CAR_Public/100426.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Monday, April 26, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 80

                            Headlines

AIRVANA INC: Faces Consolidated Suit Over 72 Mobile Merger
AIRVANA INC: Wants Two Massachusetts Suits Stayed
AKEENA SOLAR: Dismissal Motion Hearing Scheduled for May 24
AMERICAN COMMERCIAL: Suits Over Miss. Collision Incident Pending
AMERICAN DENTAL: Final Approval of Settlement Agreement Pending

AMICAS INC: Awaits Dismissal Order of Consolidated Suit
AXA EQUITABLE: Faces Second Amended Complaint in California
CASEY'S GENERAL: Discovery in Motor Fuel Practices Suit Ongoing
CBC RESTAURANT: Sued for Labor Code Violations
CELERA CORP: $11M Settlement Reached in Stock Purchasers Suit

CHEMTURA CORP: Asks Bankr. Ct. to Approve Shareholder Settlement
DEL MONTE: Defends Suit by Moline and Lowe in California
DEL MONTE: Appeals to Denied MDL Settlement Objections Pending
DEL MONTE: Appellate Court Upholds Class Certification Denial
DYADIC INTERNATIONAL Settles Shareholder Suit for $4.8 Million

GENERAL NUTRITION: Court Dismisses "Jackson" Consumer Suit
GENERAL NUTRITION: Faces Suit Over Hydroxycut-Branded Products
GENERAL NUTRITION: Judgment in Franchisee Suit Satisfied in Full
GENERAL NUTRITION: Second Circuit Reverses Dismissal of 4 Suits
GENERAL NUTRITION: Certification Denial Reversed in "Guzman"

GEORGIA: Sup. Ct. Overturns Fee Enhancement in Foster Care Suit
HARRAH'S ENTERTAINMENT: Accused in Nev. of Not Paying Overtime
HAWK CORP: Appeal on Class Certification Ruling Pending
HEARTLAND PAYMENT: Consolidated Securities Suit Dismissed
HEARTLAND PAYMENT: Continues to Defend "McInerney" Suit

HEARTLAND PAYMENT: Missouri Merchant Suit Dismissed
HEARTLAND PAYMENT: Awaits Approval of Texas Suit Settlement
JACMAR COMPANIES: Sued for Failing to Provide Timely Meal Breaks
JOHN LINTON: Sued for Selling "Knock-Off" Skin Care Products
LIVE NATION: Accused of Failing to Pay Wages for All Hours Worked

MELT INC: Gelato Franchisees Barred from Class Action Proceeding
NCMIC FINANCE: Accused of Fraud & Breach of Marketing Agreement
NOKIA INC: 3rd Cir. Asked to Revive Cell Phone Headset Lawsuit
PRESTIGE AIR: Diversion of Trust Funds Alleged in Calif. Lawsuit
SAINT LUKE'S: Sued in Kansas for Engaging in Predatory Billing

SMART BALANCE: Has Yet to Answer Complaint Involving Nucoa
SMITH & WESSON: Wants Class Certification in Suit Denied
STANDARD PARKING: Enters Settlement Agreements to Resolve Suits
STREAM GLOBAL: Defends Third-Party Complaint by Sirius XM
SUNOPTA INC: May 17 Hearing Set in New York Suit Settlement

SUNOPTA INC: May 3 Hearing Set in Ontario Suit Settlement
SUNOPTA INC: Reaches Agreement to Settle "Vargas" Suit
TOLL BROTHERS: Defends Amended Securities Violations Suit
TOLL BROTHERS: Faces Three Defective Drywall Suits
TOYOTA MOTOR: Four Firms Named as Temporary Lead Counsel

TRENDSET ORIGINALS: Recalls 2,400 Girls' Hooded Jackets
TROPICAL BEDDING: Recalls 15,000 Mattress Sets
WAL-MART STORES: Ala. Suit Complains About Carpet Steam Cleaners
WILLIAM PENN: Del. Ch. Ct. Awards Legal Fees to Plaintiffs

                            *********

AIRVANA INC: Faces Consolidated Suit Over 72 Mobile Merger
----------------------------------------------------------
Airvana Inc., faces a consolidated action filed in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware relating to its planned merger
with 72 Mobile Holdings, LLC, according to the company's March
11, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Jan. 3, 2010.

On Dec. 17, 2009, the company entered into an Agreement and Plan
of Merger with 72 Mobile Holdings, LLC (Parent), and 72 Mobile
Acquisition Corp. (Merger Sub).  Parent is a newly formed entity
to be owned, directly and indirectly, by affiliates of S.A.C.
Private Capital Group, LLC, GSO Capital Partners LP, Sankaty
Advisors LLC and ZelnickMedia.

                     Israni Action

On Dec. 18, 2009, the company, its directors, SAC PCG, Parent,
GSO, Sankaty Advisors, LLC and ZelnickMedia, LLC were named as
defendants in a putative class action complaint, captioned Israni
v. Airvana, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 5153-CC, filed in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware.

The action is purportedly brought on behalf of a class of
stockholders, alleges that the company's directors breached their
fiduciary duties in connection with the proposed merger by, among
other things, failing to fully inform themselves of Airvana's
market value, maximize stockholder value, obtain the best
financial and other terms, and act in the best interests of
public stockholders, and seeking to benefit themselves
improperly.  The complaint further alleges that the non-Airvana
defendants aided and abetted the directors' purported breaches.  
The plaintiff seeks injunctive and other equitable relief,
including to enjoin us and Parent from consummating the merger,
in addition to fees and costs.

On Dec. 31, 2009, the plaintiff served document requests on the
company.

                    Gittleson Action

On Dec. 31, 2009, a second putative class action complaint was
filed against the company, its directors, SAC PCG, Parent, GSO,
Sankaty Advisors, LLC and ZelnickMedia, LLC in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware in an action captioned
Gittleson v. Airvana, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 5179-CC.

The action is purportedly brought on behalf of a class of
stockholders, also alleges that the company's directors breached
their fiduciary duties in connection with the proposed merger by,
among other things, failing to fully inform themselves of
Airvana's market value, maximize shareholder value, obtain the
best financial and other terms, and act in the best interest of
public stockholders, and seeking to benefit themselves
improperly.  The complaint further alleges that the non-Airvana
defendants aided and abetted the directors' purported breaches.  
The plaintiff seeks injunctive and other equitable relief,
including to enjoin us and Parent from consummating the merger,
in addition to fees and costs.

                       Willis Action

On Jan. 12, 2010, the company, its directors, Dr. Eyuboglu,
Merger Sub, 72 Mobile Investors, LLC, SAC PCG, GSO, Sankaty
Advisors, LLC and ZelnickMedia LLC were named as defendants in a
third putative class action complaint, captioned Willis v.
Airvana, Inc. et al., C.A. No. 5200, filed in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware.

The action is purportedly brought on behalf of a class of
stockholders, alleges that the company's directors breached their
fiduciary duties in connection with the proposed merger by, among
other things, failing to fully inform themselves of the company's
market value, maximize shareholder value, obtain the best
financial and other terms, and act in the best interest of public
stockholders, and seeking to benefit themselves improperly.  The
complaint further alleges that the non-Airvana defendants aided
and abetted the purported breaches by the directors and Dr.
Eyuboglu.  The plaintiff seeks declaratory, injunctive and other
equitable relief, including to enjoin us and affiliates of Parent
from consummating the merger, in addition to unspecified damages,
fees and costs.

                   Consolidated Action

The three actions have been consolidated into a single proceeding
captioned In re Airvana Shareholders Litigation.

On Feb. 2, 2010, the plaintiffs submitted a consolidated class
action complaint re-alleging the substance of the allegations
from the pre-consolidation complaints and further alleging that
the January 14 preliminary proxy omitted material information
concerning the merger.

On Feb. 5, 2010, the plaintiffs filed:

     (i) a motion to enjoin defendants from consummating the
         proposed transaction and

    (ii) a motion for an order directing discovery to proceed on
         an expedited basis and scheduling a hearing on
         plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction.

On Feb. 14, 2010, the defendants filed an opposition to the
plaintiffs' request for emergency relief.

On Feb. 15, 2010, the court denied plaintiffs' application for
expedited proceedings and declined to schedule a hearing on
plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction.

Airvana Inc. -- http://www.airvana.com/-- helps operators  
transform the mobile experience for users worldwide.  Airvana,
Inc.'s high-performance technology and products, from
comprehensive femtocell solutions to core mobile network
infrastructure, enable operators to deliver compelling and
consistent broadband services to mobile subscribers, wherever
they are.  Airvana, Inc.'s products are deployed in over 70
commercial networks on six continents.  Airvana, Inc. is
headquartered in Chelmsford, Mass., USA, with offices worldwide.


AIRVANA INC: Wants Two Massachusetts Suits Stayed
-------------------------------------------------
Airvana Inc.'s motion to stay the lawsuits filed in Suffolk
County of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts remains pending,
according to the company's March 11, 2010, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Jan. 3, 2010.

On Dec. 17, 2009, the company entered into an Agreement and Plan
of Merger with 72 Mobile Holdings, LLC (Parent), and 72 Mobile
Acquisition Corp. (Merger Sub).  Parent is a newly formed entity
to be owned, directly and indirectly, by affiliates of S.A.C.
Private Capital Group, LLC, GSO Capital Partners LP, Sankaty
Advisors LLC and ZelnickMedia.

                        Mountney Action

On Dec. 28, 2009, the company, its directors, S.A.C. Private
Capital Partners LP (a nonexistent entity), Parent, GSO, Sankaty
Advisors, LLC and ZelnickMedia, LLC were named as defendants in a
putative class action complaint, captioned Mountney v. Airvana,
Inc., et al., C.A. No. 09-5470, filed in the Superior Court,
Business Litigation Session, of Suffolk County of the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

The action is purportedly brought on behalf of a class of
stockholders, alleges that the company's directors breached their
fiduciary duties in connection with the proposed merger by, among
other things, failing to fully inform themselves of Airvana's
market value, maximize shareholder value, obtain the best
financial and other terms, and act in the best interest of public
stockholders, and seeking to benefit themselves improperly.  The
complaint further alleges that we and the non-Airvana defendants
aided and abetted the directors' purported breaches.  The
plaintiff seeks declaratory, injunctive and other equitable
relief, including to enjoin us and Parent from consummating the
merger, in addition to fees and costs.

                       Short Action

On Jan. 6, 2010, the company, its directors, Parent and Merger
Sub were named as defendants in a separate putative class action
complaint, captioned Short v. Airvana, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 10-
0042, filed in the Superior Court, Business Litigation Session,
of Suffolk County of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

The action is purportedly brought on behalf of a class of
stockholders, alleges that the company's directors breached their
fiduciary duties in connection with the proposed merger by, among
other things, failing to fully inform themselves of the company's
market value, maximize shareholder value, obtain the best
financial and other terms, and act in the best interest of public
stockholders, and seeking to benefit themselves improperly.  The
complaint further alleges that the company, Parent and Merger Sub
aided and abetted the directors' purported breaches.  The
plaintiff seeks declaratory, injunctive and other equitable
relief, including to enjoin us and affiliates of Parent from
consummating the merger, in addition to fees and costs.

On Jan. 28, 2010, the company and its directors moved to stay the
Massachusetts lawsuits in favor of the consolidated Delaware
action.

On Feb. 8, 2010 the plaintiffs in the Short action served an
opposition to the motion to stay.

The defendants' reply has yet to be served.  

Airvana Inc. -- http://www.airvana.com/-- helps operators  
transform the mobile experience for users worldwide.  Airvana,
Inc.'s high-performance technology and products, from
comprehensive femtocell solutions to core mobile network
infrastructure, enable operators to deliver compelling and
consistent broadband services to mobile subscribers, wherever
they are.  Airvana, Inc.'s products are deployed in over 70
commercial networks on six continents.  Airvana, Inc. is
headquartered in Chelmsford, Mass., USA, with offices worldwide.


AKEENA SOLAR: Dismissal Motion Hearing Scheduled for May 24
-----------------------------------------------------------
A May 24, 2010, hearing has been set for Akeena Solar, Inc.'s
motion to dismiss a putative class action complaint

On May 18, 2009, the company and certain of its officers were
named in a putative class action complaint in the U.S. District
Court Northern District of California, San Jose Division,
alleging violations of the federal securities laws.

The suit alleges various omissions and misrepresentations during
the period of Dec. 26, 2007 to March 13, 2008 regarding the
company's backlog reporting and bank line of credit.

The company moved to dismiss the complaint on Feb. 12, 2010, for
failure to state a claim for relief.

We believe that the claims in this case are entirely without
merit and we are defending the case vigorously. However, this
matter is in the early stages and we cannot reasonably estimate
an amount of potential loss, if any, at this time.

Akeena Solar, Inc. -- http://www.akeena.com/-- is one of the  
nation's leading installers of solar power systems.  Akeena
Solar's revolutionary Andalay AC solar panels produce safe
household AC power and have built-in racking, wiring, grounding
and inverters.  With 80% fewer parts and 5-25% better performance
than ordinary DC panels, Andalay panels are an ideal solution for
solar installers, trades workers and do-it-yourselfers.


AMERICAN COMMERCIAL: Suits Over Miss. Collision Incident Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
American Commercial Lines, Inc., and its indirect wholly owned
subsidiary, American Commercial Lines LLC, continue to face
putative class action lawsuits over a collision incident at Mile
Marker 97 of the Mississippi River near New Orleans.  

ACLInc, ACLLLC, or both, have been named as defendants in three
putative class action lawsuits, filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana:

     -- Austin Sicard, et al., on behalf of themselves and
        others similarly situated v. Laurin Maritime (America)
        Inc., Whitefin Shipping Co. Limited, D.R.D. Towing
        Company, LLC, American Commercial Lines, Inc. and the
        New Orleans-Baton Rouge Steamship Pilots Association,
        Case No. 08-4012, filed on July 24, 2008;

     -- Stephen Marshall Gabarick and Bernard Attridge, on
        behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v.    
        Laurin Maritime (America) Inc., Whitefin Shipping Co.
        Limited, D.R.D. Towing  Company, LLC, American
        Commercial Lines, Inc. and the New Orleans-Baton Rouge
        Steamship Pilots Association, Case No. 08-4007, filed
        on July 24, 2008; and

     -- Alvin McBride, on behalf of himself and all others
        similarly situated v. Laurin Maritime (America) Inc.;
        Whitefin Shipping Co. Ltd.; D.R.D. Towing Co. LLC;
        American Commercial Lines Inc.; The New Orleans-Baton
        Rouge Steamship Pilots Association, Case No.
        09-cv-04494  B, filed on July 24, 2009.

The claims in the Class Action Lawsuits stem from the incident on
July 23, 2008, involving one of ACLLLC's tank barges that was
being towed by DRD Towing Company L.L.C., an independent towing
contractor.  

The tank barge was involved in a collision with the motor vessel
Tintomara, operated by Laurin Maritime, at Mile Marker 97 of the
Mississippi River in the New Orleans area.

The tank barge was carrying approximately 9,900 barrels of #6
oil, of which approximately two-thirds was released.  The tank
barge was damaged in the collision and partially sunk.  There was
no damage to the towboat.  The Tintomara incurred minor
damage.

The Class Action Lawsuits include various allegations of adverse
health and psychological damages, disruption of business
operations, destruction and loss of use of natural resources, and
seek unspecified economic, compensatory and punitive damages for
claims of negligence, trespass and nuisance.  The Class Action
Lawsuits are stayed pending the outcome of the Limitation Actions

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

American Commercial Lines Inc. -- http:/www.aclines.com/ -- is an
integrated marine transportation and service company operating in
the United States Jones Act trades, with approximately $850
million in revenues and approximately 2,570 employees as of Dec.
31, 2009.


AMERICAN DENTAL: Final Approval of Settlement Agreement Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
The final approval of a settlement agreement resolving a
consolidated amended complaint against American Dental Partners,
Inc., remains pending, according to the company's March 12, 2010,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

On or about Jan. 25, 2008, Feb. 4, 2008, Feb. 12, 2008 and March
13, 2008, the company and certain of its executive officers were
named as defendants in four actions respectively entitled:

     (1) Oliphant v. American Dental Partners, Inc. et. al.,
         civil action number 1:08-CV-10119-RGS;

     (2) Downey v. American Dental Partners, Inc. et. al., civil
         action number 1:08-CV-10169-RGS;

     (3) Johnston v. American Dental Partners, Inc. et. al.,
         civil action number 1:08-CA-10230-RGS; and

     (4) Monihan v. American Dental Partners, Inc., et. al.,
         civil action number 1:08-CV-10410-RGS.

The actions were all filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts.

The actions each purport to be brought on behalf of a class of
purchasers of the company's common stock during the period Aug.
10, 2005, through Dec. 13, 2007.

The complaints allege that the company and certain of its
executive officers violated the federal securities laws, in
particular, Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act, 15
U.S.C. Sections 78, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, 17
C.F.R. Section 240.10b-5, by making allegedly material
misrepresentations and failing to disclose allegedly material
facts concerning the lawsuit by Park Dental Group, or PDG,
against PDHC, Ltd., titled PDG, P.A. v. PDHC, Ltd., Civ. A. Nos.
27-CV-06-2500 and 27-CV-07-13030, filed in the Fourth Judicial
District of Hennepin County, Minnesota on Feb. 3, 2006, and
conduct at issue in that action during the class period, which
had the effect of artificially inflating the market price of our
stock.  Each complaint also asserts control person claims under
Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act against the
executive officers named as defendants.

Each plaintiff seeks class certification, an unspecified amount
of money damages, costs and attorneys' fees, and any equitable,
injunctive or other relief the Court deems proper.

On or about May 29, 2008, the Court appointed the Operating
Engineers Pension Fund as lead plaintiff and its counsel, the law
firm of Grant & Eisenhofer P.A., as lead counsel.

The Court also ordered that the four pending actions be
consolidated under the caption In re American Dental Partners,
Inc. Securities Litigation, civil action number 1:08-CV-10119-
RGS.

On or about June 5, 2008, one of the original named plaintiffs,
W.K. Downey, agreed to enter an order that dismissed his
individual claims with prejudice.

On Sept. 29, 2008, the Operating Engineers Pension Fund filed
with the Court a consolidated amended complaint that alleges a
new class period of Feb. 25, 2004, through Dec. 13, 2007, and
asserts violations of the federal securities laws.

On Dec. 5, 2008, the company and the other defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the action.  The Court denied the motion on
April 2, 2009.

On Dec. 15, 2009, the company, the other defendants and the lead
plaintiff entered a Class Action Settlement Agreement to settle
and release all remaining claims.

The settlement agreement was filed on Dec. 15, 2009, and is
subject to the Court's final approval.

Pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement, the insurance
company that issued the company Directors, Officers and Corporate
Liability Insurance Policy has paid $6,000,000 into a settlement
fund that will be distributed in accordance with the Court's
order if the Court grants its final approval.

The Court preliminarily approved the settlement agreement on Dec.
23, 2009 and has scheduled a fairness hearing for March 18, 2010.

On or about Feb. 22 and 23, 2010, Special Situations Fund III
L.P., Special Situations Cayman Fund, L.P., and Special
Situations Fund III Q.P., L.P. excluded themselves from the
pending settlement and filed an opt-out complaint in the District
of Massachusetts, against us and the same executive officers
named as defendants in the prior actions, entitled Special
Situations Fund III, L.P. et al. v. American Dental Partners,
Inc. et al., civil action number 1:10-CV-10331. The complaint
asserts that the plaintiffs purchased over 500,000 shares of our
common stock during the class period, alleges the same violations
of the federal securities laws, and claims that certain of the
alleged misrepresentations also violated Section 18 of the
Securities Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 78(r).  The plaintiffs
seek an unspecified amount of money damages, costs and attorneys'
fees, and any other relief the Court deems proper.  The company's
time within which to respond has not yet elapsed.  

American Dental Partners, Inc. -- http://www.amdpi.com/-- is one  
of the nation's leading business partners to dental group
practices.  The company is affiliated with 27 dental group
practices, which have 268 dental facilities with approximately
2,259 operatories located in 19 states.


AMICAS INC: Awaits Dismissal Order of Consolidated Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
AMICAS, Inc., awaits a ruling from the court dismissing a
consolidated stockholder class action after it terminated its
planned merger with Thoma Bravo, LLC, according to the company's
March 11, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

                Progress Associates Action

On Jan. 14, 2010, a purported stockholder class action complaint
was filed in the Superior Court of Suffolk County, Massachusetts
in connection with the announcement of the proposed merger of
AMICAS with a subsidiary of Thoma Bravo, LLC, entitled Progress
Associates, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated
v. AMICAS, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 10-0174.

The complaint names as defendants the company and its directors,
as well as Thoma Bravo.  The plaintiff purports to represent
similarly situated stockholders of AMICAS.

The complaint alleges that the company and its directors breached
fiduciary duties owed to its stockholders in connection with the
Thoma Bravo Merger.  Specifically, the complaint alleges that the
process used was unfair because the company's directors
supposedly failed to solicit strategic buyers and deterred
potential buyers other than Thoma Bravo; that the per share price
of the proposed Thoma Bravo Merger is inadequate; that the
company's directors had a conflict of interest due to the
accelerated vesting of their options and payments thereon and
rights to indemnification; and that the proxy statement was
materially misleading and/or  incomplete because it allegedly
failed to disclose the consideration that each director would
receive from vesting of his options, the amount of severance to
be received by Dr. Kahane, the company's Chief Executive Officer,
the amount of the fee paid to Raymond James & Associates, Inc.,
the company's financial advisor, the number of potential
acquirers that were financial and those that were strategic,
whether companies not contacted by Raymond James expressed an
interest in the company, and the substance of the discussions
between Raymond James and Thoma Bravo between
Oct. 8, 2009 and Oct. 18, 2009.

The complaint further alleges that Thoma Bravo aided and abetted
the alleged breach of fiduciary duties by the Company and its
directors.

The plaintiff seeks certification of a class, damages, costs and
fees.

                       Mannhardt Action

On Feb. 1, 2010, a follow-on stockholder class action complaint
was filed in the same Court entitled Lawrence Mannhardt, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. AMICAS,
Inc., et al., Civil Action 0-0412.  The suit makes substantially
the same allegations and seeks the same relief as the suit filed
by Progress Associates.

On Feb. 12, 2010, the parties appeared before the Court for a
hearing on the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction
seeking to postpone the special meeting of stockholders scheduled
for Feb. 19, 2010.  Also on Feb. 12, 2010, the Court entered an
order consolidating the two purported stockholder class actions.

On Feb. 16, 2010, Merge Healthcare, Inc., filed an intervenor
complaint.

On Feb. 17, 2010, Merge filed a motion for a preliminary
injunction.  The parties appeared before the Court on Feb. 17,
2010.

On Feb. 18, 2010, the Court ordered that the special meeting of
stockholders scheduled to be held on Feb. 19, 2010 be adjourned
pending a full hearing on the merits of the plaintiff's
allegation concerning the adequacy of the company's disclosures
in its proxy statement.

On Feb. 22, 2010, the company filed an amendment and supplement
to its definitive proxy of Jan. 19, 2010.

On March 5, 2010, the parties appeared before the Court for a
status conference during which the company informed the Court
that the company had terminated the Thoma Bravo Merger and
entered into the Merge Merger Agreement.

In light of these developments, the Court indicated that it would
prepare an order dissolving the preliminary injunction and
dismissing the plaintiffs' claims as moot.  The Court has yet to
issue this order.

On March 9, 2010 Merge filed a Notice of Dismissal, without
prejudice, with respect to its complaint.  The Court has
scheduled a status conference for March 25, 2010, to address the
handling of impounded documents and any application for attorneys
fees submitted by plaintiffs.  Although the company intends to
oppose any fee application, the company cannot predict the amount
of fees, if any, the Court may award to plaintiffs.

AMICAS, Inc. -- http://www.amicas.com/-- is a leading  
independent provider of imaging IT solutions.  AMICAS offers the
industry's most comprehensive suite of image and information
management solutions - from radiology PACS to cardiology PACS,
from radiology information systems to cardiovascular information
systems, from revenue cycle management solutions to enterprise
content management tools designed to power the imaging component
of the electronic medical record.  AMICAS provides a complete,
end-to-end solution for radiology practices, imaging centers, and
ambulatory care facilities.  Hospitals and integrated delivery
networks are provided with a comprehensive image management
solution for cardiology and radiology that supports EMR
strategies to enhance clinical, operational, and administrative
functions.


AXA EQUITABLE: Faces Second Amended Complaint in California
-----------------------------------------------------------
AXA Equitable Life Insurance Co. faces a second amended complaint
in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California, according to the company's March 10, 2010, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

A putative class action entitled Eagan et al. v. AXA Equitable
Life Insurance Company was filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California in December 2006 against AXA
Equitable as plan sponsor and fiduciary for an ERISA retiree
health plan.

The action was brought by two plan participants on behalf of all
past and present employees and agents who received retiree
medical benefits from AXA Equitable at any time after Jan. 1,
2004, or who will receive such benefits in 2006 or later,
excluding certain retired agents.  Plaintiffs allege that AXA
Equitable's adoption of a revised version of its retiree health
plan in 1993 was not authorized or effective.  Plaintiffs contend
that AXA Equitable has therefore breached the retiree health plan
by imposing the terms of the 1993 Plan on plaintiffs and other
retirees.

Plaintiffs allege that, even if the 1993 Plan is controlling, AXA
Equitable has violated the terms of the retiree health plan by
imposing health care costs and coverages on plaintiffs and other
retirees that are not authorized under the 1993 Plan.  Plaintiffs
also allege that AXA Equitable breached fiduciary duties owed to
plaintiffs and retirees by allegedly misrepresenting and failing
to disclose information to them.

The plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, restitution and
injunctive relief prohibiting AXA Equitable from violating the
terms of the applicable plan, together with interest and
attorneys' fees.

In March 2007, AXA Equitable filed a motion to dismiss.

In July 2007, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that:

     (i) redefined the scope of the class to now include all
         retired employee and independent contractor agents
         formerly employed by AXA Equitable who received medical
         benefits after Dec. 1, 2000, or who will receive such
         benefits in the future, excluding certain retired
         agents, and

    (ii) eliminated the claim based on a breach of fiduciary
         duty and certain claims related to health care costs.

In September 2007, AXA Equitable filed its answer to the amended
complaint.  In April 2008, the plaintiffs filed a motion for
class certification.

In January 2009, AXA Equitable filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, which was
denied by the Court in February 2009.

In March 2009, AXA Equitable stipulated to class certification
relating to the imposition of a "cap" or "company contribution
limit" on the amount it would contribute to retiree's health care
costs.

In June 2009, AXA Equitable filed an opposition to class
certification of the claim in which plaintiffs allege that AXA
Equitable improperly replaced certain health care options with
purportedly inferior options.

In December 2009, the Court denied the health care options class
certification, allowing plaintiffs to replead.

In January 2010, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint.  
The trial date is currently scheduled for June 2010.

AXA Equitable Life Insurance Co. -- http://www.axa-equitable.com/
-- is the US life insurance and annuities underwriting arm of its
globe-spanning ultimate parent, AXA.  The company, together with
subsidiary AXA Life and Annuity, has more than 2.3 million life
insurance policies in force, and is licensed throughout the US
and Puerto Rico.  Policies are sold through affiliates AXA
Advisors and AXA Network, as well as by independent brokers and
financial institutions via wholesale brokerage unit AXA
Distributors.  AXA Equitable, a subsidiary of AXA Financial, has
about $540 billion under management, and offers investment
products and services through its majority stake in Alliance
Bernstein.


CASEY'S GENERAL: Discovery in Motor Fuel Practices Suit Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in the consolidated Motor Fuel Temperature
Sales Practices Litigation against Casey's General Stores, Inc.,
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas in Kansas
City.

The company is named as a defendant in four lawsuits ("hot fuel"
cases) brought in the federal courts in Kansas and Missouri
against a variety of gasoline retailers.  

The complaints generally allege that the company, along with
numerous other retailers, has misrepresented gasoline volumes
dispensed at its pumps by failing to compensate for expansion
that occurs when fuel is sold at temperatures above 60-degrees
Fahrenheit.  

Fuel is measured at 60-degrees Fahrenheit in wholesale purchase
transactions and computation of motor fuel taxes in Kansas and
Missouri.  

The complaints all seek certification as class actions on behalf
of gasoline consumers within those two states, and one of the
complaints also seeks certification for a class consisting of
gasoline consumers in all states.  

The actions generally seek recovery for alleged violations of
state consumer protection or unfair merchandising practices
statutes, negligent and fraudulent misrepresentation, unjust
enrichment, civil conspiracy, and violation of the duty of good
faith and fair dealing; several seek injunctive relief and
punitive damages.

These actions are among a total of 45 similar lawsuits now
pending in 28 jurisdictions, including 25 states, Guam, the
District of Columbia, and the Virgin Islands, against a wide
range of defendants that produce, refine, distribute, and/or
market gasoline products in the United States.  

On June 18, 2007, the Federal Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation ordered that all of the pending hot fuel cases
(officially, the "Motor Fuel Temperature Sales Practices
Litigation") be transferred to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Kansas in Kansas City, Kansas, for coordinated or
consolidated pretrial proceedings, including rulings on discovery
matters, various pretrial motions, and class certification.  

Discovery efforts by both sides are being pursued

No further updates were reported in the company's March 10, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Jan. 31, 2010.

Casey's General Stores, Inc. -- http://www.caseys.com/--    
operates convenience stores under the name Casey's General Store
in nine Midwest states, primarily Iowa, Missouri and Illinois.


CBC RESTAURANT: Sued for Labor Code Violations
----------------------------------------------
Noelle Batiste, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. CBC Restaurant Corp., Case No. BC435948 (Calif.
Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty. Apr. 16, 2010), accuses the operator
of the Corner Bakery Cafe restaurants in California of failing to
pay for all hours worked, failing to pay overtime wages, failing
to provide meal and rest breaks, failing to indemnify employees
for all necessary expenditures incurred by the employees in the
discharge of their duties, forfeiture of vacation pay, secretly
paying lower wages than required by statute, and failure to
provide accurate wage statements, in violation of the California
Labor Code and the Bus. & Prof. Code.  Noelle Batiste was
employed by CBC as a shift supervisor.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shaun Setareh, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF SHAUN SETAREH
          9454 Wilshire Blvd., Penthouse Suite 3
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (310) 888-7771
          E-mail: setarehlaw@sbcglobal.net

               - and -

          David Spivak, Esq.
          THE SPIVAK LAW FIRM
          9454 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 303
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (310) 499-4730
          E-mail: david@spivaklaw.com

               - and -

          Louis Benowitz, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF LOUIS BENOWITZ
          9454 Wilshire Blvd., Penthouse Suite 34
          Telephone: (310) 888-7771
          E-mail: louis@benowitzlaw.com


CELERA CORP: $11M Settlement Reached in Stock Purchasers Suit  
-------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in consolidated class-action complaint against
Applied Biosystems, Inc., nka Life Technologies, captioned In re
PE Corporation Securities Litigation, Master File No. 3:00-CV-
705, entered into a stipulation and agreement of settlement which
provides fpr a settlement in the aggregate amount of $11 million,
according to Celera Corp.'s March 19, 2010, Form 8-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Applied Biosystems and some of its officers are defendants in a
lawsuit brought on behalf of purchasers of Celera stock in its
follow-on public offering of Celera stock completed on March 6,
2000.  In the offering, Applied Biosystems sold an aggregate of
approximately 4.4 million shares of Celera stock at a public
offering price of $225 per share.  The lawsuit, which was
commenced with the filing of several complaints in April and May
2000, is pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Connecticut, and an amended consolidated complaint was filed on
Aug. 21, 2001.

The consolidated complaint generally alleges that the prospectus
used in connection with the offering was inaccurate or misleading
because it failed to adequately disclose the alleged opposition
of the Human Genome Project and two of its supporters, the
governments of the U.S. and the U.K., to providing patent
protection to Celera's genomic-based products.

Although neither Celera nor Applied Biosystems ever sought, or
intended to seek, a patent on the basic human genome sequence
data, the complaint also alleges that Applied Biosystems did not
adequately disclose the risk that it would not be able to patent
this data.

The consolidated complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages,
rescission, costs and expenses, and other relief as the court
deems proper.  On March 31, 2005, the court certified the case as
a class action.

In November 2008, the U.S. District Court for the District of
Connecticut issued an order to the parties to show cause why the
case should not be dismissed.  A hearing on this matter was held
in April 2009 at which the Court directed the parties to explore
a potential settlement of the matter.

On March 16, 2010, the parties entered into a Stipulation and
Agreement of Settlement.  The Settlement Agreement provides for a
settlement in the aggregate amount of $11,000,000, which amount
will be funded entirely by Life Technologies Corporation's (as
successor to PE Corporation) insurance carrier.  The settlement
will become effective upon the preliminary approval of the U.S.
District Court for the District of Connecticut and thereafter
remains subject to the final approval of the Court at a fairness
hearing.  The settlement may be terminated at the election of the
defendants in the event that a certain percentage of potential
class members timely and validly request exclusion from the
settlement.  Under the terms of the company's separation
agreement with Life Technologies, the company agreed to indemnify
Life Technologies for liabilities resulting from the class action
lawsuit described above to the extent not covered by Life
Technologies' insurance.

On March 16, 2010, the parties to In re PE Corporation Securities
Litigation, Master File No. 3:00-CV-705, a class action lawsuit
brought on behalf of purchasers of PE Corporation Celera Genomics
Group tracking stock in a follow-on public offering conducted in
February 2000, entered into a Stipulation and Agreement of
Settlement (the "Settlement Agreement"). The Settlement Agreement
provides for a settlement in the aggregate amount of $11,000,000,
which amount will be funded entirely by Life Technologies
Corporation's (as successor to PE Corporation) insurance carrier.
The settlement will become effective upon the preliminary
approval of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Connecticut (the "Court") and thereafter remains subject to the
final approval of the Court at a fairness hearing. The settlement
may be terminated at the election of the defendants in the event
that a certain percentage of potential class members timely and
validly request exclusion from the settlement. Under the terms of
our separation agreement with Life Technologies, we agreed to
indemnify Life Technologies for liabilities resulting from the
class action lawsuit described above to the extent not covered by
Life Technologies' insurance.

Celera Corp. -- http://www.celera.com/-- is a healthcare  
business focusing on the integration of genetic testing into
routine clinical care through a combination of products and
services incorporating proprietary discoveries.  Berkeley
HeartLab, a subsidiary of Celera, offers services to predict
cardiovascular disease risk and improve patient management.  
Celera also commercializes a wide range of molecular diagnostic
products through Abbott and has licensed other relevant
diagnostic technologies developed to provide personalized disease
management in cancer.


CHEMTURA CORP: Asks Bankr. Ct. to Approve Shareholder Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Santosh Nadgir at Reuters reports that U.S. chemicals maker
Chemtura Corp (CEMJQ.PK) is seeking approval in In re Chemtura
Corporation, Case No. 09-11233 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.), to settle a
2004 securities class action lawsuit for about $11.4 million.

The lawsuit, filed in a Connecticut court, was led by Pierre
Brull and William Ashe, who represented former shareholders of
Witco Corp. In 1999 Witco merged with Crompton & Knowles Corp,
which is now called Chemtura.

The lawsuit alleged that Witco shareholders entered into a deal
with Chemtura based on false and misleading financial statements
and that Chemtura had breached its fiduciary duty to Witco's
shareholders.

The suit alleged that during the period between Oct. 26, 1998,
and Oct. 8, 2002, Chemtura issued materially false and misleading
statements concerning its reported financial results,
competition, pricing, sales and margins.

In court papers, Chemtura said the settlement amount will be paid
solely from insurance and will not prejudice any of the company's
stakeholders.

Chemtura's U.S. operations, which included 26 affiliates, filed
for bankruptcy protection last March because of a significant
decrease in liquidity caused by sharp declines in order volumes.


DEL MONTE: Defends Suit by Moline and Lowe in California
--------------------------------------------------------
Del Monte Foods Company defends a suit alleging violations of
California's False Advertising Act, among others, according to
the company's March 10, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Jan. 31,
2010.

On Oct. 13, 2009, Kara Moline and Debra Lowe filed a class action
complaint against the company in San Francisco Superior Court,
alleging violations of California's False Advertising Act, Unfair
Competition Law, and Consumer Legal Remedies Act.

Specifically, the plaintiffs allege that the company engaged in
false and misleading advertising in the labeling of Nature's
Recipe Farm Stand Selects dog food.  The plaintiffs seek
injunctive relief, disgorgement of profits in an undisclosed
amount, and attorneys' fees.  Additionally, the plaintiffs are
seeking class certification.

Del Monte Foods Company -- http://www.delmonte.com/-- is one of  
the country's largest and most well-known producers, distributors
and marketers of premium quality, branded food and pet products
for the U.S. retail market, generating approximately $3.6 billion
in net sales in fiscal 2009.  With a powerful portfolio of brands
including Del Monte(R), S&W(R), Contadina(R), College Inn(R),
Meow Mix(R), Kibbles 'n Bits(R), 9Lives(R), Milk-Bone(R), Pup-
Peroni(R), Meaty Bone(R), Snausages(R) and Pounce(R), Del Monte
products are found in eight out of ten U.S. households.  The
company also produces, distributes and markets private label food
and pet products.

  
DEL MONTE: Appeals to Denied MDL Settlement Objections Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Appeals filed by four class members to their denied objections on
the court approved settlement in the matter entitled In re Pet
Food Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 1850, which names Del
Monte Foods Co. as one of the defendants, are pending.

Beginning with the pet food recall announced by Menu Foods, Inc.,
in March 2007, many major pet food manufacturers, including Del
Monte, announced recalls of their own select products.  The
company currently believes there are over 90  
purported class action suits relating to these pet food recalls.

The company is currently a defendant in these specific cases,
related to its pet food and pet snack recall:

       -- "Carver v. Del Monte," filed on April 4, 2007, in the
          U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
          California;

       -- "Ford v. Del Monte," filed on April 7, 2007, in the
          U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
          California;

       -- "Hart v. Del Monte," filed on April 10, 2007, before
          the state court in Los Angeles, California;

       -- "Schwinger v. Del Monte," filed on May 15, 2007, in
          the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
          Missouri; and

       -- "Tompkins v. Del Monte," filed on July 13, 2007, in
          the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado.

The named plaintiffs in these cases allege that their pets
suffered injury or death as a result of ingesting the company's  
and the other defendants' allegedly contaminated pet food and pet
snack products.

By order dated June 28, 2007, the Carver, Ford, Hart, Schwinger,
and Tompkins cases were transferred to the U.S. District Court
for the District of New Jersey and consolidated with other
purported pet food class action suits under the federal rules for
multi-district litigation (In re Pet Food Products Liability
Litigation, MDL No. 1850).

The plaintiffs and the defendants in the multi-district
litigation cases, including the five consolidated cases in which  
the company is a defendant, have tentatively agreed to a
settlement deal to resolve their dispute.

On May 30, 2008, the Court granted preliminary approval to the
settlement.  Pursuant to the Court's order, notice of the  
settlement was disseminated to the public by mail and publication
beginning June 16, 2008.   

A hearing on a final settlement approval and class certification
has been scheduled for Oct. 14, 2008.

If approved, the class will be certified and the total settlement
will aggregate $24 million.  The portion of the  
company's contribution to this settlement, if approved, would be
$0.25 million.

On Nov. 19, 2008, the Court entered orders approving the
settlement, certifying the class and dismissing the complaints  
against the defendants, including the company.  The total
settlement was $24.0 million.  The portion of the company's  
contribution to this settlement was $250,000, net of insurance
recovery.   

Four class members have filed objections to the settlement, which
objections have been denied by the Court.  On Dec. 3, 2008, and
Dec. 12, 2008, these class members filed Notices of Appeal.

No updates were reported in the company's March 10, 2010, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended Jan. 31, 2010.

Del Monte Foods Company -- http://www.delmonte.com/-- is one of  
the country's largest and most well-known producers, distributors
and marketers of premium quality, branded food and pet products
for the U.S. retail market, generating approximately $3.6 billion
in net sales in fiscal 2009.  With a powerful portfolio of brands
including Del Monte(R), S&W(R), Contadina(R), College Inn(R),
Meow Mix(R), Kibbles 'n Bits(R), 9Lives(R), Milk-Bone(R), Pup-
Peroni(R), Meaty Bone(R), Snausages(R) and Pounce(R), Del Monte
products are found in eight out of ten U.S. households.  The
company also produces, distributes and markets private label food
and pet products.


DEL MONTE: Appellate Court Upholds Class Certification Denial
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals has upheld the ruling denying class
certification in a purported class-action lawsuit over Del  
Monte Foods Co.'s and other defendants' recalled pet foods and
snacks, according to the company's March 10, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Jan. 31, 2010.

The lawsuit Picus v. Del Monte, was filed on April 30, 2007, and
generally alleges that the plaintiffs' pets suffered injury or
death as a result of ingesting the company's and other
defendants' contaminated pet food and pet snack products.  It  
also contains allegations of false and misleading advertising by
the company.   

The plaintiffs in the matter are seeking class certification as
well as unspecified damages and injunctive relief against  
further distribution of the allegedly defective products.

On Oct. 12, 2007, the company filed a motion to dismiss the Picus
case.  The state court granted in part and denied in part  
the dismissal.

On Dec. 14, 2007, other defendants in the case filed a motion to
deny class certification.  On March 16, 2009, the Court granted
the motion to deny class certification.

On March 25, 2009, the plaintiffs filed an appeal of the Court's
decision.

On June 30, 2009, the Court of Appeals denied plaintiffs' appeal.

Del Monte Foods Company -- http://www.delmonte.com/-- is one of  
the country's largest and most well-known producers, distributors
and marketers of premium quality, branded food and pet products
for the U.S. retail market, generating approximately $3.6 billion
in net sales in fiscal 2009.  With a powerful portfolio of brands
including Del Monte(R), S&W(R), Contadina(R), College Inn(R),
Meow Mix(R), Kibbles 'n Bits(R), 9Lives(R), Milk-Bone(R), Pup-
Peroni(R), Meaty Bone(R), Snausages(R) and Pounce(R), Del Monte
products are found in eight out of ten U.S. households.  The
company also produces, distributes and markets private label food
and pet products.


DYADIC INTERNATIONAL Settles Shareholder Suit for $4.8 Million
--------------------------------------------------------------
The South Florida Business Journal reports that Dyadic
International agreed to a $4.8 million settlement in a
shareholder class action lawsuit.

The Jupiter, Fla.-based producer of industrial enzymes and
developmental biotechnology company (Pink Sheets: DYAI) said the
money would come from both the company and its insurers.  Dyadic
said it fully reserved for its share of the settlement during the
fourth quarter and should not encounter any more expenses from
it.

The lawsuit was brought in 2007 on behalf of shareholders who
bought the company's stock during the prior year.

It accused the company of misstating the financial results of its
Chinese subsidiary to artificially inflate its stock value.
The Dyadic board dismissed founder and CEO Mark Emalfarb shortly
after the accounting scandal surfaced. After winning a court
battle, Emalfarb regained his executive seat in 2008.

The following year, Dyadic settled a Securities and Exchange
Commission inquiry into the accounting scandal.

"While Dyadic and its current and former officers and directors
continue to firmly deny all allegations of wrongdoing, we also
believe it is in the best interests of Dyadic and its
stockholders to eliminate the continuing expense and disruption
of litigation to our business and put this matter behind us,"
Emalfarb said in a news release. "Settling this lawsuit removes a
significant obstacle for Dyadic and allows us to continue the
momentum we have gained over the past eighteen months."


GENERAL NUTRITION: Court Dismisses "Jackson" Consumer Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, Northern District of California has
dismissed a consumer class action filed by Grady Jackson, against
General Nutrition Centers, Inc., according to the company's March
11, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

On Nov. 10, 2008, Grady Jackson, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, filed a complaint against General
Nutrition Corporation and the company in the Superior Court of
the State of California for the County of Alameda.

On Dec. 15, 2008, the matter was removed to the U.S. District
Court, Northern District of California.

This consumer class and representative action brought under
California Unfair Competition and False Advertising Law asserts,
among other things, that the non-GNC product "Nikki Haskell's
Star Caps," contained a prescription diuretic ingredient that was
not disclosed on the label.

On March 31, 2009, GNC filed a motion to dismiss.  By order dated
June 10, 2009, the court dismissed three of the seven counts
asserted by plaintiffs.

In September 2009, a settlement was reached, contemplating
payment of an immaterial amount of attorneys' fees to putative
class counsel by GNC, and distribution of GNC discount coupons to
certain putative class members.

The court signed the stipulation of dismissal on Oct. 27, 2009.

General Nutrition Centers, Inc. -- http://www.gnc.com/-- is a  
leading global specialty retailer of nutritional products
including vitamin, mineral, herbal and other specialty
supplements and sports nutrition, diet and energy products.  
General Nutrition Centers, Inc. is an indirect wholly owned
subsidiary of GNC Parent LLC, which was acquired by affiliates of
Ares Management LLC and Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan Board
through a merger on March 16, 2007.  As of Dec. 31, 2009, GNC has
more than 6,900 locations, of which more than 5,400 retail
locations are in the United States (including 909 franchise and
1,869 Rite Aid franchise store-within-a-store locations) and
franchise operations in 47 countries.


GENERAL NUTRITION: Faces Suit Over Hydroxycut-Branded Products
--------------------------------------------------------------
General Nutrition Centers, Inc., faces consolidated suit relating
to its Hydroxycut-branded products, according to the company's
March 11, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

GNC has been named in 23 lawsuits related to Hydroxycut: 17
individual, largely personal injury claims and 6 putative class
actions, generally inclusive of claims of consumer fraud,
misrepresentation, strict liability, and breach of warranty.

The six putative class actions generally include claims of
consumer fraud, misrepresentation, strict liability, and breach
of warranty:


     (1) Andrew Dremak, et al. v. Iovate Health Sciences Group,
         Inc., et al., U.S. District Court, Southern District of
         California, 09CV1088 (filed May 19, 2009);

     (2) Enjoli Pennier, et al. v. Iovate Health Sciences,
         et al., U.S. District Court, Eastern District of
         Louisiana, 09CV3533 (filed May 13, 2009);

     (3) Alejandro M. Jimenez, et al. v. Iovate Health Sciences,
         Inc., et al., U.S. District Court, Eastern District of
         California, 09CV1473 (filed May 28, 2009);

     (4) Amy Baker, et al. v. Iovate Health Sciences USA, Inc.,
         et al., U.S. District Court, Northern District of
         Alabama, 09CV872 (filed May 4, 2009);

     (5) Kyle Davis and Sara Carreon, et al. v. Iovate Health
         Sciences USA, Inc., et al., U.S. District Court,
         Northern District of Alabama, 09CV896 (filed May 7,
         2009); and

     (6) Lenny Charles Gunn, Tonya Rhoden, and Nicholas
         Atelevich, et al., v. Iovate Health Sciences Group,
         Inc., et al., U.S. District Court, Southern District of
         California, 09CV2337 (filed Oct. 24, 2009).

By court order dated Oct. 6, 2009, the United States Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated pretrial
proceedings of many of the pending actions in the Southern
District of California (In re: Hydroxycut Marketing and Sales
Practices Litigation, MDL No. 2087).  Any liabilities that may
arise from these matters are not probable or reasonably estimable
at this time.

General Nutrition Centers, Inc. -- http://www.gnc.com/-- is a  
leading global specialty retailer of nutritional products
including vitamin, mineral, herbal and other specialty
supplements and sports nutrition, diet and energy products.  
General Nutrition Centers, Inc. is an indirect wholly owned
subsidiary of GNC Parent LLC, which was acquired by affiliates of
Ares Management LLC and Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan Board
through a merger on March 16, 2007.  As of Dec. 31, 2009, GNC has
more than 6,900 locations, of which more than 5,400 retail
locations are in the United States (including 909 franchise and
1,869 Rite Aid franchise store-within-a-store locations) and
franchise operations in 47 countries.


GENERAL NUTRITION: Judgment in Franchisee Suit Satisfied in Full
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff's judgment in a class action against General Nutrition
Centers, Inc., has been satisfied in full, according to the
company's March 11, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31,
2009.

On Nov. 7, 2006, Abdul Ahussain, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, sued GNC Franchising, LLC and General
Nutrition Corporation in the U.S. District Court, Central
District of California, Western Division.

Plaintiff alleged that GNC engages in unfair business practices
designed to earn a profit at its franchisees' expense, among
other things, in violation of California Business & Professions
Code, Sections 17200 et seq.

These alleged practices include:

     (1) requiring its franchises to carry slow moving products,
         which cannot be returned to GNC after expiration, with
         the franchisee bearing the loss;

     (2) requiring franchised stores to purchase new or
         experimental products, effectively forcing the
         franchisees to provide free market research;

     (3) using the company's Gold Card program to collect
         information on franchised store customers and then
         soliciting business from such customers;

     (4) underselling its franchised stores by selling products
         through the GNC website at prices below or close to the
         wholesale price, thereby forcing franchises to sell the
         same products at a loss; and

     (5) manipulating prices at which franchised stores can
         purchase products from third-party suppliers, so as to
         maintain GNC's favored position as a product wholesaler.

Plaintiffs are seeking damages in an unspecified amount and
equitable and injunctive relief.

On March 19, 2008, the court certified a class as to only
plaintiffs' claim under the CBPC.  The class consists of all
persons or entities who are or were GNC franchisees in the State
of California from Nov. 13, 2002 to the date of adjudication.

Plaintiff's individual claims were settled and dismissed.

On March 18, 2009, the company's motion for summary judgment was
granted as to the CBPC class claim.

In April 2009, GNC filed a motion for court costs and attorneys'
fees and the court ordered the plaintiffs to pay approximately
$0.4 million to GNC for its fees and costs.  Plaintiff's judgment
was satisfied in full by Oct. 6, 2009, and a Satisfaction of
Judgment was filed with the court on that date.

General Nutrition Centers, Inc. -- http://www.gnc.com/-- is a  
leading global specialty retailer of nutritional products
including vitamin, mineral, herbal and other specialty
supplements and sports nutrition, diet and energy products.  
General Nutrition Centers, Inc. is an indirect wholly owned
subsidiary of GNC Parent LLC, which was acquired by affiliates of
Ares Management LLC and Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan Board
through a merger on March 16, 2007.  As of Dec. 31, 2009, GNC has
more than 6,900 locations, of which more than 5,400 retail
locations are in the United States (including 909 franchise and
1,869 Rite Aid franchise store-within-a-store locations) and
franchise operations in 47 countries.


GENERAL NUTRITION: Second Circuit Reverses Dismissal of 4 Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, has reversed
the dismissal of four cases against General Nutrition Centers,
Inc., relating to the sale of "andro products," according to the
company's March 11, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31,
2009.

The company is currently defending six lawsuits relating to the
sale by GNC of certain nutritional products alleged to contain
the ingredients commonly known as Androstenedione,
Androstenediol, Norandrostenedione, and Norandrostenediol.

Four of these lawsuits were filed in New York, New Jersey,
Pennsylvania, and Florida.  The most recent case was filed in
Illinois.

In each of the six cases, plaintiffs sought, or are seeking, to
certify a class and obtain damages on behalf of the class
representatives and all those similarly-situated who purchased
from us certain nutritional supplements alleged to contain one or
more Andro Products.

In April 2006, the company filed pleadings seeking to remove the
then-pending Andro Actions to the respective federal district
courts for the districts in which the respective Andro Actions
were pending.  At the same time, the company filed motions
seeking to transfer the then-pending Andro Actions to the U.S.
District Court, Southern District of New York based on "related
to" bankruptcy jurisdiction, as one of the manufacturers
supplying it with Andro Products, and from whom it sought
indemnity, MuscleTech Research and Development, Inc., had filed
for bankruptcy.

The company was successful in removing the New Jersey, New York,
Pennsylvania, and Florida Andro Actions to federal court and
transferring these actions to the U.S. District Court, Southern
District of New York based on bankruptcy jurisdiction.
Following the conclusion of the MuscleTech bankruptcy case, in
September 2007, plaintiffs filed a stipulation dismissing all
claims related to the sale of MuscleTech products in the four
cases then-pending in the U.S. District Court, Southern District
of New York (New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, and Florida).  
Additionally, plaintiffs filed motions with the Court to remand
those actions to their respective state courts, asserting that
the federal court had been divested of jurisdiction because the
MuscleTech bankruptcy action was no longer pending.  That motion
was never ruled upon and has been rendered moot by the
disposition of the case.

On June 4, 2008, the U.S. District Court, Southern District of
New York (on its own motion) set a hearing for the purpose of
hearing argument as to why the New Jersey, New York,
Pennsylvania, and Florida cases should not be dismissed for
failure to prosecute in conformity to the Court's Case Management
Order.  Following the hearing, the Court advised that all four
cases would be dismissed with prejudice and issued an order to
that effect.

In August 2008, plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of the four
cases to U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, and oral
argument was heard on Oct. 14, 2009.  The Second Circuit reversed
the dismissal and remanded the case to the U.S. District Court,
Southern District of New York.

On October 3, 2008, the plaintiffs in the five other Andro
Actions filed another suit related to the sale of Andro Products
in state court in Illinois captioned Stephens and Pio v. General
Nutrition Companies, Inc. (Case No. 08 CH 37097, Circuit Court of
Cook County, Illinois, County Department, Chancery Division).  
The allegations are substantially similar to all of the other
Andro Actions.

As any liabilities that may arise from these cases are not
probable or reasonably estimable at this time, no liability has
been accrued in the accompanying financial statements.

General Nutrition Centers, Inc. -- http://www.gnc.com/-- is a  
leading global specialty retailer of nutritional products
including vitamin, mineral, herbal and other specialty
supplements and sports nutrition, diet and energy products.  
General Nutrition Centers, Inc. is an indirect wholly owned
subsidiary of GNC Parent LLC, which was acquired by affiliates of
Ares Management LLC and Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan Board
through a merger on March 16, 2007.  As of Dec. 31, 2009, GNC has
more than 6,900 locations, of which more than 5,400 retail
locations are in the United States (including 909 franchise and
1,869 Rite Aid franchise store-within-a-store locations) and
franchise operations in 47 countries.


GENERAL NUTRITION: Certification Denial Reversed in "Guzman"
------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of the State of California has reversed its
order denying class certification in a suit against General
Nutrition Centers, Inc., according to the company's March 11,
2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

The company is currently defending six lawsuits relating to the
sale by GNC of certain nutritional products alleged to contain
the ingredients commonly known as Androstenedione,
Androstenediol, Norandrostenedione, and Norandrostenediol.

One lawsuit, Guzman v. General Nutrition Companies, Inc., was
filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for the
County of Los Angeles.

Plaintiffs sought, or are seeking, to certify a class and obtain
damages on behalf of the class representatives and all those
similarly-situated who purchased from us certain nutritional
supplements alleged to contain one or more Andro Products.

The plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification was denied on
September 8, 2008.  Plaintiffs appealed on Oct. 31, 2008.  Oral
arguments took place on Jan. 15, 2010 and the court reversed the
order denying class certification.

General Nutrition Centers, Inc. -- http://www.gnc.com/-- is a  
leading global specialty retailer of nutritional products
including vitamin, mineral, herbal and other specialty
supplements and sports nutrition, diet and energy products.  
General Nutrition Centers, Inc. is an indirect wholly owned
subsidiary of GNC Parent LLC, which was acquired by affiliates of
Ares Management LLC and Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan Board
through a merger on March 16, 2007.  As of Dec. 31, 2009, GNC has
more than 6,900 locations, of which more than 5,400 retail
locations are in the United States (including 909 franchise and
1,869 Rite Aid franchise store-within-a-store locations) and
franchise operations in 47 countries.


GEORGIA: Sup. Ct. Overturns Fee Enhancement in Foster Care Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a split Supreme Court on
Tuesday overturned an enhanced award of $4.5 million in
attorney's fees stemming from a successful class action suit
against the State of Georgia's foster care system.

Under federal fee-shifting statutes, judges can award enhanced
attorneys' fees above the so-called "lodestar" amount, Justice
Samuel Alito wrote.  However, the court in the Georgia case did
not provide "proper justification" for the large enhancement.

"This figure appears to have been essentially arbitrary," Judge
Alito wrote.  "Unjustified enhancements that serve only to enrich
attorneys are not consistent with the statute's aim."

"A prevailing party in certain civil rights actions may recover a
'reasonable attorney's fee as part of the costs,'" Judge Alito
wrote.  "Unfortunately, the statute does not explain what
Congress meant by a 'reasonable' fee, and therefore the task of
identifying an appropriate methodology for determining a
'reasonable' fee was left for the courts."

The underlying case stems from a lawsuit filed on behalf of 3,000
children who sued Georgia, claiming deficiencies in the foster
care system.  They requested more than $14 million in attorney's
fees.

Half was based on the calculation of the lodestar -- about 30,000
hours multiplied by the hourly rates of $200 to $495 for
attorneys and $75 to $150 for non-attorneys.

They also sought a fee enhancement for superior work, but the
state complained that the requested hourly rates were too high.
The district court awarded fees of $10.5 million, finding that
the hourly rates were fair, but that some of the billing sheets
were vague and that many of the billing hours were excessive.

The court cut the non-travel hours by 15 percent and halved the
hourly rate for travel hours, resulting in a lodestar calculation
of $6 million.

The court then enhanced the award by 75 percent, finding that the
lodestar calculation did not take into account "the fact that the
class counsel were required to advance case expenses of $1.7
million over a three-year period.

The 11th Circuit affirmed, finding that the court did not abuse
its discretion by failing to make a proper reduction in the
number of hours.


HARRAH'S ENTERTAINMENT: Accused in Nev. of Not Paying Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Harrah's Entertainment
stiffed workers for overtime at Harrah's Laughlin Hotel & Casino,
according to a class action in Las Vegas Federal Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Fetrow-Fix, et al. v. Harrah's
Entertainment, Inc., et al., Case No. 10-cv-00560 (D. Nev.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/04/21/Harrahs.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Adam H. Springel, Esq.
          Leonard T. Fink, Esq.
          SPRINGEL & FINK LLP
          2475 Village View Dr., Suite 250
          Henderson, NV 89074
          Telephone: 702-804-0706
          E-mail: aspringel@springelfink.com
                  lfink@springelfink.com

               - and -

          Harris L. Pogust, Esq.
          POGUST, BRASLOW & MILROOD, LLC
          Eight Tower Bridge, Suite 1520
          161 Washington St.
          Conshohocken, PA 19428
          Telephone: 610-941-4204
          E-mail: hpogust@pbmattorneys.com

               - and -

          Shawn Khorrami, Esq.
          Robert Drexler, Esq.
          KHORRAMI POLLAR & ABIR LLP
          444 S. Flower St., 33rd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: 213-596-6000
          E-mail: skhorrami@kpalaywers.com
                  rdexler@kpalawyers.com


HAWK CORP: Appeal on Class Certification Ruling Pending
-------------------------------------------------------
Hawk Corp.'s appeal on the granting of class certification in a
lawsuit captioned Paul Mickle v. Wellman Products Group, LLC,
Case No. CJ 2007 06914, is pending in the District Court for
Tulsa County, Oklahoma, according to the company's March 10,
2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

The suit was filed on Oct. 16, 2007.

Mr. Mickle alleges violation of wage and hour laws by one of our
subsidiaries, Wellman Products Group, Inc.

The case purports to be a class action on behalf of Mr. Mickle
and other allegedly "similarly situated" employees.

Discovery as to the class certification is finished.  The
plaintiffs have been granted their Motion for Class
Certification.

The company disagrees with the class certification and filed an
appeal on Jan. 7, 2010.  Briefing on the appeal of the class
certification.

Hawk Corporation -- http://www.hawkcorp.com/-- is a leading  
supplier of friction materials for brakes, clutches and
transmissions used in airplanes, trucks, construction and mining
equipment, farm equipment, recreational and performance
automotive vehicles.  Headquartered in Cleveland, Ohio, Hawk has
approximately 950 employees at 11 manufacturing, research, sales
and international rep offices and administrative sites in 7
countries.


HEARTLAND PAYMENT: Consolidated Securities Suit Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------
A consolidated securities class action against Heartland Payment
Systems, Inc. has been terminated after the plaintiffs did not
appeal the dismissal of the suit by U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey within the prescribed time, according to
the company's March 10, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31,
2009.

Four securities class action complaints were filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey:

     (1) Davis v. Heartland Payment Systems, Inc. et al.,
         3:09-cv-01043-AET-TJB (March 6, 2009);

     (2) Ivy v. Heartland Payment Systems, Inc. et al.,
         3:09-cv-01264-AET-JJH (March 19, 2009);

     (3) Ladensack v. Heartland Payment Systems, Inc. et al.,
         3:09-cv-01632-FLW-TJB (April 3, 2009); and

     (4) Morr v. Heartland Payment Systems, Inc. et al.,
         3:09-cv-01818-JAP-LHG (April 16, 2009).

All four complaints contained similar allegations that the
company and two of its officers, Chief Executive Officer Robert
O. Carr and President and Chief Financial Officer Robert H. B.
Baldwin, Jr. violated Sections 10(b) and/or 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making material
misrepresentations and/or omissions to the company's securities
holders concerning the Processing System Intrusion, and that four
of the company's insiders had engaged in insider trading.

On May 7, 2009, Ladensack was voluntarily dismissed by plaintiffs
without prejudice.

On May 27, 2009, the three remaining securities class actions
were consolidated into In re Heartland Payment Systems, Inc.
Securities Litigation, 3:09-cv-01043-AET-TJB.

The Teamsters Local Union No. 727 Pension Fund and Genesee County
Employees' Retirement System were appointed Co-Lead Plaintiffs
for the purported class pursuant to 15 U.S.C.   78u-4(a)(3)(B).

On Aug. 20, 2009, Lead Plaintiffs in the Consolidated Securities
Class Action filed an Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint
for Violations of the Federal Securities Laws, purporting to
represent all individuals who bought the company's common stock
between Feb. 13, 2008 and Feb. 23, 2009.

The Amended Complaint alleged that the company and Messrs. Carr
and Baldwin made material misrepresentations and/or omissions to
the company's shareholders concerning the network security and
the Processing System Intrusion in violation of Sections 10(b)
and/or 20(a) of the Exchange Act.  Lead Plaintiffs sought various
forms of relief, including damages, attorneys' fees, and costs
and expenses.

On Sept. 25, 2009, the company moved to dismiss the Amended
Securities Complaint.

On Dec. 7, 2009, the Court granted the company's motion to
dismiss and dismissed the Amended Securities Complaint with
prejudice. Lead Plaintiffs did not appeal the dismissal within
the time prescribed by the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure,
rendering the Court's dismissal a final judgment on the merits
and terminating the Consolidated Securities Class Action.

Heartland Payment Systems, Inc., the 5th largest payments
processor in the United States, delivers credit/debit/prepaid
card processing, payroll, check management and payments solutions
to more than 250,000 business locations nationwide.  Heartland is
the founding supporter of The Merchant Bill of Rights, a public
advocacy initiative that educates merchants about fair credit and
debit card processing practices.  For more information, visit
http://HeartlandPaymentSystems.com/and  
http://MerchantBillOfRights.org/and http://CostOfABurger.com/
and http://E3secure.com/


HEARTLAND PAYMENT: Continues to Defend "McInerney" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Heartland Payment Systems, Inc., continues to defend a putative
class action captioned Ryan McInerney, Hossein Vazir Zand v.
Heartland Payment Systems, Inc.

On Dec. 16, 2008, a putative class action was filed against the
company in the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego.

The plaintiffs purport to represent a putative class of
individuals who allegedly were not reimbursed by the company for
business expenses and whose compensation was allegedly reduced
for their costs of doing business.

The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages, penalties,
injunctive and declaratory relief, and attorneys' fees and costs.

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

Heartland Payment Systems, Inc., the 5th largest payments
processor in the United States, delivers credit/debit/prepaid
card processing, payroll, check management and payments solutions
to more than 250,000 business locations nationwide.  Heartland is
the founding supporter of The Merchant Bill of Rights, a public
advocacy initiative that educates merchants about fair credit and
debit card processing practices.  For more information, visit
http://HeartlandPaymentSystems.com/and  
http://MerchantBillOfRights.org/and http://CostOfABurger.com/
and http://E3secure.com/


HEARTLAND PAYMENT: Missouri Merchant Suit Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------
A putative merchant class action against Heartland Payment
Systems, Inc., has been dismissed, according to the company's
March 10, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

A putative merchant class action has been commenced that seeks to
represent all merchants against whom the company asserts or have
asserted a claim for chargebacks or fines related to compromised
credit card data since 2006.

Filed on March 9, 2009 in the Circuit Court of the City of Saint
Louis, Missouri, the action is captioned S.M. Corporation, d/b/a
Mike Shannon's Steak & Seafood v. Orbit POS Systems, Inc. and
Heartland Payment Systems, Inc., Case No. 0822-CC07833.
The action asserts various common-law claims, including for
breach of contract, unjust enrichment, fraudulent
misrepresentation, and breach of the duty of good faith and fair
dealing, and seeks various forms of relief including damages,
injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees.

The company moved to dismiss that action on June 8, 2009 and the
court denied the motion on Dec. 7, 2009.

Separately, the company has asserted various common-law claims,
including for breach of contract, against the named merchant
plaintiff in the Missouri action in an action captioned Heartland
Payment Systems, Inc v. Mike Shannon, individually, and S.M.
Corporation, d/b/a Mike Shannon's Steak & Seafood, Civ. No. L-
6619-08 in New Jersey Superior Court.  This action seeks to
recover from the merchant certain fines and fees that were
assessed by Visa and MasterCard and paid by the company, along
with attorneys' fees and costs.

The Missouri and New Jersey actions were dismissed without
prejudice on March 1, 2010, pursuant to a settlement between S.M.
Corporation, Mike Shannon and the company.  The Missouri action
was so dismissed, on an individual basis, prior to any motion for
class certification.  Also, the New Jersey action was dismissed
with prejudice as against Mike Shannon individually.

Under the settlement, SM Corporation will continue the Missouri
action as against Orbit POS Systems, Inc. and, from any recovery,
pay the company up to approximately $265,600 (the amount of the
fees and fines claimed by the company in the New Jersey action).

Upon resolution of SM Corporation's action against Orbit POS
Systems, Inc., if the amount so recovered by SM Corporation does
not reach approximately $265,600, then SM Corporation will also
pay the company the difference up to that amount.  SM Corporation
can institute litigation against the company only if the company
reinstates the New Jersey action or sue to enforce the
settlement.  All claims of SM Corporation and the company against
each other are tolled by agreement in the meantime, but, upon SM
Corporation's payment of the approximately $265,000 to the
company, then the company, SM Corporation and Mike Shannon will
exchange mutual releases.

Heartland Payment Systems, Inc., the 5th largest payments
processor in the United States, delivers credit/debit/prepaid
card processing, payroll, check management and payments solutions
to more than 250,000 business locations nationwide.  Heartland is
the founding supporter of The Merchant Bill of Rights, a public
advocacy initiative that educates merchants about fair credit and
debit card processing practices.  For more information, visit
http://HeartlandPaymentSystems.com/and  
http://MerchantBillOfRights.org/and http://CostOfABurger.com/
and http://E3secure.com/


HEARTLAND PAYMENT: Awaits Approval of Texas Suit Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
Heartland Payment Systems, Inc., continues to await approval from
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas of a
settlement agreement resolving consolidated consumer cardholder
class actions, according to the company's March 10, 2010, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

As of March 10, 2010, the company has had several lawsuits filed
against the company and additional lawsuits may be filed.
These include lawsuits which assert claims against the company by
cardholders (including various putative class actions seeking in
the aggregate to represent all cardholders in the United States
whose transaction information is alleged to have been placed at
risk in the course of the Processing System Intrusion) and banks
that issued payment cards to cardholders whose transaction
information is alleged to have been placed at risk in the course
of the Processing System Intrusion (including various putative
class actions seeking to represent all financial institutions
that issued payment cards to cardholders whose transaction
information is alleged to have been placed at risk in the course
of the Processing System Intrusion), seeking damages allegedly
arising out of the Processing System Intrusion and other related
relief.

The actions generally assert various common-law claims such as
claims for negligence and breach of contract, as well as, in some
cases, statutory claims such as violation of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act, state data breach notification statutes, and state
unfair and deceptive practices statutes.  The putative cardholder
class actions seek various forms of relief including damages,
injunctive relief, multiple or punitive damages, attorneys' fees
and costs.  The putative financial institution class actions seek
compensatory damages, including recovery of the cost of issuance
of replacement cards and losses by reason of unauthorized
transactions, as well as injunctive relief, attorneys' fees and
costs.

On June 10, 2009, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
entered an order centralizing these cases for pre-trial
proceedings before the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Texas, under the caption In re Heartland Payment
Systems, Inc. Data Security Breach Litigation, MDL No. 2046,
4:09-md-2046.

On Aug.24, 2009, the court appointed interim co-lead and liaison
counsel for the financial institution and consumer plaintiffs.

On Sept. 23, 2009, the financial institution plaintiffs filed a
Master Complaint in the MDL proceedings, which the company moved
to dismiss on Oct. 23, 2009.  Briefing on that motion to dismiss
concluded on Feb. 1, 2010, and the motion remains pending.

On Dec. 18, 2009, the ompany and interim counsel for the consumer
plaintiffs filed with the Court a proposed settlement agreement,
subject to court approval, of the consumer class action claims.  

Under the terms of the settlement, Heartland will pay a minimum
of $1,000,000 and up to a maximum of $2,400,000 to class members
who submit valid claims for losses as a result of the intrusion.  
The settlement resolves all actions and proceedings that were
asserted or could have been asserted against Heartland in
relation to the intrusion by all persons in the United States who
had payment cards used in the United States between Dec. 6, 2007
and Dec. 31, 2008 and who allege or may allege they suffered
losses.  Any person who validly requests exclusion from the
settlement class will be excluded from the settlement.

Heartland will also pay all costs associated with the
administration of the settlement, including up to $1.5 million
for the cost of notice to the settling class.  In addition,
Heartland has agreed to pay up to $760,000 of the attorneys' fees
and costs of attorneys representing the class members.  Lastly,
Heartland has agreed to submit the report of an independent
expert on Heartland's actions and plans to enhance the security
of its computer system since the announcement of the intrusion on
Jan. 20, 2009.

A claims administration process informing affected cardholders of
procedures to be followed for making claims or opting out of the
settlement will be implemented, including a dedicated website.

The settlement is subject to court approval and other terms.  
Heartland may terminate the settlement agreement if the number of
persons who submit valid requests for exclusion from the
settlement class exceeds 2,500 or if the costs of notice to the
settling class exceed $1,500,000.

Heartland Payment Systems, Inc., the 5th largest payments
processor in the United States, delivers credit/debit/prepaid
card processing, payroll, check management and payments solutions
to more than 250,000 business locations nationwide.  Heartland is
the founding supporter of The Merchant Bill of Rights, a public
advocacy initiative that educates merchants about fair credit and
debit card processing practices.  For more information, visit
http://HeartlandPaymentSystems.com/and  
http://MerchantBillOfRights.org/and http://CostOfABurger.com/
and http://E3secure.com/


JACMAR COMPANIES: Sued for Failing to Provide Timely Meal Breaks
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mario Monreal, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. The Jacmar Companies, Inc., Case No. BC436027 (Calif. Super.
Ct., Los Angeles Cty. Apr. 19, 2010), accuses Jacmar of failing
to provide timely meal breaks, deducting thirty-minutes per shift
of time worked from drivers' paychecks, and failing to issue
accurate itemized wage statements, in violation of California
statutes.
Mr. Monreal is employed as a truck driver for Jacmar, a food
distribution service provider in California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Craig J. Ackermann, Esq.
          ACKERMAN & TILAJEF, P.C.
          1180 South Beverly Drive, Suite 610
          Los Angeles, CA 90035
          Telephone: (310) 277-0614

               - and -

          Michael Malk, Esq.
          MICHAEL MALK, ESQ., APC
          1180 South Beverly Drive, Suite 610
          Los Angeles, CA 90035
          Telephone: (310) 203-0016  


JOHN LINTON: Sued for Selling "Knock-Off" Skin Care Products
------------------------------------------------------------
Jo Armuth, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v.
John Linton, et al., Case No. BC436058 (Calif. Super. Ct., Los
Angeles Cty. Apr. 16, 2010), accuses the Defendants of untrue and
misleading advertising and unfair business practices, in
violation of the  Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code and the Consumer Legal
Remedies Act.  Ms. Armuth says the Defendants sold customers a
"knock-off" version of a very successful skin care product line
developed by award-winning chemical engineer Dr. T. Joseph Lin
for Amino Genesis, a leading skin care company, instead of the
real items.  Ms. Armuth relates that the Defendants obtained
confidential company information from Amino Genesis, including
client lists and product information they later used to make
inferior products that they advertised as the genuine items.  
Because of the Defendants' deceptive practices, Ms. Armuth says
consumers were unduly harmed.

Ms. Armuth claims that John Linton is the primary owner of
Pinnacle Direct Marketing, LLC and Mercatis Ventures.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Neville J. Johnson, Esq.
          Douglas L. Johnson, Esq.
          Lan P. Vu, Esq.
          JOHNSON & JOHNSON LLP  
          439 North Canon Drive, Suite 200
          Beverly Hills, CA 90210
          Telephone: (310) 975-1080
          E-mail: njohnson@jjllplaw.com
                  djohnson@jjllplaw.com
                  lvu@jjllplaw.com


LIVE NATION: Accused of Failing to Pay Wages for All Hours Worked
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Yaree Collins, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. Live Nation Worldwide, Inc., Case No. BC436141 (Calif. Super.
Ct., Los Angeles Cty. Apr. 19, 2010), accuses the live-events
management company of failing to pay wages for all hours worked,
non-payment of overtime wages, not providing meal and rest
periods, failure to provide reporting-time pay, non-reimbursement
of necessary expenditures, and other violations of the Labor
Code.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Anthony J. Orshansky, Esq.
          David H. Yeremian, Esq.
          Justin 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  


MELT INC: Gelato Franchisees Barred from Class Action Proceeding
----------------------------------------------------------------
A California appellate court says that fifteen plaintiffs who are
parties to gelato franchise agreements with Melt, Inc., can't
maintain a class action lawsuit under the express terms of their
agreements.  The Plaintiffs unsuccessfully argued in Gold, et al.
v. Melt, Inc., et al., No. B210452 (Cal. App., 2d Dist., Div.
Three), that the clause prohibiting class actions and multi-party
litigation was unconscionable and therefore unenforceable.  A
copy of the slip opinion is available at:

     http://www.leagle.com/unsecure/page.htm?shortname=incaco20100416023

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Thomas P. Bleau, Esq.
          Melissa J. Rhee, Esq.
          Megan A. Childress, Esq.
          BLEAU FOX          
          3575 Cahuenga Blvd. West, Suite 580
          Los Angeles, CA 90068
          Telephone: (323) 874-8613
          E-mail: tbleau@bleaufox.com
                  mrhee@bleaufox.com

Melt, Inc., is represented by:

          James M. Mulcahy, Esq.
          MULCAHY REEVES LLP
          1 Park Plaza, Suite 225
          Irvine, CA 92614
          Telephone: (949) 252-9377
          E-mail: jmulcahy@mulcahyllp.com

               - and -  

          Rex T. Reeves, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF REX T. REEVES
          13522 Newport Avenue, Suite 201
          Tustin, CA 92780
          Telephone: (714) 731-8500
          E-mail: rreeves@reeveslawoffices.com


NCMIC FINANCE: Accused of Fraud & Breach of Marketing Agreement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Vijay Patel, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. NCMIC Finance Corporation, d/b/a Professional Solutions
Financial Services, et al., Case No. 2010-00363542 (Calif. Super.
Ct., Orange Cty. Apr. 15, 2010), asserts breach of contract;
breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing; fraud;
negligent misrepresentation; unjust enrichment; and violations of
the Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code.  Mr. Patel said he and the members of
the class suffered harm and loss of money or property because of
the Defendants' deceptive practices.

Mr. Patel says that on July 15, 2005, PSFS and Brican America
Inc. entered into a vendor agreement wherein PSFS agreed to
accept assignment of leases of the Exhibeo System (a combined
television and computer system that displays health care
information).  Under the vendor agreement, PSFS would buy the
Exhibeo System from Brican America Inc. for the purpose of
leasing or financing the system to Brican America's creditworthy
customers.  

In May 2006, in order to increase sales, Defendants launched the
"Share Your Screen Earn Some Green" promotion which coupled the
lease with a Marketing Agreement, which represented that payments
under the Marketing Agreement would pay for the lease.  The
Marketing Agreement allegedly came with a guaranteed minimum
annual fee to be paid by Brican's alter ego, Defendant Viso Lasik
Medspas, LLC, in exchange for displaying its advertising
materials.  The Marketing Agreement also provided that in the
event payments ceased Brican would buy back the equipment,
relieving the lessees of its obligation to make payments on the
leases.   

In January 2010, Brican disclosed that it was stopping payments
under the Marketing Agreement for VISO, and PSFS notified the
lessees that it was demanding full payment on the leases.  Mr.
Patel says the marketing agreement was nothing more than a Ponzi
scheme in order to raise capital for VISO and to fund payments on
the Marketing Agreement to earlier lessees.  Mr. Patel says fraud
is proved by the failure of Brican to market advertising other
than Viso.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kenneth J. Catanzarite, Esq.
          Nicole Catanzarite-Woodward, Esq.
          CATANZARITE LAW CORPORATION
          2331 West Lincoln Ave.
          Anaheim, CA 92801
          Telephone: (714) 520-5544
          E-mail: kcatanzarite@catanzarite.com
                  ncatanzarite@catanzarite.com


NOKIA INC: 3rd Cir. Asked to Revive Cell Phone Headset Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Shannon P. Duffy at The Legal Intelligencer reports that the
potential biological hazards of using cell phones took center
stage on Monday as a plaintiffs lawyer urged the 3rd U.S. Circuit
Court of Appeals to revive a Pennsylvania class action suit that
says manufacturers must be ordered to provide a headset with
every phone as a safety device.

Attorney Kenneth A. Jacobsen argued in Farina v. Nokia Inc. that
a lower court judge erred in tossing the suit out on the grounds
that it would interfere with the Federal Communications
Commission, which has exclusive authority to regulate the radio
frequency or RF emission of cell phones.

The FCC has no expertise in matters of public health and safety,
Jacobsen said, and the federal statutes that give the FCC its
powers were never intended to oust the state courts from their
traditional roles of providing remedies for breaches of warranty
or false advertising.

But Jacobsen soon found himself fending off a barrage of
questions from two of the judges -- Chief Judge Anthony J.
Scirica and Judge Thomas L. Ambro -- on the issue of whether the
case was properly pre-empted.

Ambro said he thought the defendants had a "darn good argument"
that the case was subject to the doctrine of implied pre-emption
since the FCC was tasked with crafting a uniform scheme for
regulating cell phone devices and networks.

"This is their bailiwick. This is their turf," Ambro said,
referring to the FCC.

But Jacobsen insisted that the suit would never interfere with
the FCC's work since the plaintiffs are not seeking to alter the
RF regulations.

Instead, Jacobsen said, the plaintiffs focused on the claims made
in the advertisements in which, he said, cell phone manufacturers
and service providers assured consumers that the products were
"absolutely safe."

In reality, Jacobsen said, it has long been known that RF
emissions have effects on human tissue, and the Pennsylvania
plaintiffs are simply demanding that headsets -- and accurate
information -- be provided.

But attorney David C. Frederick of Kellogg Huber Hansen Todd
Evans & Figel, arguing for the cell phone manufacturers and
providers, argued that U.S. District Judge John R. Padova was
correct in holding that the suit was pre-empted because radio
frequencies are "an instrumentality of interstate commerce" that
simply "cannot be defined by state borders."

If Jacobsen's argument were accepted, Frederick said, the
Pennsylvania plaintiffs would be asking a jury to declare that
cell phones suffer from a defect that renders them "unreasonably
dangerous."

Such a proceeding, Frederick argued, would put the courts on a
"collision course" with the FCC's carefully balanced regulatory
scheme.

In a 46-page opinion handed down in September 2008, Padova
concluded that the plaintiffs' allegations "unquestionably
trample upon the FCC's authority to determine the maximum
standard for RF emissions."

The suit named 19 defendants, including all of the major cell
phone manufacturers and providers, as well as two trade
associations: Nokia Inc.; Ericsson Wireless Communications Inc.;
Motorola Inc.; Sprint PCS; Audiovox Communications Corp.; Nextel
Communications; Panasonic Corp.; Philips Electronics North
America Corp.; Qualcomm Inc.; Sanyo North America; Sony
Electronics Inc.; AT&T Wireless Services Inc.; Verizon Wireless;
Southwestern Bell Mobile Systems Inc.; Cellular One; VoiceStream
Wireless; LG Electronics Mobilecomm Inc.; Cellular
Telecommunication Industry Association; and Telecommunications
Industry Association.

Taking the lead in arguing a joint motion to dismiss before
Padova were attorneys Seamus C. Duffy [reporter Shannon Duffy's
brother] of Drinker Biddle & Reath in Philadelphia, representing
AT&T, and Terrence J. Dee of Kirkland & Ellis in Washington,
D.C., representing Motorola.

In the 18 months since Padova's ruling, the jurisprudence on pre-
emption has experienced a sea change, most notably in the U.S.
Supreme Court's decision in Wyeth v. Levine that cleared the way
for a state lawsuit against a drug maker and rejected arguments
that the Food and Drug Administration's policing of drug warning
labels should supplant state products liability laws.

Frederick, who argued for the winning plaintiff in the Wyeth case
at the Supreme Court, was hired by the cell phone companies to
argue the 3rd Circuit appeal.

Scirica asked Frederick if the Wyeth decision had undermined the
Supreme Court's 2000 decision in United States v. Locke, which
had pre-empted a suit over an oil spill on the grounds that it
would interfere with the comprehensive federal regulatory scheme
governing oil tankers.

Frederick was also the winning lawyer in the Locke case, having
argued the Supreme Court appeal for the U.S. government when he
was working as an assistant solicitor general.

Locke, which was decided unanimously, remains good law, Frederick
argued, and provides a good contrast to Wyeth.

In Wyeth, he said, the justices held that parallel state actions
against drug makers have always acted as a complement to the
federal regulatory scheme, while in Locke, the court held that
the state law claims would conflict with federal regulation of an
exclusively federal arena -- maritime law.

Ambro pressed Frederick on the distinction that Jacobsen was
urging, asking why the plaintiffs weren't correct in noting that
the FCC "doesn't have any particular expertise" in safety and
health issues.

But Frederick insisted that Congress gave the FCC the task of
establishing regulations that would balance the need to protect
public health and the need to deploy cell phone technology in the
most efficient manner possible.

When Jacobsen returned to the podium for his rebuttal argument,
Ambro asked if Frederick were correct in his warning that
allowing the Pennsylvania suit would inevitably lead to a
"hodgepodge" of regulations, varying from state to state, and
thereby defeating the intent of having national, uniform
standards.

Jacobsen insisted that the Pennsylvania case wouldn't interfere
with the FCC regulations on RF emissions in any way since the
cure proposed by the suit was simply to demand truth in
advertising and mandate the inclusion of headsets in cell phone
purchases.

The third judge on the panel, 9th Circuit Senior Judge Arthur
Alarcon sitting on the 3rd Circuit by invitation, did not ask any
questions during oral argument.


PRESTIGE AIR: Diversion of Trust Funds Alleged in N.Y. Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Boris Metal Master, Inc., on behalf of itself and others
similarly situated v. Prestige Air & Design, LLC, and Isaac
Schwartz, Case No. 600987/2010 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty. Apr.
19, 2010), asserts breach of agreement and Article 3A of the Lien
Law of the State of New York.  Boris Metal says that between
April 25, 2007, and November 10, 2008, it provided labor and
necessary to install sheet metal ductwork at the premises known
as 45 John Street, New York, pursuant to a purchase order in the
amount of $543,000.  Boris Metal received payments totaling
$475,089, leaving a balance due of $67,911 which Prestige has not
paid despite Boris' demand for payment.

Boris is bringing this complaint on behalf of itself and other
trust fund beneficiaries of Lien Law trusts of which Prestige Air
is a trustee, as a class action under Rule 7023 because Section
77 of the Lien Law requires it.  Boris further alleges that
Prestige has received monies form the owner of the project and
has diverted trust funds received by it for purposes other than
those permitted under Article 3A of the Lien Law of the State of
New York.  

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marshall M. Stern, Esq.
          MARSHALL M. STERN, P.C.
          17 Cardiff Court
          Huntington Station, NY 11746
          Telephone: (631) 427-0101


SAINT LUKE'S: Sued in Kansas for Engaging in Predatory Billing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Saint Luke's Health System
engages in predatory billing by refusing to submit a patient's
bill to his or her insurer if it thinks it can get more from a
third party, a class action claims in Kansas City, Kan., Federal
Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Rinehart v. Saint Luke's South
Hospital, Inc., et al., Case No. 10-cv-02209 (D. Kan.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/04/21/MedicBilling.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John M. Parisi, Esq.
          SHAMBERG, JOHNSON & BERGMAN, CHTD.
          2600 Grand Blvd., Suite 550
          Kansas City, MO 64108
          Telephone: 816-474-0004
          E-mail: jparisi@sjblaw.com

               - and -

          Don P. Saxton, Esq.
          SAXTON LAW FIRM, LLC
          1000 Broadway, Suite 400
          Kansas City, MO 64105
          Telephone: 816-471-1700

               - and -

          Mitchell L. Burgess, Esq.
          Keith C. Lamb, Esq.
          BURGESS & LAMB, P.C.
          1000 Broadway, Suite 400
          Kansas City, MO 64105
          Telephone: 816-471-1700

               - and -

          Ralph K. Phalen, Esq.
          RALPH K. PHALEN ATTY. AT LAW
          1000 Broadway, Suite 400
          Kansas City, MO 64105
          Telephone: 816-589-0753


SMART BALANCE: Has Yet to Answer Complaint Involving Nucoa
----------------------------------------------------------
Smart Balance, Inc., has yet to answer a complaint involving its
Nucoa(R) stick margarine product, according to the company's
March 10, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

On Feb. 8, 2010, a lawsuit was filed against the company in the
Federal District Court for the Central District in California in
Santa Ana, California.

The complaint alleges, among other things, violations of
California's unfair competition law, false advertising, and
consumer remedies act and seeks to identify all similarly
situated plaintiffs and certify them in a class action.

The company has not yet answered the complaint.

This suit involves the company's Nucoa(R) stick margarine product
which represents less than 1% of the company's 2009 sales.  
Nucoa(R) stick margarine is the company's only product which
includes artificially produced trans fats.  

Smart Balance, Inc. -- http://www.smartbalance.com/-- is  
committed to providing superior tasting heart healthier
alternatives in every category it enters by avoiding trans fats
naturally, balancing fats and/or reducing saturated fats, total
fat and cholesterol.  The company markets the Smart Balance(R)
line of products, which include Smart Balance(R) Buttery Spreads,
Milk, Butter Blend Sticks, Sour Cream, Peanut Butter, Microwave
Popcorn, Cooking Oil, Mayonnaise, Non-Stick Cooking Spray and
Cheese, and also markets natural food products under the Earth
Balance(R) brand and healthier lifestyle products under the
Bestlife(TM) brand.


SMITH & WESSON: Wants Class Certification in Suit Denied
--------------------------------------------------------
Smith & Wesson Holding Corp., has filed a brief in opposition to
the plaintiffs' motion for class certification in a consolidated
securities class action, according to the company's March 11,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Jan. 31, 2010.

The company, its Chairman of the Board, its Chief Executive
Officer, and its former Chief Financial Officer were named in
three similar purported securities class-action lawsuits.  The
complaints in these actions, which have been consolidated
into one action, were brought individually and on behalf of all
persons who purchased securities of our company between June 15,
2007 and Dec. 6, 2007.

The consolidated suit is Hwang, et al. v. Smith & Wesson Holding
Corporation, et al., Case No. 07-cv-30238 (D. Mass.) (Ponsor,
J.).

The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages for alleged violations of
Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

The company has filed a Motion to Dismiss the litigation.  As a
result, the Court dismissed the company's Chairman of the Board
from the litigation.

Plaintiffs have filed a motion for class certification and the
company is opposing that motion.  The company's brief in
opposition was filed on March 8, 2010.  Discovery is ongoing.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Jeffrey C. Block, Esq.
          Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo
          One Liberty Square, 8th Floor
          Boston, MA 02109
          Telephone: 617-542-8300
          Fax: 617-542-1194
          E-mail: jblock@bermanesq.com

               - and -

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

Representing the defendants are:

          John A. Sten, Esq.
          Greenberg Traurig, LLP
          One International Place
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: 617-310-6283
          Fax: 617-310-6001
          E-mail: stenj@gtlaw.com

               - and -


          Francis D. Dibble, Jr., Esq.
          Bulkley, Richardson & Gelinas, LLP
          1500 Main Street, Suite 2700
          P.O. Box 15507
          Springfield, MA 01115-5507
          Telephone: 413-272-6246
          Fax: 413-272-6804
          E-mail: fdibble@bulkley.com


STANDARD PARKING: Enters Settlement Agreements to Resolve Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Standard Parking Corporation has entered into settlement
agreements resolving suits alleging violations of the California
labor code, according to the company's March 12, 2010, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

The company has been in mediation and discussions with plaintiffs
regarding the possible resolution of a California labor code
violations case brought against the company in which plaintiffs
are seeking class certification of their claims.

Subject to the approval of the court, the company has entered
into a settlement agreement related to Jorge Jaime v. Standard
Parking Corporation and two other consolidated cases on March 9,
2010.

The company also has entered into a memorandum of understanding
dated Jan. 5, 2010, for the tentative settlement, subject to
court approval, of Grant v. Preferred Security Services, Inc., a
similar labor code violation case in which plaintiffs are seeking
class certification brought against our wholly owned security
subsidiary.

Standard Parking Corp. -- http://www.standardparking.com/-- is a  
national provider of parking facility management, ground
transportation and other ancillary services.  The company, with
approximately 12,000 employees, manages approximately 2,100
facilities, containing over one million parking spaces in
approximately 335 cities across the United States and four
Canadian provinces, including parking-related and shuttle bus
operations serving more than 60 airports.


STREAM GLOBAL: Defends Third-Party Complaint by Sirius XM
---------------------------------------------------------
Stream Global Services, Inc., continues to defend a third-party
complaint filed by Sirius XM Radio, Inc., according to the
company's March 10, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31,
2009.

The company has been named as a third-party defendant in a
putative class action captioned Kambiz Batmanghelich, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated and on behalf of the
general public, v. Sirius XM Radio, Inc., filed in the Los
Angeles County Superior Court on Nov. 10, 2009, and removed to
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

The Plaintiff alleges that Sirius XM Radio, Inc. recorded
telephone conversations between Plaintiff and members of the
proposed class of Sirius customers, on the one hand, and Sirius
and its employees, on the other, without the Plaintiff's and
class members' consent in violation of California's telephone
recording laws.  The Plaintiff also alleges negligence and
violation of the common law right of privacy, and seeks
injunctive relief.

On Dec. 21, 2009, Sirius XM Radio, Inc. filed a Third-Party
Complaint in the action against the company seeking
indemnification for any defense costs and damages that result
from the putative class action.  The Plaintiff has not alleged
any claims against the company.

Stream Global Services, Inc., is a premium business process
outsource service provider specializing in customer relationship
management including sales, customer care and technical support
for Fortune 1000 companies.  Stream is a trusted partner to some
of the world's leading technology, computing, telecommunications,
retail, entertainment/media, and financial services companies.  
The company's service programs are delivered through a set of
standardized best practices and sophisticated technologies by a
highly skilled workforce of approximately 30,000 employees based
out of 50 locations in 22 countries supporting more than 35
languages.  Stream continues to expand its global presence and
service offerings to increase revenue, improve operational
efficiencies and drive brand loyalty for its clients.


SUNOPTA INC: May 17 Hearing Set in New York Suit Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
A May 17, 2010, hearing has been set to consider final approval
of a settlement agreement resolving a consolidated amended
complaint against SunOpta Inc., according to the company's March
11, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

After the company downgraded previously issued earnings
expectations for 2007 and announced the restatement of prior 2007
quarterly financial statements due to a significant write-down
and other adjustments, SunOpta and certain officers (one of whom
is a director) and a former director were named as defendants in
several proposed class action lawsuits filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of
shareholders who acquired securities of SunOpta between May 8,
2007 and Jan. 25, 2008.

The company is alleged to have violated Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by the SEC.  Additionally, the named officers and
directors (one of whom is a former director) were alleged to have
violated Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  
The complaints alleged different proposed class periods and were
consolidated into one class action with two lead plaintiffs.

On Jan. 28, 2009, the Court appointed Western Washington
Laborers-Employers Pension Trust and Operating Engineers
Construction Industry and Miscellaneous Pension Fund as the lead
plaintiffs in one consolidated class action aggregating the
various class action lawsuits.

On April 14, 2009, the lead plaintiffs filed their consolidated
and amended complaint in the U.S. District Court in the Southern
District of New York.  The new complaint includes, new
allegations under Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of
1933 as well as four new individual defendants, two of whom are
former senior management employees (one also a former director
and officer), one is a current director and chairman and one is
currently a senior employee.  The new complaint also added three
corporate defendants, namely, Cleugh's Frozen Foods, Inc. and
Pacific Fruit Processors, Inc. (each of which are now part of the
merged entity, SunOpta Fruit Group, Inc.) and Organic
Ingredients, Inc. (which is now SunOpta Global Organic
Ingredients, Inc.).

On Sept. 24, 2009, the company entered into a tentative agreement
to settle all claims raised in these proposed class action
proceedings.  In return for the dismissal of the class actions
and releases from proposed class members of settled claims
against the company and other named defendants, the settlement
agreement provides for a total cash contribution of $11,250,000
to a settlement fund, the adoption of certain governance
enhancements to the company's Audit Committee charter and
Internal Audit Charter and the adoption of an enhanced
information technology conversion policy.  The settlement fund
will be entirely funded by the company's insurers.  The
settlement is conditional upon the courts' approval and subject
to our option to terminate it in the event of valid opt-outs by
proposed class members that exceed a pre-agreed threshold.

The U.S. District Court has granted preliminary approval of the
settlement agreement and, for the purposes of the settlement
only, have certified the lawsuits as class actions.  The Court
has scheduled a hearing on May 17, 2010 to determine whether it
will grant final approval of the proposed settlement agreement.  
According to the notice of proposed settlement sent to class
members on or about Feb. 10, 2010, class members have until April
12, 2010 to opt out of the settlement.

SunOpta Inc. -- http://www.sunopta.com/--is an operator of high-
growth ethical businesses, focusing on integrated business models
in the natural and organic food and natural health markets.  The
company has three business units: the SunOpta Foods, which
specializes in sourcing, processing and distribution of natural
and organic food products integrated from seed through packaged
products; Opta Minerals Inc. (TSX:OPM) (66.4 % owned by SunOpta),
a producer, distributor, and recycler of environmentally friendly
industrial materials; and SunOpta BioProcess Inc. which engineers
and markets proprietary steam explosion technology systems for
the bio-fuel, pulp and food processing industries.


SUNOPTA INC: May 3 Hearing Set in Ontario Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------
A May 3, 2010, hearing has been set to consider final approval of
a settlement agreement resolving a class action lawsuit against
SunOpta Inc., pending in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice,
according to the company's March 11, 2010, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
Dec. 31, 2009.

A proposed class action lawsuit was filed in Canada in the
Ontario Superior Court of Justice on behalf of shareholders who
acquired securities of SunOpta between May 8, 2007 and January
25, 2008 against the company and certain of its officers (one of
whom is a director), alleging misrepresentation and proposing to
seek leave from the Ontario court to bring statutory
misrepresentation civil liability claims under the Ontario
Securities Act.

On Aug. 29, 2008, the plaintiff filed a motion to amend the
claims against the company to include additional allegations.
The Canadian plaintiffs claim compensatory damages of
CDN$100,000,000 and punitive damages of CDN$10,000,000 and other
monetary relief.

The Ontario Superior Court has granted preliminary approval of
the settlement agreement and, for the purposes of the settlement
only, have certified the lawsuits as class actions.  The court
has scheduled a hearing on May 3, 2010, to determine whether it
will grant final approval of the proposed settlement agreement.

SunOpta Inc. -- http://www.sunopta.com/--is an operator of high-
growth ethical businesses, focusing on integrated business models
in the natural and organic food and natural health markets.  The
company has three business units: the SunOpta Foods, which
specializes in sourcing, processing and distribution of natural
and organic food products integrated from seed through packaged
products; Opta Minerals Inc. (TSX:OPM) (66.4 % owned by SunOpta),
a producer, distributor, and recycler of environmentally friendly
industrial materials; and SunOpta BioProcess Inc. which engineers
and markets proprietary steam explosion technology systems for
the bio-fuel, pulp and food processing industries.


SUNOPTA INC: Reaches Agreement to Settle "Vargas" Suit
------------------------------------------------------
SunOpta Inc. has reached a tentative settlement to resolve a wage
and hour dispute against SunOpta Fruit Group, Inc., according to
the company's March 11, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31,
2009.

In September 2008, a single plaintiff and a former employee, Mr.
Vargas, filed a wage and hour dispute against SunOpta Fruit
Group, Inc., as a class action alleging various violations of
California's labor laws.

On July 16, 2009, the parties attended mediation in San
Francisco, and no settlement was reached.

A second mediation was held on Jan. 15, 2010.  A tentative
settlement of all claims was reached at mediation, subject to
agreement on final terms of the settlement, including a plan of
distribution, including reversion features in our favour in the
event claimants do not come forward with claims, and approval of
the settlement by the court.

As a result of the tentative settlement, the company has accrued
a liability of $1,200,000 in its financial statements for the
period ending Dec. 31, 2009.

SunOpta Inc. -- http://www.sunopta.com/--is an operator of high-
growth ethical businesses, focusing on integrated business models
in the natural and organic food and natural health markets.  The
company has three business units: the SunOpta Foods, which
specializes in sourcing, processing and distribution of natural
and organic food products integrated from seed through packaged
products; Opta Minerals Inc. (TSX:OPM) (66.4 % owned by SunOpta),
a producer, distributor, and recycler of environmentally friendly
industrial materials; and SunOpta BioProcess Inc. which engineers
and markets proprietary steam explosion technology systems for
the bio-fuel, pulp and food processing industries.


TOLL BROTHERS: Defends Amended Securities Violations Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Toll Brothers, Inc., continues to defend an amended complaint
alleging violation of federal securities laws.

In April 2007, a securities class action suit was filed against
Toll Brothers, Inc. and Robert I. Toll and Bruce E. Toll in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on
behalf of a purported class of purchasers of the company's common
stock between Dec. 9, 2004 and Nov. 8, 2005.

In August 2007, an amended complaint was filed adding additional
directors and officers as defendants.

The amended complaint filed on behalf of the purported class
alleges that the defendants violated federal securities laws by
issuing various materially false and misleading statements that
had the effect of artificially inflating the market price of the
company's stock.

It further alleges that the individual defendants sold shares for
substantial gains during the class period.  The purported class
is seeking compensatory damages, counsel fees, and expert costs.

No updates were reported in the company's March 10, 2010, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended Jan. 31, 2010.

Toll Brothers, Inc. -- http://tollbrothers.com/-- is the  
nation's leading builder of luxury homes.  The company began
business in 1967 and became a public company in 1986.  Its common
stock is listed on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol
"TOL".  The company serves move-up, empty-nester, active-adult
and second-home home buyers and operates in 20 states: Arizona,
California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia,
Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada,
New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South
Carolina, Texas and Virginia.  Toll Brothers builds luxury
single-family detached and attached home communities, master
planned luxury residential resort-style golf communities and
urban low-, mid- and high-rise communities, principally on land
it develops and improves.  The company operates its own
architectural, engineering, mortgage, title, land development and
land sale, golf course development and management, home security
and landscape subsidiaries.  The company also operates its own
lumber distribution, and house component assembly and
manufacturing operations.


TOLL BROTHERS: Faces Three Defective Drywall Suits
--------------------------------------------------
Toll Brothers, Inc., faces three purported class action suits
relating to allegedly defective drywall manufactured in China,
according to the company's March 10, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Jan. 31, 2010.

On Dec. 9, 2009, and Feb. 10, 2010, the company was named as a
defendant in three purported class action suits filed by
homeowners relating to allegedly defective drywall manufactured
in China.

These suits are all pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana as part of In re: Chinese-
Manufactured Drywall Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2047.

The complaints also name as defendants other home builders, as
well as other parties claimed to be involved in the manufacture,
sale, importation, brokerage, distribution, and installation of
the drywall.

The plaintiffs claim that the drywall, which was installed by
independent subcontractors in certain homes built by the company,
caused damage to certain items and building materials in the
homes, as well as personal injuries.  The complaints seek damages
for, among other things, the costs of repairing the homes,
diminution in value to the homes, replacement of certain personal
property, and personal injuries.

The company has not yet responded to these suits.

Toll Brothers, Inc. -- http://tollbrothers.com/-- is the  
nation's leading builder of luxury homes.  The company began
business in 1967 and became a public company in 1986.  Its common
stock is listed on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol
"TOL".  The company serves move-up, empty-nester, active-adult
and second-home home buyers and operates in 20 states: Arizona,
California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia,
Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada,
New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South
Carolina, Texas and Virginia.  Toll Brothers builds luxury
single-family detached and attached home communities, master
planned luxury residential resort-style golf communities and
urban low-, mid- and high-rise communities, principally on land
it develops and improves.  The company operates its own
architectural, engineering, mortgage, title, land development and
land sale, golf course development and management, home security
and landscape subsidiaries.  The company also operates its own
lumber distribution, and house component assembly and
manufacturing operations.


TOYOTA MOTOR: Four Firms Named as Temporary Lead Counsel
--------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad at The National Law Journal reports a federal
judge overseeing nearly 200 lawsuits filed against Toyota Motor
Corp, has appointed four lawyers as temporary lead counsel for
all the cases and set May 13 as the first scheduling hearing.

U.S. District Judge James V. Selna of the Central District of
California appointed three plaintiffs lawyers to serve as
temporary lead counsel:

     -- Steve Berman, managing partner of Seattle's
        Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro;

     -- Elizabeth Cabraser, a partner at San Francisco's
        Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein; and

     -- Marc Seltzer, a partner in the Los Angeles office of
        Houston's Susman Godfrey.

The judge appointed one of Toyota's attorneys:

     -- Cari Dawson, a partner at Atlanta's Alston & Bird,

to serve as lead counsel for the defense.

Judge Selna issued the order making the appointments on
Wednesday.

In a prepared e-mail statement, Berman applauded Selna's
"aggressive" timeline.

"All three firms know one another, work well together and will be
a potent force in representing the class' interests," said
Berman, whose firm has filed suits seeking refunds for consumers.
"This case offers some big challenges in finding out what Toyota
knew, and when."

Meanwhile, the cases are moving forward toward discovery.

The counsel appointments are temporary designations, according to
the judge's order. Lawyers with suits against Toyota have until
April 30 to apply for a permanent role as lead or liaison counsel
for all the cases. In his order, Selna said that he planned to
appoint liaison counsel or a committee to manage discovery in the
personal injury cases and separate lead or liaison counsel for
the economic loss cases. The judge plans to appoint a core
discovery committee for all the cases.

During the May 13 hearing, which will take place in Santa Ana,
Calif., those appointments, along with a definition of "core
discovery," critical legal issues, pending motions and related
cases, will be discussed.

Seltzer, who has filed several class actions against Toyota, and
Cabraser, whose firm has the most personal injury suits pending,
did not return calls for comment. Dawson, chairwoman of Alston &
Bird's class action practice team, also did not return a call for
comment.


TRENDSET ORIGINALS: Recalls 2,400 Girls' Hooded Jackets
-------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Trendset Originals LLC, of New York, N.Y., announced a voluntary
recall of about 2,400 Girls' hooded jackets.  Consumers should
stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise
instructed.

The hooded jackets have a drawstring through the hood that can
pose a strangulation hazard to children.  The sweater jackets
have a drawstring through the waist that can pose an entanglement
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 injuries or incidents have been reported.

This recall involves two styles of girls' jackets.  The Shampoo
brand jackets are denim with a pink hood and sleeves, and were
sold in sizes 5/6, 7/8, 10/12 and 14/16.  The Marci & Me brand
sweater jackets are black or tan and were sold in sizes 7/8,
10/12 and 14/16.  The tag at the neck reads "Shampoo" or "Marci &
Me."  Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10201.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and Bangladesh
and sold through Burlington Coat Factory stores nationwide from
September 2007 through September 2009 for between $11 and $13.

Consumers should immediately remove the drawstrings from the
jackets to eliminate the hazard.  Consumers can also return the
jackets to any Burlington Coat Factory store for a full refund.
For additional information, contact Trendset Originals at (800)
908-8308 between 9:30 a.m. and 5:30 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday
through Friday, or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.trendsetny.com/


TROPICAL BEDDING: Recalls 15,000 Mattress Sets
----------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Tropical Bedding Mfg., of Caguas, Puerto Rico, announced a
voluntary recall of about 15,000 Mattress Sets (Mattresses and
Mattresses with Foundations).  Consumers should stop using
recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed.

The mattress sets fail to meet mandatory federal open flame
standard and pose a fire hazard to consumers.  

No injuries or incidents have been reported.

This recall involves crib and bunkie mattresses and mattress sets
(mattresses and mattresses with foundations) in sizes twin, full,
queen and king.  The crib and bunkie mattresses do not have any
labels.  The other mattresses have "Classics," "Classics II,"
"Imagine," "Sweet Mysteries," "Treasures," or "Comfort Dream"
printed on a label located at the top of the foot of the
mattress. The "Classics" model manufactured between August 2008
and April 2009 is not included in this recall.  This model has a
federal label attached that includes the date of manufacture and
"Classics."  Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10200.html

The recalled products were manufactured in Puerto Rico and sold
through city Mattress and furniture stores in Puerto Rico from
July 2007 through September 2009 for between $30 and $135.

Consumers should stop using the mattresses immediately and return
them to Tropical Bedding Mfg. for a refund.  For additional
information, contact Carmen Martinez at (787) 586-1139 between
9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday.


WAL-MART STORES: Ala. Suit Complains About Carpet Steam Cleaners
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tracey Dalzell Walsh at Courthouse News Service reports that two
federal class actions claim Wal-Mart sells carpet steam cleaners
that do not "produce even a puff of steam."  Bissell Homecare is
co-defendant in one lawsuit, TTI Floorcare, which makes Hoover
carpet cleaners, is co-defendant in the other.

The classes claim the steam cleaners use "ordinary hot tap water"
that remains unheated in the machines and that Wal-Mart sold them
knowing that the "steam vacs" did not really produce steam.

Both classes seek restitution, disgorgement, penalties and an
injunction.  

A copy of the Complaint in Green v. Bissell Homecare, Inc., et
al., Case No. 10-cv-01023 (N.D. Ala.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/04/21/WalMart.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John E. Norris, Esq.
          D. Frank Davis, Esq.
          G. Renee Dall, Esq.
          DAVIS & NORRIS, LLP
          2151 Highland Ave., Suite 100
          Birmingham, AL 35205
          Telephone: 205-930-9900


WILLIAM PENN: Del. Ch. Ct. Awards Legal Fees to Plaintiffs
----------------------------------------------------------
Sheri Qualters at The National Law Journal reports that a
Delaware Court of Chancery judge issued a rare ruling ordering
defendants in a nearly seven-year legal saga to pay their
opponents' attorney fees and costs based on the defendants'
prelitigation conduct.

In an April 12 letter ruling in Saliba v. William Penn
Partnership, Chancellor William B. Chandler III ordered the
defendants who orchestrated the contested sale of a motel to pay
all of the plaintiffs' attorney fees and court costs and part of
their expert witness fees.

"Because defendants conducted the sale in a clearly conflicted
manner that resulted in a breach of fiduciary duty, I find and
conclude that it would be unfair and inequitable to require
plaintiffs to shoulder the costs incurred in demonstrating the
unfairness of this sales process," Chandler wrote.

In the underlying case dating back to December 2003, Anis Saliba
and Rosa Ksebe, two trustees of an entity that partly owned Del
Bay LLC, a real estate investment and holding company, sued seven
parties in Delaware's Chancery Court.

The individual and company defendants include Del Bay; partial
owners William Penn Partnership and Robert Hoyt; Del Bay managers
Bryce Lingo and T. William Lingo; and Lingo-owned companies J.G.
Townsend Jr. & Co. and Beacon Revex LLC.

The plaintiffs' second amended lawsuit of June 24, 2005, claims
that the Lingos arranged with other owners to buy a Del Bay-owned
motel and undeveloped land in Lewes, Del., for $6 million in June
2003 to illegally advance their own financial interests. The
plaintiffs asked the court to award damages or rescind the
transaction in question.

According to other court documents, Del Bay ultimately sold the
motel and land to the Lingo-owned Townsend for $6.6 million.

The case was tried in November 2006. A May 2009 bench ruling held
that defendants "utterly failed to present evidence sufficient to
meet their burden of showing entire fairness." In September 2009,
the court appointed two experts to determine the property's fair
market value as of June 2003.

A Jan. 22 filing by the plaintiffs disputed the experts'
estimated $5.48 million fair market value for the property. The
plaintiffs noted that the estimate was based on a routine
appraisal and not a bidding process. They also noted that if the
Lingos hadn't forced the sale, it would probably have occurred
"at an extremely opportune time for sellers in Lewes."

The filing also requested attorney fees and costs because the
Lingos "acted in a knowing, indefensible, and egregious manner
when they manipulated the sales process for their benefit."

The plaintiffs claimed the Lingos wanted the below-market deal in
order to do a so-called 1031 exchange. Section 1031 of the
Internal Revenue Code allows taxpayers to defer capital gains on
certain types of property sales if the seller uses the proceeds
to buy other property within a set time frame. The lawsuit claims
include breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting breaches of
fiduciary duty, conspiracy and unjust enrichment.

The plaintiffs' lawyer, Peter Walsh, a partner a Potter Anderson
& Corroon in Wilmington, Del., did not return calls for comment.

The defendants' lawyer, Jeffrey Weiner of Wilmington, said he
does not comment on matters in active litigation.

Although it's not unprecedented for the Delaware chancery court
to award legal fees for egregious prelawsuit conduct, "it is
rare," said Francis G.X. Pileggi, a Wilmington, Del., litigation
partner at Philadelphia's Fox Rothschild, who isn't involved in
the case.

Parties involved in U.S. litigation generally pay their own
attorney fees unless a statute or agreement dictates otherwise or
the case is a class action or a derivative case with a common
fund to pay legal costs, Pileggi said.

"Egregious, unjustified prelitigation conduct may be an exception
to [this] rule, especially when there has been a breach of
fiduciary duty and only nominal damages are otherwise available
based on the facts of the case," Pileggi said.

                            *********

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  * * *