CAR_Public/100429.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Thursday, April 29, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 83

                            Headlines

AIRTRAN HOLDINGS: Defends Amended Complaint Over $15 Checked Fee
AMR CORPORATION: Continues to Defend Suit Over April 2003 CBA
APPLE INC: "Branning" Suit in California Remains Pending
APPLE INC: Appeal of "St-Germain" Ruling Remains Pending
APPLE INC: Continues to Face Consolidated Suit over iPod Tunes

APPLE INC: "Somers" Suit in Northern California Still Pending
APPLE INC: Continues to Face "Vitt" Suit over iBook G4
APPLE INC: Faces Amended Consolidated Complaint by Shareholders
BOEING CO: Suit Over Spirit's Hiring Decisions Remains Pending
BOEING CO: Faces ERISA-Related Consolidated Amended Complaint

BOEING CO: Lawsuit by UAW 1069 Retirees Dismissed and Concluded
BOEING CO: Decertification Motion in "VIP Plan" Suit Pending
BOEING CO: Seeks Dismissal of Dreamliner-Related Suit
CPI CORP: Defends Suit Over Employee's Meal and Rest Breaks
DELTA AIR: Continues to Defend Suit Over Fees on Checked Bag

DELTA AIR: Plaintiffs' Appeal on Claim Remains Pending
DELTA AIR: Continues to Defend Two Suits in Ontario
EMMIS COMMUNICATIONS: Shareholders Balk at Sale Transaction
GOLDMAN SACHS: Suit Questions Wells Notice Disclosure Failure
LEHMAN BROTHERS: Ernst & Young Pulled Into Shareholder Litigation

LINEBARGER GOOGAN: Sued for Charging Illegal Attorney's Fees
LOCKHEED MARTIN: Appeal on Class Certification Ruling Pending
MUELLER INDUSTRIES: Tenn. Suit Over ACR Copper Tubes Pending
MUELLER INDUSTRIES: Plaintiffs Want Copper Tubes Suit Dismissed
US BANCORP: Removes Auto Loan Overdraft Lawsuit to N.D. Calif.

WASTE CONNECTIONS: Settles FLSA Violations Suit in California
YUM! BRANDS: Class Certified in Suit by Taco Bell RGMs
YUM! BRANDS: Dismissed as Defendant in Consolidated Suit
YUM! BRANDS: Taco Bell Continues to Defend "Rosales" Suit
YUM! BRANDS: Hines Has Until May 17 to File Certification Motion

YUM! BRANDS: KFC Faces Labor Violations Suit in California
YUM! BRANDS: Taco Bell Defends ADSA-Violations Suit in Calif.
YUM! BRANDS: Pizza Hut Seeks Dismissal of Reimbursement Suit
WAL-MART STORES: 9th Cir. Endorses Gender Discrimination Class
WELLS FARGO: D. Minn. Certifies 401(k) Plan Participant Class

ZENITH NATIONAL: Court Denies Preliminary Injunction on Vote
ZENITH NATIONAL: Defends Consolidated Suit Over Fairfax Merger

                            *********

AIRTRAN HOLDINGS: Defends Amended Complaint Over $15 Checked Fee
----------------------------------------------------------------
AirTran Holdings, Inc., defends an amended complaint alleging
that the company conspired with Delta Air Lines, Inc., in
imposing $15-per-bag fees for the first item of checked luggage,
according to the company's April 22, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2010.

A complaint alleging violations of federal antitrust laws and
seeking certification as a class action was filed against Delta
Air and AirTran in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia in Atlanta on May 22, 2009.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that AirTran conspired
with Delta in imposing $15-per-bag fees for the first item of
checked luggage.  The initial complaint sought treble damages on
behalf of a putative class of persons or entities in the United
States who directly paid Delta and/or AirTran such fees on
domestic flights beginning Dec. 5, 2008.

Subsequent to the filing of the May 2009 complaint, various other
nearly identical complaints also seeking certification as class
actions were filed in federal district courts in Atlanta,
Georgia; Orlando, Florida; and Las Vegas, Nevada.  All of the
cases were consolidated before a single judge in Atlanta.

An amended complaint filed in February 2010 in the consolidated
action broadened the allegations to add claims that Delta and
AirTran also cut capacity on competitive routes and raised
prices.  The amended complaint seeks injunctive relief against a
broad range of alleged anticompetitive activities and attorneys
fees.

AirTran Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.airtran.com/-- conducts all  
of its flight operations through its wholly owned subsidiary,
AirTran Airways, Inc..  The company operates scheduled airline
service throughout the United States and to selected
international locations.  Approximately half of its flights
originate or terminate at its hub in Atlanta, Georgia and it
serves a number of markets with non-stop service from its focus
cities of Baltimore, Maryland, Milwaukee, Wisconsin and Orlando,
Florida.  As of Feb. 1, 2010, the company operated 86 Boeing
B717-200 aircraft (B717) and 52 Boeing B737-700 aircraft (B737)
offering approximately 700 scheduled flights per day to 63
locations in the United States, including San Juan, Puerto Rico,
and to Orangestad, Aruba, Cancun, Mexico, and Nassau, The
Bahamas.  During the year ended Dec. 31, 2009, the company
initiated service to seven domestic locations and initiated
service to three international destinations.


AMR CORPORATION: Continues to Defend Suit Over April 2003 CBA
-------------------------------------------------------------
American Airlines Inc., along with the union that represents its
flight attendants, continue to defend a suit resulting from the
April 2003 Collective Bargaining Agreement, according to AMR
Corp.'s April 21, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2010.

On July 12, 2004, a consolidated class action complaint that was
subsequently amended on Nov. 30, 2004, was filed against American
and the Association of Professional Flight Attendants, the union
which represents American's flight attendants.

The suit is Ann M. Marcoux, et al., v. American Airlines Inc., et
al., filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
New York.

While a class has not yet been certified, the lawsuit seeks on
behalf of all of American's flight attendants or various
subclasses to set aside and to obtain damages allegedly resulting
from the April 2003 Collective Bargaining Agreement referred to
as the Restructuring Participation Agreement (RPA).

The RPA was one of three labor agreements American successfully
reached with its unions in order to avoid filing for bankruptcy
in 2003.

In a related case styled Sherry Cooper, et al. v. TWA Airlines,
LLC, et al., also in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York, the court denied a preliminary injunction
against implementation of the RPA on Sept. 30, 2003.

The Marcoux suit alleges various claims against the APFA and
American relating to the RPA and the ratification vote on the RPA
by individual APFA members, including: violation of the Labor
Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA) and the APFA's
Constitution and By-laws, violation by the APFA of its duty of
fair representation to its members, violation by American of
provisions of the Railway Labor Act (RLA) through improper
coercion of flight attendants into voting or changing their vote
for ratification, and violations of the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act of 1970 (RICO).

On March 28, 2006, the district court dismissed all of various
state law claims against American, all but one of the LMRDA
claims against the APFA, and the claimed violations of RICO.

On July 22, 2008, the district court granted summary judgment to
American and APFA concerning the remaining claimed violations of
the RLA and the duty of fair representation against American and
the APFA (as well as one LMRDA claim and one claim against the
APFA of a breach of its constitution).

A notice of appeal was filed on behalf of the purported class of
flight attendants.  On Sept. 21, 2009, the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit affirmed the district court's decision in
favor of American and the APFA.

The plaintiffs are now seeking a review by the U.S. Supreme Court
of the decision of the Court of Appeals.

AMR Corporation -- http://www.aa.com/-- operates in the airline  
industry.  The company's principal subsidiary is American
Airlines, Inc.  As of Dec. 31, 2009, American provided scheduled
jet service to approximately 160 destinations throughout North
America, the Caribbean, Latin America, Europe and Asia.  AMR
Eagle Holding Corporation (AMR Eagle), a wholly owned subsidiary
of AMR, owns two regional airlines, which do business as American
Eagle - American Eagle Airlines, Inc. and Executive Airlines,
Inc. (Executive).  American also contracts with an independently
owned regional airline, which does business as AmericanConnection
(the AmericanConnection carrier).


APPLE INC: "Branning" Suit in California Remains Pending
--------------------------------------------------------
Apple, Inc., continues to face a suit styled Branning et al. v.
Apple Computer, Inc., alleging unfair competition, pending in the
Santa Clara Superior Court.

Plaintiffs originally filed this purported class action in San
Francisco County Superior Court on Feb. 17, 2005 on behalf of
putative classes of consumers and resellers.  The case was
transferred to Santa Clara Superior Court in May 2005.

The initial complaint alleged violations of California Business &
Professions Code Section 17200 (unfair competition) and the
Consumer Legal Remedies Act and causes of action for
misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of contract and
violation of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act.

Plaintiffs requested unspecified damages and other relief.

Plaintiffs subsequently filed multiple amended complaints adding
new plaintiffs and new causes of action including claims for
false advertising, fraud, conversion, breach of the implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing and for violation of
California Business & Professions Code Section 16700 et seq. (the
Cartwright Act).

In general, the consumer plaintiffs allege that the company
"shorted" the coverage provided under its warranties and
AppleCare Protection Plan extended service contracts and sold
plaintiffs used products that were represented to be new.

In general, the reseller plaintiffs allege that the company
damaged their businesses by opening the Apple retail stores and
making misrepresentations in connection with doing so.

On Oct. 28, 2009, the Court granted the consumer plaintiffs'
motion to certify a class relating to their "shorting" claims,
but denied class certification as to their "used as new" claims.

No further updates were reported in the company's April 21, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 27, 2010.

Apple Inc. -- http://www.apple.com/-- designs, manufactures, and  
markets personal computers, mobile communication devices, and
portable digital music and video players, and sells a variety of
related software, services, peripherals, and networking
solutions.  The company sells its products worldwide through its
online stores, its retail stores, its direct sales force, and
third-party wholesalers, resellers, and value-added resellers.  
In addition, the company sells a variety of third-party Macintosh
(Mac), iPhone and iPod compatible products, including application
software, printers, storage devices, speakers, headphones, and
various other accessories and peripherals through its online and
retail stores, and digital content and applications through the
iTunes Store.  The company sells to consumer, small and mid-sized
business (SMB), education, enterprise, government and creative
customers.  In December 2009, the company acquired digital music
service Lala.


APPLE INC: Appeal of "St-Germain" Ruling Remains Pending
--------------------------------------------------------
Apple, Inc.'s appeal on the ruling in favor of the plaintiff in
the suit styled St-Germain v. Apple Canada, Inc., remains
pending.

The plaintiff filed the case in Montreal, Quebec, Canada, on Aug.
5, 2005, seeking authorization to institute a class action
for the refund by the company of the Canadian Private Copying
Levy that was applied to the iPod purchase price in Quebec
between Dec. 12, 2003 and Dec. 14, 2004 but later declared
invalid by the Canadian Court.

The company has completed a refund program for this levy.

A class certification hearing took place Jan. 13, 2006.

On Feb. 24, 2006, the Court granted class certification and
notice was published during the last week of March 2006.

The trial was conducted on Oct. 15 and Oct. 16, 2007.

On Jan. 11, 2008, the Court issued a ruling in plaintiff's favor.  
The Court ruled that despite the company's good faith
efforts with the levy refund program, the company must pay the
amount claimed, and that the class is comprised of 20,000
persons who purchased an iPod in Quebec between Dec. 12, 2003 and
Dec. 14, 2004.  The Court ordered the company to submit a
statement of account showing the amount received by the Canadian
Private Copying Collective, and the amount that has already been
paid to class members in Quebec under the company's levy refund
program.  The Court also ordered the parties to submit further
briefing regarding the collective recovery award by Feb. 23,
2008.

On Feb. 11, 2008, the company filed an appeal.

No further updates were reported in the company's April 21, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 27, 2010.

Apple Inc. -- http://www.apple.com/-- designs, manufactures, and  
markets personal computers, mobile communication devices, and
portable digital music and video players, and sells a variety of
related software, services, peripherals, and networking
solutions.  The company sells its products worldwide through its
online stores, its retail stores, its direct sales force, and
third-party wholesalers, resellers, and value-added resellers.  
In addition, the company sells a variety of third-party Macintosh
(Mac), iPhone and iPod compatible products, including application
software, printers, storage devices, speakers, headphones, and
various other accessories and peripherals through its online and
retail stores, and digital content and applications through the
iTunes Store.  The company sells to consumer, small and mid-sized
business (SMB), education, enterprise, government and creative
customers.  In December 2009, the company acquired digital music
service Lala.


APPLE INC: Continues to Face Consolidated Suit over iPod Tunes
--------------------------------------------------------------
Apple, Inc., continues to face a consolidated suit alleging
unlawful tying of music and video purchased on the iTunes Store
with the purchase of iPods.

The action is a consolidated case filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California combining two cases
previously pending under the names:

     1. Charoensak v. Apple Computer Inc. (formerly Slattery v.
        Apple Computer Inc.) filed on Jan. 3, 2005; and

     2. Tucker v. Apple Computer, Inc., filed on July 21, 2006.

A Consolidated Complaint was filed on April 17, 2007 on behalf of
a purported class of direct purchasers of iPods and iTunes Store
content, alleging various claims including alleged unlawful tying
of music and video purchased on the iTunes Store with the
purchase of iPods and unlawful acquisition or maintenance of
monopoly market power.

The Consolidated Complaint alleges violations of Sections 1 and 2
of the Sherman Act (Title 15 of the U.S. Code, Sections 1 and 2),
California Business & Professions Code Section 16700 et seq. (the
Cartwright Act), California Business & Professions Code Section
17200 (unfair competition), the California Consumer Legal
Remedies Act and California monopolization law. Plaintiffs seek
unspecified damages and other relief.

On Dec. 22, 2008, the Court granted certification of plaintiffs'
monopolization claims and denied without prejudice certification
of their tying claims.  On Oct. 30, 2009, the Court dismissed
plaintiffs' claims for violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act
and California Business & Professions Code Section 16700 et seq.

On Dec. 21, 2009, the Court decertified the injunctive relief
class and Rule 23(b)(3) damages class.

Plaintiffs subsequently filed an Amended Consolidated Complaint
seeking unspecified damages and other relief pursuant to Section
2 of the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. Section 2), California Business &
Professions Code  16700 et seq. (the Cartwright Act), California
Business & Professions Code Section 17200 (unfair competition),
the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act and California
monopolization law.

This case is currently pending.

No further updates were reported in the company's April 21, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 27, 2010.

Apple Inc. -- http://www.apple.com/-- designs, manufactures, and  
markets personal computers, mobile communication devices, and
portable digital music and video players, and sells a variety of
related software, services, peripherals, and networking
solutions.  The company sells its products worldwide through its
online stores, its retail stores, its direct sales force, and
third-party wholesalers, resellers, and value-added resellers.  
In addition, the company sells a variety of third-party Macintosh
(Mac), iPhone and iPod compatible products, including application
software, printers, storage devices, speakers, headphones, and
various other accessories and peripherals through its online and
retail stores, and digital content and applications through the
iTunes Store.  The company sells to consumer, small and mid-sized
business (SMB), education, enterprise, government and creative
customers.  In December 2009, the company acquired digital music
service Lala.


APPLE INC: "Somers" Suit in Northern California Still Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
The complaint Somers v. Apple Inc., filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California remains pending.

The complaint was filed on Dec. 31, 2007, on behalf of a
purported class of indirect purchasers, alleging various claims
including alleged unlawful tying of music and videos purchased on
the iTunes Store with the purchase of iPods and vice versa and
unlawful acquisition or maintenance of monopoly market power.

The complaint alleges violations of Sections 1 and 2 of the
Sherman Act (Title 15 of the U.S. Code Sections 1 and 2),
California Business & Professions Code Section 16700 et seq. (the
Cartwright Act), California Business & Professions Code Section
17200 (unfair competition), the California Consumer Legal
Remedies Act and California monopolization law.

Plaintiff seeks unspecified damages and other relief.

No further updates were reported in the company's April 21, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 27, 2010.

Apple Inc. -- http://www.apple.com/-- designs, manufactures, and  
markets personal computers, mobile communication devices, and
portable digital music and video players, and sells a variety of
related software, services, peripherals, and networking
solutions.  The company sells its products worldwide through its
online stores, its retail stores, its direct sales force, and
third-party wholesalers, resellers, and value-added resellers.  
In addition, the company sells a variety of third-party Macintosh
(Mac), iPhone and iPod compatible products, including application
software, printers, storage devices, speakers, headphones, and
various other accessories and peripherals through its online and
retail stores, and digital content and applications through the
iTunes Store.  The company sells to consumer, small and mid-sized
business (SMB), education, enterprise, government and creative
customers.  In December 2009, the company acquired digital music
service Lala.


APPLE INC: Continues to Face "Vitt" Suit over iBook G4
------------------------------------------------------
Apple, Inc., continues to face a purported class action styled
Vitt v. Apple Computer, Inc., filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California.

The suit was filed on Nov. 7, 2006, on behalf of a purported
nationwide class of all purchasers of the iBook G4 alleging that
the computer's logic board fails at an abnormally high rate.

The complaint alleges violations of California Business &
Professions Code Section 17200 (unfair competition) and
California Business & Professions Code Section 17500 (false
advertising).

Plaintiff seeks unspecified damages and other relief.

No further updates were reported in the company's April 21, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 27, 2010.

Apple Inc. -- http://www.apple.com/-- designs, manufactures, and  
markets personal computers, mobile communication devices, and
portable digital music and video players, and sells a variety of
related software, services, peripherals, and networking
solutions.  The company sells its products worldwide through its
online stores, its retail stores, its direct sales force, and
third-party wholesalers, resellers, and value-added resellers.  
In addition, the company sells a variety of third-party Macintosh
(Mac), iPhone and iPod compatible products, including application
software, printers, storage devices, speakers, headphones, and
various other accessories and peripherals through its online and
retail stores, and digital content and applications through the
iTunes Store.  The company sells to consumer, small and mid-sized
business (SMB), education, enterprise, government and creative
customers.  In December 2009, the company acquired digital music
service Lala.


APPLE INC: Faces Amended Consolidated Complaint by Shareholders
---------------------------------------------------------------
Apple Inc., faces an amended consolidated complaint asserting
claims under federal securities laws, according to the company's
April 21, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 27, 2010.

On Aug. 24, 2006, plaintiffs filed a purported shareholder class
action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California against the company and certain current and former
officers and directors, alleging improper backdating of stock
option grants to maximize certain defendants' profits, failing to
properly account for those grants and issuing false financial
statements.

On June 27, 2008, plaintiffs filed another, similar purported
shareholder class action in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California.

Plaintiffs' First Amended Consolidated Complaint, filed on March
22, 2010, asserts claims for unspecified damages against the
company and certain current and former officers and directors
under the federal securities laws on behalf of a purported class
of shareholders.  These cases have been consolidated and are
currently pending.

Apple Inc. -- http://www.apple.com/-- designs, manufactures, and  
markets personal computers, mobile communication devices, and
portable digital music and video players, and sells a variety of
related software, services, peripherals, and networking
solutions.  The company sells its products worldwide through its
online stores, its retail stores, its direct sales force, and
third-party wholesalers, resellers, and value-added resellers.  
In addition, the company sells a variety of third-party Macintosh
(Mac), iPhone and iPod compatible products, including application
software, printers, storage devices, speakers, headphones, and
various other accessories and peripherals through its online and
retail stores, and digital content and applications through the
iTunes Store.  The company sells to consumer, small and mid-sized
business (SMB), education, enterprise, government and creative
customers.  In December 2009, the company acquired digital music
service Lala.


BOEING CO: Suit Over Spirit's Hiring Decisions Remains Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Boeing Co. continues to face a putative class action
complaint over the hiring decisions made by Spirit AeroSystems,
Inc., according to the company's April 21, 2010, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 23, 2010.

On March 2, 2006, the company served with a complaint filed in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas, alleging that
hiring decisions made by Spirit AeroSystems, Inc. near the time
of the company's sale of the Wichita facility were tainted by age
discrimination, violated Employee Retirement Income Security Act,
violated the company's collective bargaining agreements, and
constituted retaliation.

The case is brought as a class action on behalf of individuals
not hired by Spirit.

While the company believes that Spirit has an obligation to
indemnify Boeing for claims relating to the 2005 sales
transaction, Spirit has refused to indemnify Boeing for all
claims arising from employment activity prior to Jan. 1, 2005.

On June 4, 2008, claims by individuals who filed consents to join
the Age Discrimination Employment Act collective action and were
terminated by Boeing prior to Jan. 1, 2005 were dismissed by
stipulated order.

On June 15, 2009, plaintiffs filed a motion seeking class
certification for certain former Boeing employees at the Wichita,
Tulsa and McAlester facilities over the age of 40 who were laid
off between Jan. 1, 2005 and July 1, 2005, and were not hired by
Spirit on June 17, 2005.

On July 31, 2009, Boeing filed motions opposing class
certification and seeking dismissal of the ERISA and breach of
contract claims.

On Aug. 14, 2009, Boeing filed a motion seeking dismissal, or in
the alternative, decertification of the age claims.

Plaintiffs' reply brief on certification of ERISA Section 510 and
Labor-Management Relations Act Section 301 classes was filed on
Aug. 28, 2009.

Plaintiffs' response to Defendants' motion for summary judgment
on Plaintiffs' ERISA Section 510 and LMRA Section 301 claims was
filed on Sept. 11, 2009.

These motions are fully briefed and are pending before the court.

The Boeing Co. -- http://www.boeing.com/-- is involved in the  
design, development, manufacture, sale and support of commercial
jetliners, military aircraft, satellites, missile defense, human
space flight, and launch systems and services.  The company
operates in five principal segments: Commercial Airplanes,
Precision Engagement and Mobility Systems, Network and Space
Systems, Support Systems and Boeing Capital Corporation.  PE&MS,
N&SS and Support Systems comprise the company's Integrated
Defense Systems business.  The Other segment classification
principally includes the activities of Engineering, Operations
and Technology, an advanced research and development organization
focused on technologies, processes and the creation of new
products.


BOEING CO: Faces ERISA-Related Consolidated Amended Complaint
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Boeing Co. faces a consolidated amended complaint brought
under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, according to
the company's April 21, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March
23, 2010.

The case, filed on Feb. 21, 2007, is also brought under the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act, and, in general, claims
that the company has not properly provided benefits to certain
categories of former employees affected by the sale.

On May 22, 2008, plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint and
on June 3, 2008, filed a motion to certify a class.

On July 14, 2008, the Court granted class certification for the
purpose of adjudicating liability for the class of employees who
went to work for Spirit, and deferred class certification motions
for the class of employees who did not go to work for Spirit.

A Memorandum and Order on Nov. 3, 2009, resolves discovery
disputes and discovery continues for both groups of employees.

A consolidated amended complaint was filed on March 2, 2010.  
Boeing's answer was filed on March 26, 2010.

The Boeing Co. -- http://www.boeing.com/-- is involved in the  
design, development, manufacture, sale and support of commercial
jetliners, military aircraft, satellites, missile defense, human
space flight, and launch systems and services.  The company
operates in five principal segments: Commercial Airplanes,
Precision Engagement and Mobility Systems, Network and Space
Systems, Support Systems and Boeing Capital Corporation.  PE&MS,
N&SS and Support Systems comprise the company's Integrated
Defense Systems business.  The Other segment classification
principally includes the activities of Engineering, Operations
and Technology, an advanced research and development organization
focused on technologies, processes and the creation of new
products.


BOEING CO: Lawsuit by UAW 1069 Retirees Dismissed and Concluded
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit against The Boeing Co. relating to its
medical plans for retirees of UAW Local 1069 has been dismissed
and concluded, according to the company's April 21, 2010, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended March 23, 2010.

On Sept. 13, 2006, two UAW Local 1069 retirees filed a class
action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District
of Tennessee alleging that recently announced changes to medical
plans for retirees of UAW Local 1069 constituted a breach of
collective bargaining agreements under Section 301 of the Labor-
Management Relations Act and Section 502(a)(1)(B) of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act.

On Sept. 15, 2006, the company filed a lawsuit in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against the
International UAW and two retiree medical plan participants
seeking a declaratory judgment confirming that the company has
the legal right to make changes to these medical benefits.  On
June 4, 2007, the Middle District of Tennessee ordered that its
case be transferred to the Northern District of Illinois.

The two cases were consolidated on Sept. 24, 2007.

On Jan. 17, 2008, the Court granted the UAW's motion to amend the
complaint to drop the retirees' claim for vested lifetime
benefits based on successive collective bargaining agreements and
instead allege that the current collective bargaining agreement
is the sole alleged source of rights to retiree medical benefits.

Both parties filed Motions for Class Certification on Nov. 16,
2007 and filed briefs on class certification on Feb. 28, 2008.

The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment on May 27,
2008.

On Sept. 30, 2008, the court certified a class of retirees for
all claims.

On Sept. 9, 2009, the court granted Boeing's motion and ruled
that the retiree medical benefits were not vested lifetime
benefits and that the 2006 changes to benefits did not violate
the 2005 collective bargaining agreement.

On Oct. 8, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the
Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

On Jan. 27, 2010, the parties filed a joint motion in the
district court for a stipulated order dismissing the case.

On Feb. 17, 2010, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals granted a
joint motion for remand to the district court for entry of an
order for dismissal.

On March 9, 2010, the district court signed the stipulated order
of dismissal, concluding this matter.

The Boeing Co. -- http://www.boeing.com/-- is involved in the  
design, development, manufacture, sale and support of commercial
jetliners, military aircraft, satellites, missile defense, human
space flight, and launch systems and services.  The company
operates in five principal segments: Commercial Airplanes,
Precision Engagement and Mobility Systems, Network and Space
Systems, Support Systems and Boeing Capital Corporation.  PE&MS,
N&SS and Support Systems comprise the company's Integrated
Defense Systems business.  The Other segment classification
principally includes the activities of Engineering, Operations
and Technology, an advanced research and development organization
focused on technologies, processes and the creation of new
products.


BOEING CO: Decertification Motion in "VIP Plan" Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
The Boeing Co.'s motion to decertify the class in a lawsuit
concerning the Boeing Company Voluntary Investment Plan remains
pending.

On Oct. 13, 2006, the company was named as a defendant in a
lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Illinois.

Plaintiffs, seeking to represent a class of similarly situated
participants and beneficiaries in the Boeing Company Voluntary
Investment Plan, alleged that fees and expenses incurred by the
VIP Plan were and are unreasonable and excessive, not incurred
solely for the benefit of the VIP Plan and its participants, and
were undisclosed to participants.

The plaintiffs further alleged that defendants breached their
fiduciary duties in violation of Section 502(a)(2) of ERISA, and
sought injunctive and equitable relief pursuant to Section
502(a)(3) of ERISA.

Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify the class, which the company
opposed.

On Dec. 14, 2007, the court granted plaintiffs leave to file an
amended complaint, which complaint added the company's Employee
Benefits Investment Committee as a defendant and included new
allegations regarding alleged breach of fiduciary duty.

The stay of proceedings entered by the court on Sept. 10, 2007,
pending resolution by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh
Circuit of Lively v. Dynegy, Inc., was lifted on April 3, 2008,
after notification that the Lively case had settled.

On April 16, 2008, plaintiffs sought leave to file a second
amended complaint, which the company opposed, which would add
investment performance allegations.

On Aug. 22, 2008, the Court granted plaintiffs leave to file
their second amended complaint to add investment performance
allegations.

On Sept. 29, 2008, the Court granted plaintiffs' motion to
certify the class of current, past and future participants or
beneficiaries in the VIP Plan.

On Sept. 9, 2008, the company filed a motion for summary judgment
to dismiss claims arising prior to Sept. 27, 2000 based on the
ERISA statute of limitations.

On Oct. 14, 2008, the company filed a petition for leave to
appeal the class certification order to the Seventh Circuit Court
of Appeals.

The plaintiffs opposed this motion and it is currently pending
before the court of appeals.

On Jan. 15, 2009, the company filed a motion seeking dismissal of
all claims as a matter of law.

On Aug. 10, 2009, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals granted
Boeing's motion for leave to appeal the class certification
order.

The district court entered a stay of proceedings in the trial
court pending resolution of the class certification appeal.

On Dec. 29, 2009, the district court lifted on plaintiffs' motion
the stay of proceedings previously entered.

Boeing responded by filing an Application for Stay Pending Appeal
with the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals on Jan. 7, 2010.

Boeing's application for a stay pending appeal was granted by the
Seventh Circuit on Jan. 21, 2010, according to the company's
April 21, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 23, 2010.

The Boeing Co. -- http://www.boeing.com/-- is involved in the  
design, development, manufacture, sale and support of commercial
jetliners, military aircraft, satellites, missile defense, human
space flight, and launch systems and services.  The company
operates in five principal segments: Commercial Airplanes,
Precision Engagement and Mobility Systems, Network and Space
Systems, Support Systems and Boeing Capital Corporation.  PE&MS,
N&SS and Support Systems comprise the company's Integrated
Defense Systems business.  The Other segment classification
principally includes the activities of Engineering, Operations
and Technology, an advanced research and development organization
focused on technologies, processes and the creation of new
products.


BOEING CO: Seeks Dismissal of Dreamliner-Related Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
The Boeing Co. seeks the dismissal of a putative securities fraud
class action arising from the announcement that the first flight
of the 787 Dreamliner would be postponed, according to the
company's April 21, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March
23, 2010.

Plaintiff shareholders have filed a putative securities fraud
class action against the company and two of its senior
executives.  The lawsuit arises from the company's June 2009
announcement that the first flight of the 787 Dreamliner would be
postponed due to a need to reinforce an area within the side-of-
body section of the aircraft.

Plaintiffs contend that the company was aware before June 2009
that the first flight could not take place as scheduled due to
issues with the side-of-body section of the aircraft, and that
the company's determination not to announce this delay earlier
resulted in an artificial inflation of the company's stock price
for a multi-week period in May and June 2009.

Plaintiffs' complaint was filed in November 2009.

No briefing or discovery has yet taken place.

In addition, plaintiff shareholders have filed three similar
shareholder derivative lawsuits concerning the flight schedule
for the 787 Dreamliner that closely tracks the allegations in the
putative class action lawsuit.  No briefing or discovery has yet
taken place.

Plaintiffs' complaint was filed in November 2009.

On March 25, 2010, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint for failure to state a cognizable claim.

No discovery has yet taken place.

The Boeing Co. -- http://www.boeing.com/-- is involved in the  
design, development, manufacture, sale and support of commercial
jetliners, military aircraft, satellites, missile defense, human
space flight, and launch systems and services.  The company
operates in five principal segments: Commercial Airplanes,
Precision Engagement and Mobility Systems, Network and Space
Systems, Support Systems and Boeing Capital Corporation.  PE&MS,
N&SS and Support Systems comprise the company's Integrated
Defense Systems business.  The Other segment classification
principally includes the activities of Engineering, Operations
and Technology, an advanced research and development organization
focused on technologies, processes and the creation of new
products.


CPI CORP: Defends Suit Over Employee's Meal and Rest Breaks
-----------------------------------------------------------
CPI Corp. continues to defend a lawsuit alleging that it failed
to provide hourly employees with meal and rest breaks, according
to the company's April 22, 2010, Form 10- filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Feb.
6, 2010.              

The company and two of its subsidiaries are defendants in a
lawsuit entitled Shannon Paige, et al. v. Consumer Programs,
Inc., filed March 8, 2007, in the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Los Angeles, Case No. BC367546.

The case was subsequently removed to the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California, Case No. CV 07-2498-FMC
(RCx).

The Plaintiff alleges that the company failed to pay him and
other hourly associates for "off the clock" work and that the
company failed to provide meal and rest breaks as required by
law.  The Plaintiff is seeking damages and injunctive relief for
himself and others similarly situated.

On Oct. 6, 2008, the Court denied the Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification but allowed Plaintiffs to attempt to certify
a smaller class, thus reducing the size of the potential class to
approximately 200.

Plaintiffs filed a motion seeking certification of the smaller
class on November 14, 2008.  The company filed its opposition on
Dec. 8, 2008.  In January 2009, the Court denied Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification as to their claims that they
worked "off the clock".

The Court also deferred ruling on Plaintiff's motion for class
certification as to their missed break claims and stayed the
action until the California Supreme Court rules on a pending case
on the issue of whether an employer must merely provide an
opportunity for employees to take a lunch break or whether an
employer must actively ensure that its employees take the break.  

CPI Corp. -- http://www.cpicorp.com/-- has been dedicated to  
helping customers conveniently create cherished photography
portrait keepsakes that capture a lifetime of memories.  
Headquartered in St. Louis, Missouri, CPI Corp. provides portrait
photography services at approximately 3,000 locations in North
America, principally in Sears and Walmart stores.  CPI's
conversion to a fully digital format allows its studios to offer
unique posing options, creative photography selections, a wide
variety of sizes and an unparalleled assortment of enhancements
to customize each portrait - all for an affordable price.


DELTA AIR: Continues to Defend Suit Over Fees on Checked Bag
------------------------------------------------------------
Delta Air Lines, Inc., continues to defend a consolidated amended
class action complaint relating to fees imposed on the first
checked bag, according to the company's April 22, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2010.

In May, June and July, 2009, a number of purported class action
antitrust lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Courts for the
Northern District of Georgia, the Middle District of Florida, and
the District of Nevada, against Delta and AirTran Airways.

In these cases, the plaintiffs originally alleged that Delta and
AirTran engaged in collusive behavior in violation of Section 1
of the Sherman Act in November 2008 based upon certain public
statements made in October 2008 by AirTran's CEO at an analyst
conference concerning fees for the first checked bag, Delta's
imposition of a fee for the first checked bag on Nov. 4, 2008,
and AirTran's imposition of a similar fee on Nov.  12, 2008.

The plaintiffs sought to assert claims on behalf of an alleged
class consisting of passengers who paid the fist bag fee after
Dec. 5, 2008, and seek injunctive relief and unspecified treble
damages.  All of these cases have been consolidated for pre-trial
proceedings in the Northern District of Georgia by the Multi-
District Litigation Panel.

In February 2010, the plaintiffs in the MDL proceeding filed a
Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint which substantially
expanded the scope of the original complaint.  In the
consolidated amended complaint, the plaintiffs add new
allegations concerning alleged signaling by both Delta and
AirTran based upon statements made to the investment community by
both carriers relating to industry capacity levels during 2008-
2009.

The plaintiffs also add a new cause of action against Delta
alleging attempted monopolization in violation of Sherman Act
Section 2, paralleling a claim previously asserted against
AirTran but not Delta.

Delta Air Lines, Inc. -- http://www.delta.com/-- serves more  
than 160 million customers each year.  With its unsurpassed
global network, Delta and the Delta Connection carriers offer
service to 355 destinations in 65 countries on six continents.  
Delta employs more than 70,000 employees worldwide and operates a
mainline fleet of nearly 800 aircraft.  A founding member of the
SkyTeam global alliance, Delta participates in the industry's
leading trans-Atlantic joint venture with Air France KLM.
Including its worldwide alliance partners, Delta offers customers
more than 16,000 daily flights, with hubs in Amsterdam, Atlanta,
Cincinnati, Detroit, Memphis, Minneapolis-St. Paul, New York-JFK,
Paris-Charles de Gaulle, Salt Lake City and Tokyo-Narita.  The
airline's service includes the SkyMiles frequent flier program,
the world's largest airline loyalty program; the award-winning
BusinessElite service; and more than 50 Delta Sky Clubs in
airports worldwide.


DELTA AIR: Plaintiffs' Appeal on Claim Remains Pending
------------------------------------------------------
The appeal of the plaintiffs in an amended class action complaint
against Delta Air Lines, Inc., on the order stating that class
claims will be subordinated to any claim related to equity
interests, remains pending.

On March 16, 2005, a retired Delta employee filed an amended
class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia against Delta, and certain current
and former Delta officers and directors on behalf of himself and
other participants in the Delta Family-Care Savings Plan.

The amended complaint alleges that the defendants were
fiduciaries of the Savings Plan and, as such, breached their
fiduciary duties under ERISA to the plaintiff class by:

     (1) allowing class members to direct their contributions
         under the Savings Plan to a fund invested in Delta
         common stock; and

     (2) continuing to hold Delta's contributions to the Savings
         Plan in Delta's common and preferred stock.

The amended complaint seeks damages unspecified in amount, but
equal to the total loss of value in the participants' accounts
from September 2000 through September 2004 from the investment in
Delta stock.

Defendants deny that there was any breach of fiduciary duty.

The District Court stayed the action against Delta due to Delta's
Chapter 11 proceedings and granted a motion to dismiss filed by
the individual defendants.  The Bankruptcy Court has ruled that a
class claim filed against Delta in its Chapter 11 proceedings
will be subordinated to any claim related to equity interests in
Delta, which did not receive any distribution pursuant to the
Plan of Reorganization.  The plaintiff has appealed this order.

No further updates were reported in the company's April 22, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

Delta Air Lines, Inc. -- http://www.delta.com/-- serves more  
than 160 million customers each year.  With its unsurpassed
global network, Delta and the Delta Connection carriers offer
service to 355 destinations in 65 countries on six continents.  
Delta employs more than 70,000 employees worldwide and operates a
mainline fleet of nearly 800 aircraft.  A founding member of the
SkyTeam global alliance, Delta participates in the industry's
leading trans-Atlantic joint venture with Air France KLM.
Including its worldwide alliance partners, Delta offers customers
more than 16,000 daily flights, with hubs in Amsterdam, Atlanta,
Cincinnati, Detroit, Memphis, Minneapolis-St. Paul, New York-JFK,
Paris-Charles de Gaulle, Salt Lake City and Tokyo-Narita.  The
airline's service includes the SkyMiles frequent flier program,
the world's largest airline loyalty program; the award-winning
BusinessElite service; and more than 50 Delta Sky Clubs in
airports worldwide.


DELTA AIR: Continues to Defend Two Suits in Ontario
---------------------------------------------------
Delta Air Lines, Inc., continues to defend two putative class
actions alleging that it colluded with other carriers to fix the
price of passenger surcharges.

On July 31, 2009, two parallel putative class actions were filed
against a number of Canadian, Asian, European, and U.S. carriers
(including Delta) in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.

Both allege that the defendants colluded to fix the price of
passenger surcharges, in Canada-Asia and Canada-Europe markets
respectively.

There are no allegations in the complaints of any specific act by
Delta in furtherance of either conspiracy.  The complaints seek
damages in excess of $100 million.

No further updates were reported in the company's April 22, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

Delta Air Lines, Inc. -- http://www.delta.com/-- serves more  
than 160 million customers each year.  With its unsurpassed
global network, Delta and the Delta Connection carriers offer
service to 355 destinations in 65 countries on six continents.  
Delta employs more than 70,000 employees worldwide and operates a
mainline fleet of nearly 800 aircraft.  A founding member of the
SkyTeam global alliance, Delta participates in the industry's
leading trans-Atlantic joint venture with Air France KLM.
Including its worldwide alliance partners, Delta offers customers
more than 16,000 daily flights, with hubs in Amsterdam, Atlanta,
Cincinnati, Detroit, Memphis, Minneapolis-St. Paul, New York-JFK,
Paris-Charles de Gaulle, Salt Lake City and Tokyo-Narita.  The
airline's service includes the SkyMiles frequent flier program,
the world's largest airline loyalty program; the award-winning
BusinessElite service; and more than 50 Delta Sky Clubs in
airports worldwide.


EMMIS COMMUNICATIONS: Shareholders Balk at Sale Transaction
-----------------------------------------------------------
RBR.com reports that within hours of CEO Jeff Smulyan and JS
Acquisition announcing a bid to take Emmis Communications
private, class action law firms were tripping over each other to
be first to the courthouse.

No fewer than five of the securities law class action law firms
announced publicly that they are "investigating" the deal for
possible grounds to sue.

For example, Tripp Levy PLLC noted that Smulyan had made a
previous bid to take Emmis private at $15.25 per share.  That
offer was dropped in August 2006. The current offer is for $2.40
per share, which is above the recent trading price.

"However, Emmis may not have adequately shopped itself around
before entering into this transaction and, pursuant to this
proposed transaction, Smulyan may be underpaying for Emmis, thus
unlawfully harming Emmis shareholders," said Tripp Levy in its
announcement to attract Emmis shareholders as clients. "The
investigation concerns, among other things, whether the
consideration to be paid to Emmis shareholders is grossly unfair,
inadequate, and substantially below the fair or inherent value of
Emmis. The investigation further concerns whether the directors
of Emmis may have breached their fiduciary duties by not acting
in Emmis shareholders' best interests in connection with the sale
process of Emmis," the announcement said.

"The law firm of Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP is
investigating possible breaches of fiduciary duty by the Board of
Directors of Emmis Communications Corporation arising out of the
Letter of Intent entered into by JS Acquisition, Inc. and Alden
Global Capital, a 42% shareholder of Emmis Preferred Stock," said
another of the law firm announcements.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Suit Questions Wells Notice Disclosure Failure
-------------------------------------------------------------
Vanessa O'Connell at The Wall Street Journal reports that a
Goldman Sachs Group Inc. shareholder filed a lawsuit Monday
against the bank, accusing the firm of failing to disclose a
Securities and Exchange Commission investigation.

The lawsuit, filed in federal court in Manhattan, asks for class-
action status on behalf of other Goldman shareholders.

It is the third known case to be filed against Goldman Sachs
since the SEC filed civil charges against the bank on April 16.
Two other shareholder lawsuits were filed Friday in New York
Supreme Court in Manhattan.

A spokesman for Goldman Sachs didn't immediately return a message
seeking comment.

In its case, the SEC has alleged Goldman didn't tell investors in
a structured financial product tied to subprime mortgages that
hedge fund Paulson & Co. helped select the underlying portfolio
of mortgages and had bet against the performance of the product.
The transaction at issue in the SEC case was in early 2007 and is
one of several so-called "Abacus" transactions.

The shareholder complaint filed Monday revolves around the so-
called Wells notice that Goldman received sometime in the summer
or fall of 2009 from the SEC relating to the Abacus transaction.

A Wells notice is a notification from a securities regulator that
it intends to recommend enforcement action and affords the
respondent an opportunity to explain why such an action is not
appropriate.

The lawsuit, brought by shareholder Ilene Richman, alleges that
Goldman Sachs executives failed to reveal that the company had
received a Wells notice.

"Goldman chose not to issue a Form 8-K alerting investors to this
event and later even omitted this information from its Form 10-
Qs, while updating 'Legal Proceedings' as to other cases," the
complaint alleges.

"As a result, investors were unaware the SEC was even
investigating ABACUS 2007-AC1," the complaint said.

The lawsuit also names Goldman Chief Executive Lloyd C. Blankfein
as well as its CFO David Viniar and its president and COO Gary D.
Cohn.

Darren Robbins, Esq., at Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, who is
representing the plaintiff, said the lawsuit focuses on Goldman
executives and their "failure to reveal" interactions with the
SEC.

That Goldman had gotten a Wells notice on the transaction is
"something shareholders would want to know, and they never
disclosed it," he said. "When they did, shareholders got pummeled
to the tune of $20 a share," Mr. Robbins added.


LEHMAN BROTHERS: Ernst & Young Pulled Into Shareholder Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Another major shoe has dropped in the ongoing Lehman Brothers
securities fraud action. Shareholders have just filed an amended
complaint describing a litany of balance sheet trickery by the
bankrupt investment firm, and have also named Lehman's former
auditor Ernst & Young as an additional defendant for its alleged
role in approving financial statements based on bogus
transactions expressly devised to hide the company's
deteriorating financial condition.

A group of institutional investors has updated its claims in the
wake of a scathing report of Lehman's financial sleight of hand
issued in March by Anton Valukas, Lehman's court-appointed
examiner.

The Lehman shareholder suit was originally filed following wipe-
out losses stemming from the firm's Sept. 15, 2008 bankruptcy
filing - the largest in U.S. history. Investors allege that in
the period leading to the bankruptcy, former Lehman officers,
including ex-CEO Richard Fuld, made repeated misstatements about
the firm's financial health, including minimizing Lehman's
exposure to weakening residential and commercial real estate
markets.

In the newly filed complaint, plaintiffs claim that Lehman used
certain repurchase and resale transactions, known as "Repo 105"
and "Repo 108" transactions, to temporarily remove tens of
billions of dollars' worth of assets from its balance sheet at
the end of financial reporting periods, and that Lehman executed
the repo agreements solely to fraudulently prop up its disclosure
statements.  

The complaint takes note of Mr. Valukas' testimony to the House
Committee on Financial Services in April: "[T]he public did not
know there were holes in the reported liquidity pool, nor did it
know that Lehman's risk controls were being ignored, or that
reported leverage numbers were artificially deflated. Billions of
Lehman shares traded on misinformation."

The amended complaint further notes Mr. Valukas's statement that
Ernst & Young "knew or should have known" that parts of Lehman's
financial statements were false and misleading. Mr. Valukas
concluded: "Ernst & Young had a professional obligation to
communicate the issue to both senior management and the Audit
Committee and to recommend corrections of the Forms 10-Q, and
also to either issue modified review reports noting the
materially inadequate disclosures, or to withhold its review
reports altogether."

The complaint notes that the Big Four auditor was made aware of
Lehman's improper use of Repo 105 transactions during its
investigation of claims made by a whistleblower.

Leading securities law firms Barroway Topaz, Bernstein Litowitz
and other firms jointly represent the lead plaintiffs - five
pension funds based in the U.S., Europe and Guam that owned more
than 140 million shares of Lehman equity. Nearly a dozen
individual and institutional investors joined the co-lead
plaintiffs in the suit.

A copy of the Third Amended Class Action Complaint in In re
Lehman Brothers Securities and ERISA Litigation, Case No.
09-md-02017 (S.D.N.Y.) (Kaplan, J.), is available at
http://is.gd/bIzwo


LINEBARGER GOOGAN: Sued for Charging Illegal Attorney's Fees
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Linebarger Googan Blair &
Sampson, of Texas, has taken in $16.5 million by charging 20%
attorney's fees for delinquent property tax collections in
Tennessee, though state law limits such charges to 10%, according
to a class action in Memphis Federal Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Wright v. Linebarger Googan
Blair & Sampson, LLP, Case No. 10-cv-02304 (W.D. Tenn.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/04/26/AttyCA.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Frank L. Watson, III, Esq.
          William F. Burns, Esq.
          WATSON BURNS, PLLC
          11 South Idlewild St.
          Memphis, TN 38104
          Telephone: 901-529-7996
          Email: fwatson@watsonburns.com
                 bburns@watsonburns.com
                     
               - and -

          Donald A. Donati, Esq.
          William B. Ryan, Esq.
          Bryce W. Ashby, Esq.
          DONATI LAW FIRM, LLP
          1545 Union Ave.
          Memphis, TN 38104
          Telephone: 901-278-1004


LOCKHEED MARTIN: Appeal on Class Certification Ruling Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lockheed Martin Corp.'s appeal on the certification of the class
in a lawsuit relating to its Stable Value Fund remains pending,
according to the company's April 21, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 28, 2010.

On Sept. 11, 2006, the company and its wholly-owned subsidiary,
Lockheed Martin Investment Management Company (LMIMCo), were
named as defendants in a lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Illinois, seeking to represent a
class of purportedly similarly situated participants and
beneficiaries in the company's Salaried Savings Plan and the
Hourly Savings Plan.  Plaintiffs allege that the company or
LMIMCo caused the Plans to pay expenses that were higher than
reasonable by, among other actions, permitting service providers
of the

Plans to engage in revenue sharing, paying investment management
fees for the company stock funds, and causing the company stock
funds to hold cash for liquidity, thus reducing the return on
those funds.  The plaintiffs further allege that the company or
LMIMCo failed to disclose information appropriately relating to
the fees associated with managing the Plans.

In August 2008, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, adding
allegations that the company or LMIMCo breached fiduciary duties
under ERISA by providing inadequate disclosures with respect to
the Stable Value Fund offered under the company's 401(k) plans.

In April 2009, the Judge dismissed the plaintiffs' claims that
were based on revenue sharing but let stand the claims about the
company stock funds, the Stable Value Fund, and the overall fees
paid by the plans.  The Judge also certified a class for each
plan for the claims concerning the Stable Value Fund and the
overall fees paid by the plans.

The company is appealing that order.

Lockheed Martin Corp. -- http://www.lockheedmartin.com/-- is a  
global security company that employs about 136,000 people
worldwide and is principally engaged in the research, design,
development, manufacture, integration and sustainment of advanced
technology systems, products and services.  The Corporation
reported 2009 sales of $45.2 billion.


MUELLER INDUSTRIES: Tenn. Suit Over ACR Copper Tubes Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Mueller Industries, Inc., still faces a consolidated class-action
suit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Tennessee brought on behalf of indirect purchasers of copper
tubes used in, among other things, the manufacturing of air-
conditioning and refrigeration units (ACR copper tubes).

Two copper tube actions were commenced in June and August 2006 in
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee and
were consolidated to become the Indirect-Purchaser ACR Tube
Action.

In general, the copper tube actions allege anticompetitive
activities with respect to the sale of copper plumbing tubes
(copper plumbing tubes).  These suits are seeking monetary and
other relief.

The company and Mueller Europe are named in the Indirect-
Purchaser ACR Tube Action.  The company and Mueller Europe have
been served, but have not yet been required to respond to the
claims.

No further updates were reported in the company's April 21, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 27, 2010.

Mueller Industries, Inc. -- http://www.muellerindustries.com/--  
manufactures copper, brass, plastic, aluminum, and other
products.  The range of these products include copper tube and
fittings; brass and copper alloy rod, bar, and shapes; aluminum
and brass forgings; aluminum and copper impact extrusions;
plastic pipe, fittings and valves; refrigeration valves and
fittings; fabricated tubular products; and steel nipples.  The
company also resells imported brass and plastic plumbing valves,
malleable iron fittings, faucets and plumbing specialty products.  
Mueller's operations are located throughout the U.S., and in
Canada, Mexico, Great Britain, and China.  The company's operates
through two segments: the Plumbing and Refrigeration segment and
the Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEM) segment.


MUELLER INDUSTRIES: Plaintiffs Want Copper Tubes Suit Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in an Indirect-Purchaser Copper Tube Action
against Mueller Industries, Inc., have filed a stipulation for
dismissal of the suit, according to the company's April 21, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 27, 2010.

The copper tube action, which the company calls as the Indirect-
Purchaser Copper Tube Action, was filed in July 2006, and is a
purported class action brought on behalf of indirect purchasers
of copper plumbing tubes and ACR copper tubes in the U.S. and
alleges anticompetitive activities with respect to the sale of
both copper plumbing tubes and ACR copper tubes.  It seeks
monetary and other relief.

The company, Mueller Europe, WTC Holding Co., Deno Holding
Company, and Deno Acquisition Eurl are named defendants in the
Indirect-Purchaser Copper Tube Action.

The company, Mueller Europe, WTC Holding Company, and Deno
Holding Company have been served, but have not yet been required
to respond, in the Indirect-Purchaser Copper Tube Action.  

Deno Acquisition Eurl has not been served with the complaint in
the Indirect-Purchaser Copper Tube Action.

On April 20, 2010, plantiffs filed with the court overseeing the
Indirect-Purchaser Copper Tube Action a Stipulation for Dismissal
with Prejudice pursuant to the class-action settlement filed in
the Indirect Purchaser Plumbing Tube Action.

The Stipulation seeks a court order of dismissal, which is
currently before the court.

Mueller Industries, Inc. -- http://www.muellerindustries.com/--  
manufactures copper, brass, plastic, aluminum, and other
products.  The range of these products include copper tube and
fittings; brass and copper alloy rod, bar, and shapes; aluminum
and brass forgings; aluminum and copper impact extrusions;
plastic pipe, fittings and valves; refrigeration valves and
fittings; fabricated tubular products; and steel nipples.  The
company also resells imported brass and plastic plumbing valves,
malleable iron fittings, faucets and plumbing specialty products.  
Mueller's operations are located throughout the U.S., and in
Canada, Mexico, Great Britain, and China.  The company's operates
through two segments: the Plumbing and Refrigeration segment and
the Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEM) segment.


US BANCORP: Removes Auto Loan Overdraft Lawsuit to N.D. Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gloria Villegas, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated v. US Bancorp, et al., Case No. SCV-246995 (Calif.
Super. Ct., Sonoma Cty.), was filed on March 10, 2010.  Ms.
Villegas alleges that U.S. Bancorp automatically deducted loan
payments due on her automobile loan from her checking account
even though it knew that her account had insufficient funds,
resulting in her incurring overdraft charges, in violation of the
terms of her automobile loan contract.  Ms. Villegas says the
terms of her loan contract provide that automatic deductions from
her account would stop if her account had insufficient funds.  
Ms. Villegas seeks to recover the overdraft and related fees in
the lawsuit.

On the basis of diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Sec.
1332(d)(2) and the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, on April
23, 2010, U.S. Bancorp removed the lawsuit to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California, and the Clerk
assigned Case No. 10-cv-01762 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Donald F. Seth, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF DONALD F. SETH
          290 B. Street, Suite 205
          Santa Rosa, CA 95401
          Telephone: (707) 545-6370
          E-mail: donaldfseth@gmail.com

               - and -

          S. Chandler Visher, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF S. CHANDLER VISHER
          44 Montgomery St., Suite 3830
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 901-0500
          E-mail: chandler@visherlaw.com

               - and -

          Marie Noel Appel, Esq.
          CONSUMER LAW OFFICE OF MARIE NOEL APPEL
          44 Montgomery St., Suite 3830
          San Francisco, CA 94140
          Telephone: (415) 901-0508
          E-mail: marie@consumerlaw.ws

The Defendants are represented by:

          Donald P. Rubenstein, Esq.
          Heather B. Hoesterey, Esq.
          REED SMITH LLP
          101 Second St., Suite 1800
          San Francisco, CA 94105-3659
          Telephone: (415) 543-8700
          E-mail: drubenstein@reedsmith.com
                  hhoesterey@reedsmith.com


WASTE CONNECTIONS: Settles FLSA Violations Suit in California
-------------------------------------------------------------
Waste Connections, Inc., has entered into a settlement to resolve
a complaint alleges violations under the Fair Labor Standards
Act, according to the company's April 21, 2010, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2010.

On Jan. 15, 2009, a complaint captioned Heath Belcher and Denessa
Arguello v. Waste Connections, Inc., and Waste Connections of
California, Inc. was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of California, naming the company and its
subsidiary, Waste Connections of California, Inc., as defendants.

The complaint alleges violations under the Fair Labor Standards
Act related to overtime compensation, and alleges violations
under California labor laws related to overtime compensation,
unpaid wages, meal and rest breaks, and wage statements.  The
complaint also alleges violations under the California Unfair
Competition Law based on the foregoing alleged violations.

The complaint seeks class certification and various forms of
relief, including declaratory judgment, statutory penalties,
unpaid back wages, liquidated damages, restitution, interest, and
attorneys' fees and costs.

The company has responded to the complaint and has contested
liability.  Following discovery, the named plaintiffs elected to
negotiate a settlement of their claims rather than move the court
for class certification.

As a result, the two named plaintiffs, as well as five additional
individuals who had filed consents to join the litigation,
executed individual Settlement Approval and Release Forms.

On Feb. 8, 2010, the parties' counsel executed a Stipulation for
Settlement and Dismissal and filed a Stipulation and Proposed
Order for Dismissal with Prejudice with the court.

Waste Connections, Inc. -- http://www.wasteconnections.com/-- is  
an integrated solid waste services company that provides solid
waste collection, transfer, disposal and recycling services in
mostly secondary markets in the Western and Southern U.S.  The
company serves approximately two million residential, commercial
and industrial customers from a network of operations in 26
states.  The company also provides intermodal services for the
movement of containers in the Pacific Northwest.  Waste
Connections, Inc. was founded in September 1997 and is
headquartered in Folsom, California.


YUM! BRANDS: Class Certified in Suit by Taco Bell RGMs
------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs' request for class certification in the suit filed
on behalf of all current and former Restaurant General
Managers against Taco Bell Corp., has been granted, according to
YUM! Brands, Inc.'s April 21, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 20, 2010.

Taco Bell is a concept owned and operated by YUM! Brands, Inc.

On Aug. 4, 2006, a putative class action lawsuit against Taco
Bell Corp. styled Rajeev Chhibber vs. Taco Bell Corp., was
filed in Orange County Superior Court.  On Aug. 7, 2006, another
putative class action lawsuit styled Marina Puchalski v. Taco
Bell Corp., was filed in San Diego County Superior Court.

Both lawsuits were filed by a Taco Bell RGM purporting to
represent all current and former RGMs who worked at corporate-
owned restaurants in California from August 2002, to the present.

The lawsuits allege violations of California's wage and hour laws
involving unpaid overtime and meal period violations and
seek unspecified amounts in damages and penalties.

As of Sept. 7, 2006, both cases have been consolidated in San
Diego County.  

Based on plaintiffs' revised class definition in their class
certification motion, Taco Bell removed the case to federal
court in San Diego on Aug. 29, 2008.  Plaintiffs have sought to
remand the case back to state court and the court took the
matter under submission without a hearing on Nov. 17, 2008.

On March 17, 2009, the court granted plaintiffs' motion to
remand.  

On Jan. 29, 2010, the court granted the plaintiffs' class
certification motion with respect to the unpaid overtime claims
of RGMs and Market Training Managers but denied class
certification on the meal period claims.

YUM! Brands, Inc. -- http://www.yum.com/-- is a quick service  
restaurant (QSR) with over 35,000 units in more than 100
countries and territories.  Through the five concepts of KFC,
Pizza Hut, Taco Bell, LJS and A&W (the Concepts), the company
develops, operates, franchises and licenses a worldwide system of
restaurants, which prepare, package and sell a menu of food
items.  In all five of its Concepts, the company either operates
units or they are operated by independent franchisees or
licensees under the terms of franchise or license agreements.  In
addition, the company owns non-controlling interests in
Unconsolidated Affiliates who operate similar to franchisees.


YUM! BRANDS: Dismissed as Defendant in Consolidated Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
YUM! Brands, Inc., has been dismissed as a defendant in a
consolidated complaint against Taco Bell Corp., according to the
company's April 21, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March
20, 2010.

On Sept. 10, 2007, a putative class action against Taco Bell
Corp., the company and other related entities styled Sandrika
Medlock v. Taco Bell Corp., was filed in United States District
Court, Eastern District, Fresno, California.  The case was filed
on behalf of all hourly employees who have worked at corporate-
owned restaurants in California since September 2003 and alleges
numerous violations of California labor laws including unpaid
overtime, failure to pay wages on termination, denial of meal and
rest breaks, improper wage statements, unpaid business expenses
and unfair or unlawful business practices in violation of
California Business & Professions Code Section 17200.  The
company was dismissed from the case without prejudice on January
10, 2008.

On April 11, 2008, Lisa Hardiman filed a Private Attorneys
General Act complaint in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Fresno against Taco Bell Corp., the company
and other related entities.  This lawsuit, styled Lisa Hardiman
vs. Taco Bell Corp., et al., was filed on behalf of Hardiman
individually and all other aggrieved employees pursuant to PAGA.  
The complaint seeks penalties for alleged violations of
California's Labor Code.  On June 25, 2008, Hardiman filed an
amended complaint adding class action allegations on behalf of
hourly employees in California very similar to the Medlock case,
including allegations of unpaid overtime, missed meal and rest
periods, improper wage statements, non-payment of wages upon
termination, unreimbursed business expenses and unfair or
unlawful business practices in violation of California Business &
Professions Code Section 17200.

On June 16, 2008, a putative class action lawsuit against Taco
Bell Corp. and the company, styled Miriam Leyva vs. Taco Bell
Corp., et al., was filed in Los Angeles Superior Court.  The case
was filed on behalf of Leyva and purportedly all other California
hourly employees and alleges failure to pay overtime, failure to
provide meal and rest periods, failure to pay wages upon
discharge, failure to provide itemized wage statements, unfair
business practices and wrongful termination and discrimination.  
The Company was dismissed from the case without prejudice on Aug.
20, 2008.

On Nov. 5, 2008, a putative class action lawsuit against Taco
Bell Corp. and the Company styled Loraine Naranjo vs. Taco Bell
Corp., et al., was filed in Orange County Superior Court.  The
case was filed on behalf of Naranjo and purportedly all other
California employees and alleges failure to pay overtime, failure
to reimburse for business related expenses, improper wage
statements, failure to pay accrued vacation wages, failure to pay
minimum wage and unfair business practices.  The company filed a
motion to dismiss on Dec. 15, 2008, which was denied on Jan. 20,
2009.

On March 26, 2009, Taco Bell was served with a putative class
action lawsuit filed in Orange County Superior Court against Taco
Bell and the Company styled Endang Widjaja vs. Taco Bell Corp.,
et al.  The case was filed on behalf of Widjaja, a former
California hourly assistant manager, and purportedly all other
individuals employed in Taco Bell's California restaurants as
managers and alleges failure to reimburse for business related
expenses, failure to provide rest periods, unfair business
practices and conversion.  Taco Bell removed the case to federal
district court and filed a notice of related case.  On June 18,
2009 the case was transferred to the Eastern District of
California.

On May 19, 2009 the court granted Taco Bell's motion to
consolidate the Medlock, Hardiman, Leyva and Naranjo matters, and
the consolidated case is styled In Re Taco Bell Wage and Hour
Actions.  On July 22, 2009, Taco Bell filed a motion to dismiss,
stay or consolidate the Widjaja case with the In Re Taco Bell
Wage and Hour Actions, and Taco Bell's motion to consolidate was
granted on Oct. 19, 2009.

The In Re Taco Bell Wage and Hour Actions plaintiffs filed a
consolidated complaint on June 29, 2009, and on March 30, 2010
the court approved the parties' stipulation to dismiss YUM from
the action.

The court set a filing deadline of Aug. 26, 2010 for motions
regarding class certification.  The hearing on any class
certification motion is currently scheduled for January 10, 2011.  
Discovery is underway.

YUM! Brands, Inc. -- http://www.yum.com/-- is a quick service  
restaurant (QSR) with over 35,000 units in more than 100
countries and territories.  Through the five concepts of KFC,
Pizza Hut, Taco Bell, LJS and A&W (the Concepts), the company
develops, operates, franchises and licenses a worldwide system of
restaurants, which prepare, package and sell a menu of food
items.  In all five of its Concepts, the company either operates
units or they are operated by independent franchisees or
licensees under the terms of franchise or license agreements.  In
addition, the company owns non-controlling interests in
Unconsolidated Affiliates who operate similar to franchisees.


YUM! BRANDS: Taco Bell Continues to Defend "Rosales" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Taco Bell Corp., continues to defend a putative class action
styled Marisela Rosales v. Taco Bell Corp., according to YUM!
Brands, Inc.'s April 21, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March
20, 2010.

The suit was filed on Sept. 28, 2009, in Orange County Superior
Court.

The plaintiff, a former Taco Bell crew member, alleges that Taco
Bell failed to timely pay her final wages upon termination, and
seeks restitution and late payment penalties on behalf of herself
and similarly situated employees.  This case appears to be
duplicative of the In Re Taco Bell Wage and Hour Actions case.

Taco Bell removed the case to federal court on Nov. 5, 2009, and
subsequently filed a motion to dismiss, stay or transfer the case
to the same district court as the In Re Taco Bell Wage and Hour
Actions case.

The parties stipulated to remand of the case to Orange County
Superior Court on March 18, 2010.  Taco Bell's answer or other
responsive pleading is due by April 19, 2010.

YUM! Brands, Inc. -- http://www.yum.com/-- is a quick service  
restaurant (QSR) with over 35,000 units in more than 100
countries and territories.  Through the five concepts of KFC,
Pizza Hut, Taco Bell, LJS and A&W (the Concepts), the company
develops, operates, franchises and licenses a worldwide system of
restaurants, which prepare, package and sell a menu of food
items.  In all five of its Concepts, the company either operates
units or they are operated by independent franchisees or
licensees under the terms of franchise or license agreements.  In
addition, the company owns non-controlling interests in
Unconsolidated Affiliates who operate similar to franchisees.


YUM! BRANDS: Hines Has Until May 17 to File Certification Motion
----------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiff in the matter Domonique Hines v. KFC U.S.
Properties, Inc., has until May 17, 2010, to file a motion for
class certification. according to YUM! Brands, Inc.'s April 21,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 20, 2010.

On Oct. 2, 2009, a putative class action was filed in California
state court on behalf of all California hourly employees alleging
various California Labor Code violations, including rest and meal
break violations, overtime violations, wage statement violations
and waiting time penalties.  Plaintiff is a current non-
managerial KFC restaurant employee represented by the same
counsel that filed the action  Kenny Archila v. KFC U.S.
Properties, Inc.

KFC filed an answer on Oct. 28, 2009, in which it denied
plaintiff's claims and allegations.  KFC removed the action to
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
on Oct. 29, 2009.  KFC filed a motion to transfer the action to
the Central District of California due to the overlapping nature
of the claims in this action and the Archila action.  
Plaintiff filed a motion to remand the action to state court.

The District Court denied both of the motions and ordered
Plaintiff to file her motion for class certification by May 17,
2010.  Discovery is ongoing.  No trial date has been set.

YUM! Brands, Inc. -- http://www.yum.com/-- is a quick service  
restaurant (QSR) with over 35,000 units in more than 100
countries and territories.  Through the five concepts of KFC,
Pizza Hut, Taco Bell, LJS and A&W (the Concepts), the company
develops, operates, franchises and licenses a worldwide system of
restaurants, which prepare, package and sell a menu of food
items.  In all five of its Concepts, the company either operates
units or they are operated by independent franchisees or
licensees under the terms of franchise or license agreements.  In
addition, the company owns non-controlling interests in
Unconsolidated Affiliates who operate similar to franchisees.


YUM! BRANDS: KFC Faces Labor Violations Suit in California
----------------------------------------------------------
KFC USA, Inc., faces a putative action alleging violations of the
California Labor Code, according to YUM! Brands, Inc.'s April 21,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 20, 2010.

On March 5, 2010, a putative class action, styled Noe Rivera v.
KFC USA, Inc., KFC U.S. Properties, Inc., and KFC Corporation,
was filed in California state court on behalf of all California
hourly employees alleging various California Labor Code
violations, including rest break violations, failure to reimburse
for uniform expenses, overtime violations, wage statement
violations and waiting time penalties.  Plaintiff was a non-
managerial KFC restaurant employee.

With the exception of the uniform claim, these claims are
duplicative of the claims in the matters Kenny Archila v. KFC
U.S. Properties, Inc., and Domonique Hines v. KFC U.S.
Properties, Inc.

The case is in its early stages and discovery has not yet
commenced.  No trial date has been set.

YUM! Brands, Inc. -- http://www.yum.com/-- is a quick service  
restaurant (QSR) with over 35,000 units in more than 100
countries and territories.  Through the five concepts of KFC,
Pizza Hut, Taco Bell, LJS and A&W (the Concepts), the company
develops, operates, franchises and licenses a worldwide system of
restaurants, which prepare, package and sell a menu of food
items.  In all five of its Concepts, the company either operates
units or they are operated by independent franchisees or
licensees under the terms of franchise or license agreements.  In
addition, the company owns non-controlling interests in
Unconsolidated Affiliates who operate similar to franchisees.


YUM! BRANDS: Taco Bell Defends ADSA-Violations Suit in Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Taco Bell continues to defend a class action lawsuit alleging
violations of the U.S. Americans with Disabilities Act, according
to YUM! Brands, Inc.'s April 21, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 20, 2010.

On Dec. 17, 2002, Taco Bell was named as the defendant in a class
action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California styled Moeller, et al. v. Taco Bell Corp.

On Aug. 4, 2003, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that
alleges, among other things, that Taco Bell has discriminated
against the class of people who use wheelchairs or scooters for
mobility by failing to make its approximately 220 company-owned
restaurants in California accessible to the class.  Plaintiffs
contend that queue rails and other architectural and structural
elements of the Taco Bell restaurants relating to the path of
travel and use of the facilities by persons with mobility-related
disabilities do not comply with the U.S. Americans with
Disabilities Act, the Unruh Civil Rights Act, and the California
Disabled Persons Act.

Plaintiffs have requested:

     (a) an injunction from the District Court ordering Taco
         Bell to comply with the ADA and its implementing
         regulations;

     (b) that the District Court declare Taco Bell in violation
         of the ADA, the Unruh Act, and the CDPA; and

     (c) monetary relief under the Unruh Act or CDPA.

Plaintiffs, on behalf of the class, are seeking the minimum
statutory damages per offense of either $4,000 under the Unruh
Act or $1,000 under the CDPA for each aggrieved member of the
class.  Plaintiffs contend that there may be in excess of 100,000
individuals in the class.

On Feb. 23, 2004, the District Court granted plaintiffs' motion
for class certification.  The class includes claims for
injunctive relief and minimum statutory damages.

On May 17, 2007, a hearing was held on plaintiffs' Motion for
Partial Summary Judgment seeking judicial declaration that Taco
Bell was in violation of accessibility laws as to three specific
issues: indoor seating, queue rails and door opening force.  On
Aug. 8, 2007, the court granted plaintiffs' motion in part with
regard to dining room seating.  In addition, the court granted
plaintiffs' motion in part with regard to door opening force at
some restaurants (but not all) and denied the motion with regard
to queue lines.

The parties participated in mediation on March 25, 2008, and
again on March 26, 2009, without reaching resolution.

On Dec. 16, 2009, the court denied Taco Bell's motion for summary
judgment on the ADA claims and ordered plaintiff to file a
definitive list of remaining issues and to select one restaurant
to be the subject of a trial.  The trial will be bifurcated and
the first stage will address equitable relief and whether
violations existed at the restaurant.  Taco Bell will have the
opportunity to renew its motion for summary judgment on those
issues.  Depending on the findings in the first stage of the
trial, the court may address the issue of damages in a separate,
second stage.

Taco Bell denies liability and intends to vigorously defend
against all claims in this lawsuit.  Taco Bell has taken certain
steps to address potential architectural and structural
compliance issues at the restaurants in accordance with
applicable state and federal disability access laws.

YUM! Brands, Inc. -- http://www.yum.com/-- is a quick service  
restaurant (QSR) with over 35,000 units in more than 100
countries and territories.  Through the five concepts of KFC,
Pizza Hut, Taco Bell, LJS and A&W (the Concepts), the company
develops, operates, franchises and licenses a worldwide system of
restaurants, which prepare, package and sell a menu of food
items.  In all five of its Concepts, the company either operates
units or they are operated by independent franchisees or
licensees under the terms of franchise or license agreements.  In
addition, the company owns non-controlling interests in
Unconsolidated Affiliates who operate similar to franchisees.


YUM! BRANDS: Pizza Hut Seeks Dismissal of Reimbursement Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Pizza Hut, Inc., intends to file a motion dismissing an amended
complaint alleging that it did not properly reimburse delivery
drivers for job-related expenses, according to YUM! Brands,
Inc.'s April 21, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 20, 2010.  

On July 9, 2009, a putative class action styled Mark Smith v.
Pizza Hut, Inc. was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Colorado.

The complaint alleges that Pizza Hut did not properly reimburse
its delivery drivers for various automobile costs, uniforms
costs, and other job-related expenses and seeks to represent a
class of delivery drivers nationwide under the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA) and Colorado state law.

On Jan. 4, 2010, plaintiffs filed a motion for conditional
certification of a nationwide class of current and former Pizza
Hut, Inc. delivery drivers.

However, on March 11, 2010, the court granted Pizza Hut's pending
motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, with leave to
amend.

On March 31, 2010, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.  Pizza
Hut is considering filing a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint.

YUM! Brands, Inc. -- http://www.yum.com/-- is a quick service  
restaurant (QSR) with over 35,000 units in more than 100
countries and territories.  Through the five concepts of KFC,
Pizza Hut, Taco Bell, LJS and A&W (the Concepts), the company
develops, operates, franchises and licenses a worldwide system of
restaurants, which prepare, package and sell a menu of food
items.  In all five of its Concepts, the company either operates
units or they are operated by independent franchisees or
licensees under the terms of franchise or license agreements.  In
addition, the company owns non-controlling interests in
Unconsolidated Affiliates who operate similar to franchisees.


WAL-MART STORES: 9th Cir. Endorses Gender Discrimination Class
--------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Elias at The Associated Press reports that a sharply divided
federal appeals court on Monday exposed Wal-Mart Stores Inc. to
billions of dollars in legal damages when it ruled a massive
class action lawsuit alleging gender discrimination over pay for
female workers can go to trial.

In its 6-5 ruling, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit said the world's largest private employer will have to
face charges that it pays women less than men for the same jobs
and that female employees receive fewer promotions and have to
wait longer for those promotions than male counterparts.

The retailer, based in Bentonville, Ark., has fiercely fought the
lawsuit since it was first filed by six women in federal court in
San Francisco in 2001, losing two previous rulings in the trial
court and again in the appeals court in 2007.

Wal-Mart successfully convinced the appeals court to revisit its
2007 ruling made by a three-judge panel with a larger 11-judge
panel, arguing that women who allege discrimination should file
individual lawsuits.

Wal-Mart employs 2.1 million workers in 8,000 stores worldwide
and argued that the conventional rules of class action suits
should not apply because each outlet operates as an independent
business. Since it doesn't have a companywide policy of
discrimination, Wal-Mart argued that women alleging gender bias
should file individual lawsuits against individual stores.

Finally, the retailer argued that the lawsuits is simply too big
to defend.

"Although the size of this class action is large, mere size does
not render a case unmanageable," Judge Michael Daly Hawkins wrote
for the majority court, which didn't address the merits of the
lawsuit, leaving that for the trial court.

Judge Sandra Ikuta wrote a blistering dissent, joined by four of
her colleagues.

"No court has ever certified a class like this one, until now.
And with good reason," Ikuta wrote. "In this case, six women who
have worked in thirteen of Wal-Mart's 3,400 stores seek to
represent every woman who has worked in those stores over the
course of the last decade -- a class estimated in 2001 to include
more than 1.5 million women."

Analysts said the ruling was a setback to Wal-Mart's campaign to
improve its image with shoppers.

The ruling was a "big black eye for Wal-Mart, and it's not going
to heal anytime in the near future," said retail consultant Burt
P. Flickinger. Flickinger said the ruling could turn off women
shoppers -- the company's critical base -- at a time it faces
increased pressure from a host of competitors, ranging from
Kroger to J.C. Penney.


Wal-Mart's fourth-quarter results, announced in February, showed
that total sales at its U.S. Walmart stores fell for the first
time since the company went public in 1969. The company also
reported its third consecutive quarter of declines in sales at
stores opened at least a year. Sales at stores opened at least a
year are considered a key indicator of a retailer's health.

Wal-Mart officials sought to focus on the few portions of the 95-
page ruling that went its way, including the possible trimming of
the number of women who stand to collect damages if Wal-Mart is
found liable. The appeals court ordered the trial judge to
determine whether the lawsuit should date to all workers as of
1998, as alleged in the complaint, or to 2001 when it was filed.

The appeals court also told the trial judge to reconsider the
appropriateness of awarding punitive damages, which are awarded
above actual damages to punish the accused for bad behavior.

Wal-Mart's top lawyer Jeff Gearhart said the company disagreed
with the ruling and was considering its next step, which could
include an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

"We do not believe the claims alleged by the six individuals who
brought this suit are representative of the experiences of our
female associates," said Gearhart, an executive vice president.
"Walmart is an excellent place for women to work and fosters
female leadership among our associates and in the larger business
world."

The attorneys suing Wal-Mart said they expected an appeal of
their near-complete legal victory.

"It upheld the heart of the case," said Brad Seligman, the lead
lawyer suing Wal-Mart. Seligman said the lawsuit includes newly
hired employees and accused Wal-Mart of continuing discriminatory
practices.

Unions and other critics have long complained that Wal-Mart's
workplace practices needed improvement, especially in the areas
of diversity and career advancement.

The discounter responded to the pressure last year at its annual
shareholders' meeting by announcing a plan to address the issue
of promoting women, creating a "global council" comprised of 14
Wal-Mart female executives.

"We are proud of the strides we have made to advance and support
our female associates and have been recognized for our efforts to
advance women through a number of awards and accolades," Gearhart
said.

A copy of the opinion in Dukes, et al. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,
Nos. 04-16688 and 04-16720 (9th Cir.), is available at:
     
     http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?60bc

The Plaintiffs-Appellees/Cross-Appellants are represented by:

          Brad Seligman, Esq.
          THE IMPACT FUND
          125 University Ave., Suite 102
          Berkeley CA 94710
          Telephone: 510-845-3473
          E-mail: bseligman@impactfund.org   

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. is represented by:

          Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr., Esq.
          GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER
          333 South Grand Ave.
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197
          Telephone: 213-229-7804
          E-mail: tboutrous@gibsondunn.com


WELLS FARGO: D. Minn. Certifies 401(k) Plan Participant Class
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bailey & Glasser, a Charleston, West Virginia-based law firm, has
obtained class certification in Figas v. Wells Fargo & Co., Case
No. 08-4546 (D. Minn.) (Magnuson, J.).  The class consists of as
many as 160,000 Wells Fargo employees who collectively invested
billions of dollars in their 401(k) plan accounts in mutual funds
managed by Wells Fargo Funds Management.

The plaintiffs allege that Wells Fargo violated federal pension
law by putting its own interests ahead of the interests of its
employees when Wells Fargo invested 401(k) plan retirement
savings in mutual funds managed by Wells Fargo. The plaintiffs
believe that their 401(k) plan investments would have done much
better in investments unaffiliated with Wells Fargo.

The court rejected defendants' argument that the case was not
suitable as a class action because some participants were
"winners" and some were "losers" with respect to their investment
in the Wells Fargo mutual funds.

"[T]he claims are brought on behalf of the plan itself, not on
behalf of each individual who participated in the plan," the
court wrote. "Thus, the focus is not on each participant's injury
or lack thereof, but rather on injury to the plan."

The court added that while some class members did not lose money
on their investments, or did not lose as much money as Figas did,
this would not defeat class certification. "[A] breach of
fiduciary duty that causes no monetary harm is still a violation
of ERISA," the court concluded.

Gregory Porter, a partner in Bailey & Glasser's Washington
office, argued the motion for class certification on behalf of
the plaintiffs. "We are pleased that the Court certified a class
action and rejected defendants' arguments," said Porter. "Of
late, we've seen a lot of opposition to class certification in
pension cases that, frankly, stand the law on its head. We're
glad the Court saw through those arguments."

The plaintiffs are represented by Bailey & Glasser's Washington,
D.C. office; McTigue & Veis, Washington, D.C., and Sprenger &  
Lang, Washington, D.C.

Bailey & Glasser has offices in Charleston and Morgantown, WV,
Washington, D.C., and Springfield, Ill.  The firm has a staff of
31 experienced and highly educated lawyers, licensed in 11
states. The firm's litigation practice focuses on high-stakes,
complex litigation, including class and individual actions
involving defective products, consumer finance, employee
benefits, as well as criminal defense and complex regulatory
proceedings. The firm also has a robust transactional practice,
completing many multi-million dollar commodity transactions.


ZENITH NATIONAL: Court Denies Preliminary Injunction on Vote
------------------------------------------------------------
The Delaware Court of Chancery has denied the preliminary
injunction requested by the plaintiffs in a consolidated suit
against Zenith National Insurance Corp., to prevent stockholder
vote on its merger with Fairfax Financial Holdings Limited,
according to the company's April 23, 2010, Form 8-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

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

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

The two Delaware actions are:

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

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

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

The plaintiffs have moved for a preliminary injunction to prevent
the stockholder vote on the Merger.  The motion was heard by the
Court on April 22, 2010.

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


ZENITH NATIONAL: Defends Consolidated Suit Over Fairfax Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
Zenith National Insurance Corp., defends a consolidated suit in
the Superior Court of the State of California in relation to its
planned merger with Fairfax Financial Holdings Limited, according
to the company's April 21, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March
31, 2010.

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

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

The three California actions are:

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

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

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

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

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

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

The plaintiffs have stipulated that they will not seek injunctive
relief in that case in connection with the Merger as long as the
plaintiffs in the Delaware action proceed with their preliminary
injunction motion.

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

                            *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills,
Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland
USA.  Gracele D. Canilao, Leah Felisilda, Joy A. Agravante,
Ronald Sy and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2010.  All rights reserved.  ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via
e-mail.  Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each.  For subscription information, contact Christopher
Beard at 240/629-3300.

                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *