non-profit organization of failing to pay split-shift premiums,
failing to provide meal and rest periods, not providing accurate
and itemized wage statements, and untimely payment of al wages
due upon termination or resignation, in violation of the
California Labor Code and Industrial Welfare Commission wage
orders.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Anthony J. Orshansky, Esq.
          David Yeremian, Esq.
          Justin K. Kachadoorian, Esq.
          ORSHANSKY & YEREMIAN LLP
          16133 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1245
          Encino, CA 91436
          Telephone: (818) 205-1212
          E-mail: anthony@oyllp.com
                  david@oyllp.com
                  justin@oyllp.com


ZENITH NATIONAL: Faces Suit in Delaware Over Fairfax Merger
-----------------------------------------------------------
Zenith National Insurance Corp., faces a consolidated suit in the
Delaware Court of Chancery in relation to its planned merger with
Fairfax Financial Holdings Limited, according to the company's
March 31, 2010, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.

On Feb. 18, 2010, the company announced that it had entered into
an Agreement and Plan of Merger dated as of Feb. 17, 2010, among
Fairfax Financial Holdings Limited (Parent), Fairfax Investments
II USA Corp., a wholly owned subsidiary of Parent (Merger Sub)
and the company.  The Merger Agreement provides for the merger of
Merger Sub with and into the company with the Company surviving
the Merger as a wholly owned subsidiary of Parent.

Five purported class action lawsuits have been filed by alleged
stockholders of the company challenging the Merger and naming as
defendants the company, its board of directors and Parent.  As
March 31, 2010, three such stockholder actions have been filed in
the Superior Court of the State of California, Los Angeles
County, and two such actions have been filed in the Delaware
Court of Chancery.

The two Delaware actions are:

     (1) Paul Ansfield, On Behalf of Himself and All Others
         Similarly Situated v. Zenith National Insurance Corp.
         et al, Case No. 5296-VCL, and

     (2) NECA-IBEW Pension Trust Fund on behalf of Itself and
         All Others Similarly Situated v. Zenith National
         Insurance Corp. et al, Case No. 5308-VCL.

The Delaware actions have been consolidated under the caption In
re Zenith National Insurance Corp. Shareholders Litigation,
Consolidated C.A. No. 5296-VCL, and the plaintiffs have filed a
Consolidated Amended Complaint.

The plaintiffs have moved for a preliminary injunction to prevent
the stockholder vote on the Merger.  That motion is scheduled to
be heard by the Delaware Court of Chancery on April 22, 2010.

Zenith National Insurance Corp. -- http://www.thezenith.com/--  
is a holding company engaged, through its wholly-owned
subsidiaries, Zenith Insurance Company and ZNAT Insurance
Company, in the workers' compensation insurance business,
nationally.  In addition, the company invests the net cash flow
from its operations and its capital principally in fixed maturity
securities.  It has three segments: workers' compensation,
reinsurance and investments.


ZENITH NATIONAL: Faces Consolidated Suit Over Fairfax Merger
------------------------------------------------------------
Zenith National Insurance Corp., faces a consolidated suit in the
Superior Court of the State of California in relation to its
planned merger with Fairfax Financial Holdings Limited, according
to the company's March 31, 2010, Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

On Feb. 18, 2010, the company announced that it had entered into
an Agreement and Plan of Merger dated as of Feb. 17, 2010, among
Fairfax Financial Holdings Limited (Parent), Fairfax Investments
II USA Corp., a wholly owned subsidiary of Parent (Merger Sub)
and the company.  The Merger Agreement provides for the merger of
Merger Sub with and into the company with the Company surviving
the Merger as a wholly owned subsidiary of Parent.

Five purported class action lawsuits have been filed by alleged
stockholders of the company challenging the Merger and naming as
defendants the company, its board of directors and Parent.  As
March 31, 2010, three such stockholder actions have been filed in
the Superior Court of the State of California, Los Angeles
County, and two such actions have been filed in the Delaware
Court of Chancery.

The three California actions are:

     (1) Laurence D. Paskowitz, Individually and on Behalf of
         All Others Similarly Situated v. Zenith National
         Insurance Corp. et al, Case No. BC432177,

     (2) Robert Spears, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
         Similarly Situated v. Stanley R. Zax et al,
         Case No. BC432186, and

     (3) Harold Ginsberg and Doris Ginsberg, Individually and on
         Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Zenith
         National Insurance Corp. et al, Case No. BC432733.

The actions have been consolidated under the caption In re Zenith
National Insurance Corp. Shareholder Litigation, Case No. BC
432177.

The complaints purport to be brought as class actions on behalf
of all of the company's stockholders, excluding the defendants
and their affiliates, allege that the consideration that
stockholders will receive in connection with the Merger is
inadequate and that the company's directors breached their
fiduciary duties to stockholders in negotiating and approving the
Merger Agreement and, in the case of the consolidated Delaware
action, in disseminating incomplete and inaccurate information
regarding the Merger.

The complaints further allege that either or both of the company
and Parent aided and abetted the alleged breaches by the
company's directors.  The complaints seek various forms of
relief, including injunctive relief that would, if granted,
prevent the Merger from being consummated in accordance with the
agreed-upon terms.

The plaintiffs have stipulated that they will not seek injunctive
relief in that case in connection with the Merger as long as the
plaintiffs in the Delaware action proceed with their preliminary
injunction motion.
  
Zenith National Insurance Corp. -- http://www.thezenith.com/--  
is a holding company engaged, through its wholly-owned
subsidiaries, Zenith Insurance Company and ZNAT Insurance
Company, in the workers' compensation insurance business,
nationally.  In addition, the company invests the net cash flow
from its operations and its capital principally in fixed maturity
securities.  It has three segments: workers' compensation,
reinsurance and investments.

                            *********

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  * * *