CAR_Public/100517.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, May 17, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 95

                            Headlines

AETNA INC: Plaintiffs' Appeal on Dismissal of Suit Still Pending
AETNA INC: Continues to Defend UCR Litigation in New Jersey
ALIGN TECH: Sued for Illegal Quota Requirements for "Invisalign"
BP PLC: Hagens Berman Files Oil Spill Lawsuit in S.D. Miss.
BUSINESS IN MOTION: Accused in Canada of Running Pyramid Scheme

CHILDREN'S PLACE: Recalls 29,000 Denim Cargo Shorts
COLGATE-PALMOLIVE: Continues to Defend ERISA-Violations Suit
FLOWSERVE CORP: N.D. Tex. Dismisses Securities Class Action Suit
GOLDMAN SACHS JBWERE: Optionholders Threaten Suit in Australia
HARRIS CORP: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Suit

HURON CONSULTING: Seeks Dismissal of Consolidated Complaint
ILLINOIS BELL: Accused of Posting Bogus Charges to Phone Bills
IMAGINE NATION: Recalls 46,000 Remote-Controlled Helicopters
JUNK FOOD: Recalls 24,000 Children's Hooded Sweatshirts
KKR FINANCIAL: Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint Still Pending

LAUTREC CORPORATION: Charged With Sending Unsolicited Messages
LOWER MERION: Plaintiff Abandons Spy-Cam Class Action Allegation
MDL 2179: Venue Debate Begins in Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill MDL
MORGAN STANLEY: C.D. Calif. Denies Certification of Advisor Class
NBTY INC: Accused in N.Y. Suit of Misleading Shareholders

NINER BIKES: Recalls 750 Bicycle Frame
REED ELSEVIER: Judge Grants Motion to Recuse in Lexi-Nexis Suit
ROME SNOWBOARDS: Recalls 3120 Snowboard Boot Bindings
STEP2 COMPANY: Recalls 2.5MM Push Around and Whisper Ride Buggies
TIME WARNER CABLE: Class Members Appeal Attorneys' Fees

TIME WARNER CABLE: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Complaint
TOMMY HILFIGER: Recalls 1,700 Tommy Hilfiger Sweatshirts
TOYOTA MOTOR: Plaintiffs Says Economic Damages Could Top $7 Bil.
TRANSOCEAN LTD: Files Petition in S.D. Tex. to Limit Liability
TYCO ELECTRONICS: Approval of Settlement in "Stumpf" Pending

UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Amended Complaint Adds 30 Employee-Defendants
WAL-MART STORES: Paying Up to $86 Mil. in Calif. Wage & Hour Suit
ZURN PEX PLUMBING: D. Minn. Certifies Plaintiff Class

                            *********

AETNA INC: Plaintiffs' Appeal on Dismissal of Suit Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
The appeal of the plaintiffs on the dismissal of a consolidated
complaint against Aetna Inc., remains pending in the Third
Circuit Court of Appeals.

Two purported class action lawsuits were pending in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against
Aetna and certain of its current or former officers and/or
directors.

On Oct. 24, 2007, the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation
Authority filed suit on behalf of all purchasers of Aetna common
stock between Oct. 27, 2005 and April 27, 2006.  The second
lawsuit was filed on Nov. 27, 2007, by the Plumbers and
Pipefitters Local 51 Pension Fund on behalf of all purchasers of
the company's common stock between July 28, 2005 and July 27,
2006.

On June 3, 2008, plaintiffs in these two lawsuits filed a
consolidated complaint in the Pennsylvania Federal Court on
behalf of all purchasers of the company's common stock between
Oct. 27, 2005 and July 27, 2006.  The consolidated complaint
supersedes and replaces the two previous complaints.

The plaintiffs allege that Aetna and four of its current or
former officers and/or directors, John W. Rowe, M.D., Ronald A.
Williams, Alan M. Bennett and Craig R. Callen, violated federal
securities laws.  The plaintiffs allege misrepresentations and
omissions regarding, among other things, the company's medical
benefit ratios and health plan pricing practices, as well as
insider trading by Dr. Rowe and Messrs. Bennett and Callen.

The plaintiffs seek compensatory damages plus interest and
attorneys' fees, among other remedies.

On June 9, 2009, the Pennsylvania Federal Court granted Aetna's
motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint.  On July 7, 2009,
the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the Pennsylvania
Federal Court's order dismissing the consolidated complaint.

On Feb. 11, 2010, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals conducted
oral arguments on the plaintiff's appeal.

No further updates were reported in the company's April 29, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

Aetna Inc. -- http://www.aetna.com/-- is a diversified health  
care benefits company.  Its offers a range of traditional and
consumer-directed health insurance products and related services,
including medical, pharmacy, dental, behavioral health, group
life and disability plans, and medical management capabilities
and health care management services for Medicaid plans.  Aetna's
customers include employer groups, individuals, college students,
part-time and hourly workers, health plans, governmental units,
government-sponsored plans, labor groups and expatriates.  It
operates under three segments: Health Care, Group Insurance and
Large Case Pensions.  In November 2009, Psychiatric Solutions,
Inc., completed the sale of its employee assistance program (EAP)
business to the company.  In addition, on Nov. 1, 2009, Aetna,
Inc. completed the acquisition of Horizon Behavioral Services,
LLC.


AETNA INC: Continues to Defend UCR Litigation in New Jersey
-----------------------------------------------------------
Aetna Inc., continues to defend the matter In re: Aetna UCR
Litigation, MDL No. 2020, pending in the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Jersey.

The company is named as a defendant in several purported class
actions and individual lawsuits arising out of its practices
related to the payment of claims for services rendered to the
company's members by health care providers with whom the company
does not have a contract (out-of-network providers).  Other major
health insurers are also the subject of similar litigation or
have settled similar litigation.  Among other things, these
lawsuits charge that the company paid too little to its health
plan members and/or providers for these services, among other
reasons, because of the company's use of data provided by
Ingenix, Inc., a subsidiary of one of its competitors.

Various plaintiffs who are health care providers or medical
associations seek to represent nationwide classes of out-of-
network providers who provided services to the company's members
during the period from 2001 to the present.  Various plaintiffs
who are members in the company's health plans seek to represent
nationwide classes of the company's members who received services
from out-of-network providers during the period from 2001 to the
present.  Taken together, these lawsuits allege that the company
violated state law, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
of 1974, as amended, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act and federal antitrust laws, either acting alone
or in concert with its competitors.

The purported classes seek reimbursement of all unpaid benefits,
recalculation and repayment of deductible and coinsurance
amounts, unspecified damages and treble damages, statutory
penalties, injunctive and declaratory relief, plus interest,
costs and attorneys' fees, and seek to disqualify us from acting
as a fiduciary of any benefit plan that is subject to ERISA.  
Individual lawsuits that generally contain similar allegations
and seek similar relief have been brought by a health plan member
and by out-of-network providers.

The first class action case was commenced on July 30, 2007.  The
federal Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation has
consolidated these class action cases in federal district court
in New Jersey under the caption In re: Aetna UCR Litigation, MDL
No. 2020.

A purported member class action lawsuit which makes the same
allegations as the other consolidated member class action
lawsuits is pending in federal court in California.  In addition,
the MDL Panel has transferred the individual lawsuits to MDL
2020.  Discovery has commenced in MDL 2020, and the court has not
set a trial date.

No further updates were reported in the company's April 29, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

Aetna Inc. -- http://www.aetna.com/-- is a diversified health  
care benefits company.  Its offers a range of traditional and
consumer-directed health insurance products and related services,
including medical, pharmacy, dental, behavioral health, group
life and disability plans, and medical management capabilities
and health care management services for Medicaid plans.  Aetna's
customers include employer groups, individuals, college students,
part-time and hourly workers, health plans, governmental units,
government-sponsored plans, labor groups and expatriates.  It
operates under three segments: Health Care, Group Insurance and
Large Case Pensions.  In November 2009, Psychiatric Solutions,
Inc., completed the sale of its employee assistance program (EAP)
business to the company.  In addition, on Nov. 1, 2009, Aetna,
Inc. completed the acquisition of Horizon Behavioral Services,
LLC.


ALIGN TECH: Sued for Illegal Quota Requirements for "Invisalign"
----------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher J. Leiszler, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated v. Align Technology, Inc., Case No. 10-cv-
02010 (N.D. Calif. May 10, 2010), accuses the manufacturer of the
"Invasalign" medical orthodontic device of implementing unfair
and fraudulent requirements for the prescription of its product.  
Invisalign is a series of removable, clear aligners that slowly
straighten teeth.  Dr. Leiszler says that after doctors underwent
a training course, for which they each paid roughly $2,000, each
prescribing doctor was required to meet a quota of at least 10
new Invisalign cases per year, or else they would be decertified.  
Dr. Leiszler states that Align's illegal practices violate the
public policy of the State of California, as the sole purpose of
the quota requirement is to increase doctor prescribed sales of
its product.  Align withdrew this quota requirement on April 22,
2010.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason s. Hartley, Esq.
          Jason M. Lindner, Esq.
          STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
          550 West C St., Suite 610
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 400-5822
          E-mail: hartley@stuevesiegel.com
                  lindner@stuevesiegel.com

               - and -

          Patrick J. Stueve, Esq.
          Bradley T. Wilders, Esq.
          STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
          460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
          Kansas City, MO 64112
          Telephone: (816) 714-7100
          E-mail: stueve@stuevesiegel.com
                  wilders@stuevesiegel.com


BP PLC: Hagens Berman Files Oil Spill Lawsuit in S.D. Miss.
-----------------------------------------------------------
The owner of a fishing boat and a charter boat captain that
operate in the Gulf of Mexico filed a class-action lawsuit
against BP America for record damages sustained after last
month's devastating BP oil spill in the Gulf, according to Hagens
Berman, the Seattle-based class action law firm representing the
Gulf fishing industry.

Brian Howard's Charger Fishing LLC, et al. v. Transocean Ltd., et
al., Case No. 10-cv-00207 (S.D. Miss.), accuses BP and other oil
drilling companies of damaging property and natural fishing
resources, effectively bankrupting the local fishing industry.

"This environmental disaster has turned into a financial disaster
for fisherman that own and operate chartered boats in the Gulf of
Mexico," said Steve Berman, Esq., managing partner of Hagens
Berman. "You just don't go deep sea fishing in waters saturated
with crude oil."

Mr. Berman is far too familiar with the complexities surrounding
environmental litigation, especially related to oil spills. He
protected the rights of shareholders in the Exxon litigation
after the Exxon Valdez tanker spilled more than 10 million
gallons of oil off the coast of Alaska in 1989.  He recommends
those who believe they could be impacted by the most recent oil
spill to contact attorneys at Hagens Berman at
bpspill@hbsslaw.com

BP America, Inc. along with offshore oil drilling companies,
Transocean, Halliburton Energy and Cameron International are
charged with negligently discharging crude oil into the Gulf of
Mexico and polluting natural fishing resources.

On April 22, 2010, The Deepwater Horizon, an offshore drilling
rig leased by the oil company BP, sank and began to leak more
than 200,000 gallons of crude oil a day. Weeks later, BP and
federal officials still struggle to find a solution that will
control the oil from further leaking into the waters. Already,
news reports indicate that the oil has penetrated the coast line
of Louisiana, Alabama and Florida.

Attorneys are interested to hear from local fisherman, boat
captains and their crew members adversely impacted by the BP oil
spill in April 2010.  Please contact attorneys at
bpspill@hbsslaw.com or visit http://www.hbsslaw.com/BPspillfor  
more information about this case.

                       About Hagens Berman

Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP -- http://www.hbsslaw.com/-- is  
a consumer-rights class-action law firm with offices in San
Francisco, Seattle, Chicago, Boston, Los Angeles, and Phoenix.
Since 1993, HBSS continues to successfully fight for consumer
rights in large, complex litigation.


BUSINESS IN MOTION: Accused in Canada of Running Pyramid Scheme
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dan McCue at Courthouse News Service reports that a Toronto firm
ran a pyramid scheme based on a "time leverage" marketing system
and "perpetual motion products," according to a class action in
British Columbia Federal Court.  Mark Cuzzetto claims Business in
Motion International recruited him at a sales seminar at a
Vancouver Ramada Inn.

Mr. Cuzzetto claims defendants Alan Kippax, of Bayfield, Ontario,
and Ashif Mohamed, of Toronto, bilked him in a pyramid scheme.

Mr. Cuzzetto claims that new members of the company's sales force
must pay an $80 membership fee and to buy a "perpetual motion
product" for $3,200.

Mr. Cuzzetto says his payment got him one of two sales
representative positions then available on the company's
"perpetual motion corporate ladder."

He says the "position" required him to sell memberships and
"machines" to others.  Proceeds from sales were to work their way
up the ladder to more senior sales representatives.

Mr. Cuzzetto claims that he did his job well, earning enough
credits to qualify for a super vice president position.  But at
that point, he says, his perpetual motion ladder was "crushed,"
and he had to pay $100 to be transferred to another ladder.

Mr. Cuzzetto says that at no time has he received any
compensation from his participation.

Even his $3,200 investment in the "perpetual motion product" came
up wanting, he says.  When he tried to use his product, an "Ultra
Life Club Membership," for a trip he was planning to Hawaii,
Mr. Cuzzetto found the hotel rate it offered was more expensive
than the price offered through Expedia.

He wants his money back, with interest, and damages.

A copy of the Complaint in Cuzzetto v. Business in Motion
International Corporation, et al., Case No. T-696-10 (Canada Fed.
Ct.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/05/12/Perpetual.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ward K. Branch, Esq.
          Luciana P. Brasil, Esq.
          BRANCH MACMASTER LLP
          1410-777 Hornby St.
          Vancouver, BC V6Z 1S4
          CANADA
          Telephone: 604-654-2999

               - and -

          Paul Bennett, Esq.
          Mark Mounteer, Esq.
          HORDO & BENNETT
          1801-808 Nelson St.
          Vancouver, BC V6Z 2H2
          CANADA
          Telephone: 604-682-5250


CHILDREN'S PLACE: Recalls 29,000 Denim Cargo Shorts
---------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
The Children's Place Services Company LLC, of Secaucus, NJ,
announced a voluntary recall of about 29,000 Denim Cargo Shorts.

The denim shorts' metal snaps could detach from the shorts,
posing a choking hazard.

No injuries or incidents have been reported.

The recall involves denim shorts sold at The Children's Place
with item numbers 567844 or 567967 only.  The item number can be
found on a sewn-in label located on the side of the shorts. The
shorts were sold in sizes 0/3 months to 12 months.  Shorts with
other item numbers are not included in this recall.  Pictures of
the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10735.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold through
The Children's Place Services online store from March 23, 2010
through April 8, 2010 for about $12.

Consumers should immediately take the recalled shorts away from
children.  E-commerce customers will be mailed a postage-pre-paid
envelope with instructions on how to return the shorts for a full
refund.  For additional information, contact The Children's Place
Services between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday
through Friday toll-free at (877) 752-2387 or visit the firm's
website at http://www.childrensplace.com/


COLGATE-PALMOLIVE: Continues to Defend ERISA-Violations Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Colgate-Palmolive Company continues to defend a consolidated
action alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act, according to the company's April 29, 2010, Form 10-
Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2010.

In October 2007, a putative class action claiming that certain
aspects of the cash balance portion of the Colgate-Palmolive
Company Employees' Retirement Income Plan do not comply with the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act was filed against the
Plan and the company in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.

Specifically, Proesel, et al. v. Colgate-Palmolive Company
Employees' Retirement Income Plan, et al. alleges improper
calculation of lump sum distributions, age discrimination and
failure to satisfy minimum accrual requirements, thereby
resulting in the underpayment of benefits to Plan participants.

Two other putative class actions filed earlier in 2007, Abelman,
et al. v. Colgate-Palmolive Company Employees' Retirement Income
Plan, et al., in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio, and Caufield v. Colgate-Palmolive Company
Employees' Retirement Income Plan, in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Indiana, both alleging improper
calculation of lump sum distributions and, in the case of
Abelman, claims for failure to satisfy minimum accrual
requirements, were transferred to the Southern District of New
York and consolidated with Proesel into one action, In re
Colgate-Palmolive ERISA Litigation.

The complaint in the consolidated action alleges improper
calculation of lump sum distributions and failure to satisfy
minimum accrual requirements, but does not include a claim for
age discrimination.  The relief sought includes recalculation of
benefits in unspecified amounts, pre- and post-judgment interest,
injunctive relief and attorneys' fees.

This action has not been certified as a class action as yet.

Colgate-Palmolive Company -- http://www.colgate.com/-- is a  
leading global consumer products company, tightly focused on Oral
Care, Personal Care, Home Care and Pet Nutrition.  Colgate sells
its products in over 200 countries and territories around the
world under such internationally recognized brand names as
Colgate, Palmolive, Mennen, Softsoap, Irish Spring, Protex,
Sorriso, Kolynos, Elmex, Tom's of Maine, Ajax, Axion, Fabuloso,
Soupline and Suavitel, as well as Hill's Science Diet and Hill's
Prescription Diet.


FLOWSERVE CORP: N.D. Tex. Dismisses Securities Class Action Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
StreetInsider.com reports that on May 11, 2010, a federal judge
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Texas entered an order granting final approval of the settlement
of the securities class action lawsuit originally filed against
Flowserve Corporation (NYSE: FLS), and other defendants in 2003,
which the Company has previously disclosed in its public filings.
The District Court's order dismisses the lawsuit with prejudice
and includes a full and final release of all claims of the class
members against the Company and the other defendants.  The order
also acknowledges that the settlement does not constitute an
admission of any wrongdoing or liability on the part of the
Company or the other defendants.

Under the previously disclosed terms of the settlement, the
Company contributed $13.5 million to the $55 million total
settlement amount.  The Company's insurance carriers contributed
$40 million to the settlement amount, with another defendant
contributing the balance. The accrued reserve established by the
Company for its contribution under the terms of the settlement
was previously reported in the Company's financial results for
2009.


GOLDMAN SACHS JBWERE: Optionholders Threaten Suit in Australia
--------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Evans at The Sydney Morning Herald reports that Goldman
Sachs JBWere is set to be targeted in a $15 million legal case
from class action specialists Slater & Gordon, amid allegations
of misleading and deceptive conduct on a series of options
contracts.

Already under fire in the US for its promotion of controversial
derivatives products, Goldman's Australian operations are now at
the centre of claims involving "buy below the market" option
contracts sold to clients in 2007. Clients claim losses of about
$15 million against the company.

Slater & Gordon is also investigating breaches of legal duties by
Goldman Sachs JBWere.

Litigation funder Litigation Lending Services is backing the
investigation. Documents are yet to be lodged in court.

Van Moulis from Slater & Gordon said clients are claiming they
were sold the ''buy below the market'' contracts as a protection
against a sudden downturn in the stock market.

"But when the crunch came clients were locked into buying shares
in blue chip companies at prices well above their market value,"
Mr Moulis said.

"Our clients claim the product was sold to them as an appropriate
hedge against downside risk in the equity market. However, our
clients allege Goldman Sachs failed to explain that if the market
moved against them they would be required to buy the shares at
above the market or settle the difference in cash.

"On the basis of our investigation it appears the marketing of
the product was misleading and it seems the product was
inadequate to protect our clients against the market collapse,"
Mr Moulis said.

Slater & Gordon alleges Goldman Sachs developed the "buy below
the market" product inhouse and marketed it as ''American call
options".  

In reality it was a rolling futures contract, not an option,
Slater & Gordon said.

Attempts to resolve the claim have as yet been unsuccessful.  

Goldman Sachs JBWere declined to comment.


HARRIS CORP: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Harris Corp. continues to defend a consolidated federal
securities class action complaint filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Delaware.

Harris Stratex Networks, Inc., a former subsidiary of the
company, and certain of its current and former officers and
directors, including certain current officers of the company,
were named as defendants in a federal securities class action
complaint filed on Sept. 15, 2008 by plaintiff Norfolk County
Retirement System on behalf of an alleged class of purchasers of
HSTX securities from Jan. 29, 2007 to July 30, 2008, including
shareholders of Stratex Networks, Inc. who exchanged shares of
Stratex for shares of HSTX as part of the combination between
Stratex and our former Microwave Communications Division to form
HSTX.

Similar complaints were filed in the Court on Oct. 6, 2008 and
Oct. 30, 2008.

The complaints were consolidated in a slightly expanded complaint
filed on July 29, 2009 that added Harris Corp. and Ernst & Young
LLP as defendants.  This action relates to public disclosures
made by HSTX on Jan. 30, 2007 and July 30, 2008, which included
the restatement of HSTX's financial statements for the first
three fiscal quarters of its fiscal 2008 (the quarters ended
March 28, 2008, Dec. 28, 2007 and Sept. 28, 2007) and for its
fiscal years ended June 29, 2007, June 30, 2006 and July 1, 2005
due to accounting errors.

The consolidated complaint alleges violations of Section 10(b)
and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act and of Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, as well as violations of Section 11 and
Section 15 of the Securities Act, and seeks, among other relief,
determinations that the action is a proper class action,
unspecified compensatory damages and reasonable attorneys' fees
and costs.

No further updates were reported in the company's April 29, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended April 2, 2010.

Harris Corp. -- http://www.harris.com/-- together with its  
subsidiaries, is an international communications and information
technology (IT) company serving government and commercial markets
in more than 150 countries.  The company is focused on developing
assured communications products, systems and services for global
markets, including radio frequency (RF) communications,
government communications and broadcast communications.  The
company is organized in three segments: RF Communications
segment, Government Communications Systems segment and Broadcast
Communications segment.


HURON CONSULTING: Seeks Dismissal of Consolidated Complaint
-----------------------------------------------------------
Huron Consulting Group Inc., seeks to dismiss a consolidated
complaint in connection with the restatement of its financial
statements, pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, according to the company's April 29, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

These purported shareholder class action complaints have been
filed in connection with the company's restatement:

     (1) a complaint in the matter of Jason Hughes v. Huron
         Consulting Group Inc., Gary E. Holdren and Gary L.
         Burge, filed on Aug. 4, 2009;

     (2) a complaint in the matter of Dorothy DeAngelis v. Huron
         Consulting Group Inc., Gary E. Holdren, Gary L. Burge,
         Wayne Lipski and PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, filed on
         Aug. 5, 2009;

     (3) a complaint in the matter of Noel M. Parsons v. Huron
         Consulting Group Inc., Gary E. Holdren, Gary L. Burge,
         Wayne Lipski and PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, filed on
         Aug. 5, 2009;

     (4) a complaint in the matter of Adam Liebman v. Huron
         Consulting Group Inc., Gary E. Holdren, Gary L. Burge
         and Wayne Lipski, filed on Aug. 5, 2009;

     (5) a complaint in the matter of Gerald Tobin v. Huron
         Consulting Group Inc., Gary E. Holdren, Gary L. Burge
         and PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, filed on Aug. 7, 2009,

     (6) a complaint in the matter of Gary Austin v. Huron
         Consulting Group Inc., Gary E. Holdren, Gary L. Burge
         and Wayne Lipski, filed on Aug. 7, 2009 and

     (7) a complaint in the matter of Thomas Fisher v. Huron
         Consulting Group Inc., Gary E. Holdren, Gary L. Burge,
         Wayne Lipski and PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, filed on
         Sept. 3, 2009.

On Oct. 6, 2009, Plaintiff Thomas Fisher voluntarily dismissed
his complaint.

On Nov. 16, 2009, the remaining suits were consolidated and the
Public School Teachers' Pension & Retirement Fund of Chicago, the
Arkansas Public Employees Retirement System, the City of Boston
Retirement Board, the Cambridge Retirement System and the Bristol
County Retirement System were appointed Lead Plaintiffs.

Lead Plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint on Jan. 29, 2010.

The consolidated complaint asserts claims under Section 10(b) of
the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder
against Huron Consulting Group, Inc., Gary Holdren and Gary Burge
and claims under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against Gary
Holdren, Gary Burge and Wayne Lipski.

The consolidated complaint contends that the company and the
individual defendants issued false and misleading statements
regarding the company's financial results and compliance with
accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of
America.

Lead Plaintiffs request that the action be declared a class
action, and seek unspecified damages, equitable and injunctive
relief, and reimbursement for fees and expenses incurred in
connection with the action, including attorneys' fees.

On March 30, 2010, Huron, Gary Burge, Gary Holdren and Wayne
Lipski jointly filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated
complaint.

Huron Consulting Group Inc. --
http://www.huronconsultinggroup.com/-- is a provider of  
operational and financial consulting services.  The company
provides consulting services to a variety of organizations,
including academic institutions, healthcare organizations,
Fortune 500 companies, medium-sized businesses, and the law
firms.  Effective Jan. 1, 2010, the company operated three
segments: Health and Education Consulting, Legal Consulting and
Financial Consulting.  The Financial Consulting segment practices
primarily include the restructuring and turnaround, disputes and
investigations, accounting advisory and utilities service
offerings.  Its Health and Education Consulting segment provides
consulting services to hospitals, health systems, physicians,
managed care organizations, academic medical centers, colleges,
universities, and pharmaceutical and medical device
manufacturers.  Its Legal Consulting segment provides guidance
and business services to address the challenges that confront
legal organizations.


ILLINOIS BELL: Accused of Posting Bogus Charges to Phone Bills
--------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Mathless, individually and on behalf of a class v.
Illinois Bell Telephone Company, et al., Case No. 2010-CH-20057
(Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty. May 10, 2010), asserts unfair and
deceptive acts and practices.  Mr. Mathless accuses Bell
Telephone of including a $14.95 bogus charge in his January 25,
2010 AT&T statement of account, supposedly on behalf of defendant
Residential Email, LLC, and another $14.95 charge on behalf of
defendant Employee Notification Services, Inc., in the same AT&T
statement, when he had not requested or agreed to receive
services from these companies.  Mr. Mathless alleges that AT&T
and the billing aggregator-Defendants that placed the charges
submitted to them by third parties received a portion of the fees
paid.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
          Cathleen M. Combs, Esq.
          James O. Latturner, Esq.
          Francis R. Greene, Esq.
          EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC
          120 S. LaSalle St., 18th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 739-4200


IMAGINE NATION: Recalls 46,000 Remote-Controlled Helicopters
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Imagine Nation Books Limited/Books Are Fun, of Boulder, Colo.,
announced a voluntary recall of about 46,000 "Fly Dragonfly"
(also called "Queen Bee") Remote-Controlled Helicopters.  
Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless
otherwise instructed.

The rechargeable battery inside the helicopters can overheat,
igniting the helicopter and posing fire and burn hazards to
consumers.

The firm has received 49 reports of the helicopters overheating,
including six reports of flames coming from the helicopters, and
one report of minor property damage.  No injuries have been
reported.

This recall involves the "Fly Dragonfly" (also called "Queen
Bee") remote-controlled helicopters.  The helicopters are black
and yellow plastic, measure about 19 inches long by 6 1/2 inches
high. The helicopters have a rounded front yellow cockpit with
bee decals and a narrow black plastic tail assembly.  They were
sold with a remote-control unit and a separate charger.  "Fly
Dragonfly" and SKU #51727 are printed on the packaging.  Pictures
of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10228.html

The recalled products were manufactured China and sold though
book/gift fairs held in schools, hospitals and office buildings
nationwide from August 2009 through January 2010 for about $38.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled helicopters
and contact Imagine Nation Books Ltd/Books Are Fun to receive a
full refund.  For additional information, contact Imagine Nation
Books Ltd./Books are Fun at (800) 917-0213 between 8:00 a.m. and
5:00 p.m., Mountain Time, Monday through Friday, visit the firm's
website at http://www.booksarefun.com/helicopter.php/


JUNK FOOD: Recalls 24,000 Children's Hooded Sweatshirts
-------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Junk Food Clothing Co., of Los Angeles, Calif., announced a
voluntary recall of about 24,000 Children's hooded sweatshirts
with drawstrings.  Consumers should stop using recalled products
immediately unless otherwise instructed.

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

No injuries or incidents have been reported.

This recall involves all children's pullover and zippered hooded
sweat shirts with drawstrings sold under the "Junk Food" brand
name.  These sweatshirts were sold in a variety of print designs
and in children's sizes small, medium, large and extra-large.  
The "Junk Food" logo is sewn into the neck of the garment.  
Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10232.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold though
department stores and retail outlets nationwide between June 2006
and August 2009 for about $35.

Consumers should immediately remove the drawstrings from the
sweatshirts to eliminate the hazard.  Consumers can also return
the product to the store where purchase for a refund.  For
additional information, contact Junk Food Clothing Co. toll-free
at (877) 458-5865 between 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Pacific Time,
Monday through Friday, visit the firm's website at
http://www.junkfoodclothing.com/or send an e-mail to  
productrecall@junkfoodforever.com


KKR FINANCIAL: Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
KKR Financial Holdings LLC's motion to dismiss an amended
complaint remains pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

On Aug. 7, 2008, the members of the company's board of directors
and certain of its current and former executive officers and the
company were named in a putative class action complaint filed by
Charter Township of Clinton Police and Fire Retirement System in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

On March 13, 2009, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint,
which deleted as defendants the members of the company's board of
directors and named as defendants only the company's former chief
executive officer Saturnino S. Fanlo, former chief operating
officer David A. Netjes, current chief financial officer Jeffrey
B. Van Horn and the company.

The amended complaint alleges that our April 2, 2007,
registration statement and prospectus and the financial
statements incorporated therein contained material omissions in
violation of Section 11 of the Securities Act, regarding the
risks and potential losses associated with the company's real
estate-related assets, the company's ability to finance our real
estate-related assets and the adequacy of the company's loss
reserves for its real estate-related assets.

The amended complaint further alleges that, pursuant to Section
15 of the Securities Act, Messrs. Fanlo, Netjes and Van Horn each
have legal responsibility for the alleged Section 11 violation.  
On April 27, 2009, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint for failure to state a claim under the
Securities Act.

No further updates were reported in the company's April 29, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

KKR Financial Holdings LLC is a publicly traded specialty finance
company with expertise in a range of asset classes.  KKR
Financial Holdings LLC is externally managed by KKR Financial
Advisors LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Kohlberg Kravis
Roberts & Co. (Fixed Income) LLC, which is a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co. L.P.  KKR Financial
Holdings LLC executes its core business strategy through
majority-owned subsidiaries.


LAUTREC CORPORATION: Charged With Sending Unsolicited Messages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Julie Umnus, individually and on behalf of ohters similarly
situated v. Lautrec Corporation d/b/a McFadden's, Case No.
2010-CH-20067 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty. May 10, 2010), alleges
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.  Ms. Umnus
accuses the restaurant chain operator of making unsolicited text
advertisements to consumers' cell phones, resulting in actual
harm to consumers, because they "frequently have to pay their
cell phone service providers for the receipt of such wireless
spam."  Ms. Umnus wants McFadden to stop sending unwanted
messages and asks the Court to award statutory damages to the
class members, plus costs.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael J. McMorrow, Esq.
          Collin Bond, Esq.
          EDELSON MCGUIRE, LLC
          350 North LaSalle St., Suite 1300
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 589-6470


LOWER MERION: Plaintiff Abandons Spy-Cam Class Action Allegation
----------------------------------------------------------------
John P. Martin at the Philadelphia Inquirer reports that the Penn
Valley family whose lawsuit against the Lower Merion School
District launched a firestorm over the district's use of webcams
to track student laptops has dropped its plans to seek class-
action damages.

In court filings made public Wednesday, the lawyer for Harriton
High School sophomore Blake Robbins and his parents didn't back
away from their claim that the district invaded the teen's
privacy by secretly snapping hundreds of photos from his school-
issued computer last fall.

But the filing by attorney Mark Haltzman acknowledged for the
first time the Robbinses won't try to broaden their case for
damages to include other students whose rights may have been
violated by the laptop tracking system.

"We now realize that each person was damaged so uniquely that it
wouldn't be appropriate to seek damages as a class-action,"
Haltzman said.

The move could pave the way for a quicker settlement between
Lower Merion and the Robbinses and potentially minimize the
district's liability. It also opens the door, Haltzman's filing
says, for "parents of students who were spied upon by the School
District to bring individual damage actions."

Henry Hockeimer Jr., an attorney for school district, declined to
discuss the new filing.

The Robbinses' lawsuit, filed in February, described Blake
Robbins as a member of a larger class of potential victims. A
federal judge had set a June 7 deadline for them to file a motion
arguing why their lawsuit deserved to be certified as a class-
action case.

In the filing, Haltzman said the decision not to seek a class
certification followed successful negotiations with school
district officials and some of its parents in recent weeks.

The parties have signaled they are close to agreeing on an
injunction that would permanently ban Lower Merion from using
such technology to track student computers, implement new
policies and safeguards, and set up a process to let students and
parents who were captured by the webcams view the images.

A report released by Lower Merion's school board last week said
its investigators found no proof that district employees used the
tracking software technology to spy on students.

The investigators' report said the vast majority of images
collected by the software -- more than 56,000 -- came from
laptops that had been reported lost or stolen. But in nearly a
dozen cases, including Robbins', investigators couldn't determine
the reasons officials activated the webcams and tracking
software.


MDL 2179: Venue Debate Begins in Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill MDL
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tresa Baldas at The National Law Journal reports that plaintiffs
lawyers and defense counsel are squaring off over where those
scores of oil spill lawsuits should be consolidated.

The disaster has spawned cases in states all along the Gulf of
Mexico: Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Florida. But
so far the choice for a multidistrict litigation is focused on
Houston and New Orleans.

Looking for a home-field advantage, BP PLC -- through its lawyers
at Chicago's Kirkland & Ellis -- filed a motion with the U.S.
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on May 7 seeking to
consolidate the 100-plus lawsuits in the oil-friendly Southern
District of Texas. That's where all the defendants have
headquarters, where key witnesses and documents are located, and
where a majority of the state lawsuits have been filed, BP
argues.

The plaintiffs lawyers, who also filed a motion with the MDL
panel on May 7, prefer Louisiana. They argue it's where most of
the injured and the presumed dead are from; it's the state
nearest the accident site; and, perhaps most notably, past
multidistrict litigation has moved along quickly in the Eastern
District of Louisiana.

"Louisiana is the only place in the country that's ever had an
MDL where trials begin within one year of the judge getting the
case," said plaintiffs' attorney Daniel Becnel Jr., who signed
the motion seeking an MDL in New Orleans. Last week, a team of
attorneys, led by Becnel, drafted a joint prosecution agreement
to be circulated among 200-plus plaintiffs lawyers with oil spill
cases.

Becnel of the Becnel Law Firm in Reserve, La., pointed to recent
MDLs involving Vioxx, Chinese drywall and post-Hurricane Katrina
trailers -- all of them heard in the Eastern District of
Louisiana. All of them, Becnel said, produced trials within a
year.

Becnel said the judges in Louisiana "realize that [the purpose
of] an MDL is to process cases quickly. It's not to sit and hold
onto the case, such as happened in the Exxon Valdez case, where
it took almost 20 years for people to get paid."

BP's lawyers:

          J. Andrew Langan, Esq.
          Richard C. Godfrey, Esq.
          Matthew T. Regan, Esq.
          KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
          300 North LaSalle
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: 312-862-2000
          E-mail: andrew.langan@kirkland.com
                  richard.godfrey@kirkland.com
                  matthew.regan@kirkland.com

were not available for comment.  Attorneys at Jackson, Miss.'s
Forman Perry Watkins Krutz & Tardy, who are also representing BP,
declined to comment, as did BP officials.

The MDL panel has agreed to hear arguments on the matter at its
July session in Boise, Idaho.


MORGAN STANLEY: C.D. Calif. Denies Certification of Advisor Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kate Moser at The Recorder reports that a Los Angeles federal
judge has rejected certification for three proposed classes of
financial advisers at Morgan Stanley & Co.

In a strongly worded order entered last week, U.S. District Judge
Otis Wright II said that the plaintiffs had failed to meet all
four of the factors governing prerequisites for class actions.  A
copy of the Judge Wright's order is available at:

   http://pdfserver.amlaw.com/ca/order_denying_certification.pdf

In particular, Wright said that the proposed classes -- involving
roughly 1,600 class members -- don't have enough in common.

"Plaintiffs, apparently convinced that commonality and typicality
are entirely synonymous, pay a great deal of 'lip service' to
issues such as whether or not defendants' alleged business
expense-shifting policy was proper under California law," Wright
wrote. "In so doing, plaintiffs completely fail to address those
arguments raised by defendants that serve to most effectively
defeat a finding of typicality."

The plaintiffs, represented by Van Vleck Turner & Zaller in Los
Angeles, filed suit in state court in July 2009. They accuse the
company of systematically denying overtime pay and expense
allowances that it owed them. Morgan Stanley successfully removed
the case to federal court last September.

One observer said the ruling sounded unusual, since wage-and-hour
class actions in the financial services industry normally settle.

"It's been kind of an interesting industry to watch over the last
few years," said Robert Pattison, managing partner of the San
Francisco office of Jackson Lewis, who wasn't involved in the
case. "I saw a lot of those kinds of cases getting filed and
being rather quietly resolved."

Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe partner Lynne Hermle, head of the
firm's Silicon Valley employment group, led a team of 10 in
defeating the motion for certification.

"The decision is noteworthy because it is one of the few orders
within the industry resulting in the complete denial of all class
claims in the lawsuit," Hermle said on Wednesday. "The judge took
pains to emphasize not only that he had problems with these
particular name plaintiffs, but also the claims could not and
should not be certified regardless of who brought them."

In his order, Wright said he'd go beyond what he needed to find
to deny certification, explaining "out of an abundance of
caution" that the class certification wouldn't fly in this case
because the "rest of the factors relevant to the class
certification analysis similarly weigh against certification."

Brian Van Vleck, lead counsel for the plaintiffs in Drake v.
Morgan Stanley, Case No. 09-cv-06467 (C.D. Calif.), said they
"respectfully disagree" with the judge and would ask for review
from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

In particular, Van Vleck said, the plaintiffs argued that
financial advisers, based on their job description, shouldn't be
exempted from state and federal laws protecting workers, and the
order doesn't get to the merits of their argument.

"They treat them as administratively exempt, and we think that's
wrong because they're really salespeople," he said. "If anybody
could ever get to the merits, it'll be interesting to see what a
court will finally hold."

Van Vleck also disagreed with the aspect of Wright's order that
said the two name plaintiffs would inadequately represent the
proposed class. The judge pointed to counterclaims against one of
them, and "substance abuse and substandard performance" that the
other has, according to the ruling, admitted to.

Running with the judge's logic, Van Vleck said, "you can knock
out a whole class action by suing the name plaintiffs.  That's
unfair, and I think it's wrong, frankly."


NBTY INC: Accused in N.Y. Suit of Misleading Shareholders
---------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that while NBTY, a diet
supplement maker, pumped its stock price through false and
misleading statements, insiders dumped 1.6 million shares for $73
million, a class action claims in Central Islip, N.Y. Federal
Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Hutchins v. NBTY, Inc., et al., Case
No. 10-cv-02159 (E.D.N.Y.) (Wexler, J.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/05/13/SCA.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
          David A. Rosenfeld, Esq.
          Mario Alba, Jr., Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          58 South Service Rd., Suite 200
          Melville, NY 11747
          Telephone: 631-367-7100

               - and -

          Jeffrey A. Berens, Esq.
          DYER & BERENS LLP
          682 Grant St.
          Denver, CO 80203
          Telephone: 303-861-1764
  
               - and -

          Corey D. Holzer, Esq.
          Michael I. Fistel, Jr.
          HOLZER, HOLZER & FISTEL, LLC
          200 Ashford Center North, Suite 300
          Atlanta, GA 30338
          Telephone: 770-392-0090


NINER BIKES: Recalls 750 Bicycle Frame
--------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Niner Bikes of North Hollywood, California, announced a voluntary
recall of about 750 Bicycle frame.  Consumers should stop using
recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed.

A welding deficiency can cause the bicycle frames to crack along
the welds of the front triangle of the bicycle.  This can cause
the rider to lose control and crash.

Niner Bikes has not received any reports of injuries.  The
company has received 53 reports of cracks along the welds while
bicycles were in use.  

The recall involves bicycle frames that are all Jet 9 models
ranging sequentially from serial numbers P8001682 to P9400454.  
The frame is a full suspension model in the colors green, white
or black.  "Jet 9" and "Niner" are painted on the bicycle frame.  
The frame was made from 6000 series aluminum.  Pictures of the
recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10231.html

The recalled products were manufactured in Taiwan and sold though
bicycle stores nationwide and overseas from March 2008 through
September 2009 for $1,750.  

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled frames and
contact Niner Bikes for a replacement.  For additional
information, contact Niner Bikes toll-free at (877) 646-3792 from
9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Pacific Time, Monday through Friday or at
the firm's Web site at http://www.ninerbikes.com/


REED ELSEVIER: Judge Grants Motion to Recuse in Lexi-Nexis Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jacqueline J. Holness at Courthouse News Service reports that
attorneys won a round in their 3-year-long argument that Fulton
County is running an illegal, mandatory e-filing system.  DeKalb
County Superior Court Judge Robert J. Castellani granted a motion
to recuse all Fulton County State and Superior Judges from the
case.

"There exists at this point at least an appearance of
impropriety, i.e. a situation in which reasonable minds might
perceive that the ability of one of the Fulton County State or
Superior Court judges to carry out his or her responsibilities
respecting the instant action with impartiality, integrity and or
competence is impaired," Judge Castellani wrote.

Steven Newton, one of two plaintiffs' attorneys in McCurdy et al.
v. Fulton County and Lexis-Nexis Courtlink, said, "I'm pleased
with the order."

But Mr. Newton said he wonders what will happen as the case
progresses, as he has heard that Judge Castellani may retire at
the end of the year.  Mr. Newton expects the case to continue
beyond this year.

Herb Shellhouse, who represented Fulton County at the hearing on
the motion, declined to comment except to say that he was
"disappointed" by the decision.

Mr. Newton claims on behalf of his clients that Fulton County
State and Superior Court judges "participated in the scheme
enacted by the defendants to impose a mandatory e-filing system
upon litigants in Fulton County State and Superior Courts,
charging certain fees in connection therewith; that the judges
have participated in this scheme by promulgating a pilot program
or otherwise issuing administrative orders authoring co-defendant
Lexis-Nexis Courtlink Inc.'s mandatory e-filing scheme and charge
of fees therewith."

Documents in Fulton County State and Superior Courts, filed
through the LexisNexis File & Serve system, cost from $7 to $11
per filing in cases where electronic filing is mandated by orders
from Fulton County State and Superior Courts and authorized by
Fulton County.

In Fulton County State Court, cases with damage claims of more
than $50,000 and cases in which a dollar amount has been not been
specified must be electronically filed.

Also subject to mandatory e-filing are cases involving asbestos,
Fen-Phen, mercury and lead, silicosis, welding rods, medical
malpractice, legal malpractice, torts, personal injury cases and
civil cases with four or more parties.

The scope of cases that must be electronically filed in Fulton
County Superior is less broad, covering only asbestos and
silicosis damage claims.

Mr. Newton and Shuli Green represent W. Phillip McCurdy III,
Michael Cawthon, Nelson Picklesimer, Kenneth Clowdus as
administrator for the estate of Kenneth Larry Clowdus and The
Best Jewelry Manufacturing Co.

The lawsuit, filed on Jan. 6, is the fourth claim against Fulton
County and Reed Elsevier, owner of Lexis-Nexis Courtlink.

The Fulton County Superior Court case was originally filed in May
2009, then voluntarily dismissed and refiled on Jan. 6.

Mr. Newton filed a similar federal lawsuit against Lexis-Nexis
Courtlink and Fulton County in December 2007 but withdrew it in
March 2008, then refiled in June 2008.  That case was dismissed
in March 2009.

A copy of the Honorable Robert J. Castellani's May 4, 2010, Order
in McCurdy, et al. v. Fulton County Georgia, et al., Case No.
2010CV179757 (Ga. Super. Ct., Fulton Cty.), is available at:
     
     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/05/13/LexisOrder.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Steven J. Newton, Esq.
          Shuli Green, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF STEVEN J. NEWTON, P.C.
          215 14th St., NW
          Atlanta, GA 30318
          Telephone: 404-874-5006


ROME SNOWBOARDS: Recalls 3120 Snowboard Boot Bindings
-----------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Rome Snowboards Co., of Waterbury, Vt., announced a voluntary
recall of about 2,900 Snowboard Boot Bindings in the United
States and 220 in Canada.  Consumers should stop using recalled
products immediately unless otherwise instructed.

The snowboard binding's base plate can break at cold
temperatures, posing a fall hazard to snowboarders.

The firm has received 14 reports of base plates breaking.  No
injuries have been reported.

This recall involves the Rome Snowboards Co. 2010 United
snowboard bindings.  The bindings come in black and red color
themes and in sizes small, medium and large.  Rome is printed on
the highback. The bindings also have graphics on the back of the
highback and on the rear portion of the baseplate.  Pictures of
the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10230.html

The recalled products were manufactured China and sold though
snow sports retailers from September 2009 through December 2009
for about $160.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled snowboard
bindings and contact Rome Snowboards for free replacement
bindings.  For more information, contact Rome Snowboards at (866)
289-9990 between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Eastern Time, or visit
the firm's Web site at http://www.romesnowboards.com/


STEP2 COMPANY: Recalls 2.5MM Push Around and Whisper Ride Buggies
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Step2 Company, of Streetsboro, Ohio, announced a voluntary recall
of about 2.5 million Push Around and Whisper Ride Buggies.  
Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless
otherwise instructed.

A pin attaching to the yellow knob on the handle of the buggy can
loosen, causing the handle to detach from the buggy.  This poses
a serious risk of injury to young children.

The firm has received 28 reports of the handle detaching; two
incidents required professional medical treatment and 26 resulted
in minor scrapes and scratches.

This recall involves the Step2(R) Push Around Buggy(TM) and
Whisper Ride Buggy(TM) is ride-on toys.  The buggy comes in
various colors; such as, orange, red, blue, pink and green.  The
buggies have a red "Step2" logo on the handle of the buggy.  
Buggies that have a handle attached by a bolt with a plastic
white or black head and nut are not included in this recall.  
Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10229.html


The recalled products were manufactured United States and sold
though Major retailers and specialty stores from August 1999
through March 2010 for between $29 and $59.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled buggy and
contact Step2 for a free repair kit.  For additional information,
contact Step2 toll-free at (866) 860-1887 between 8:00 a.m. and
7:00 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday or visit the
firm's Web site at http://www.step2.com/


TIME WARNER CABLE: Class Members Appeal Attorneys' Fees
-------------------------------------------------------
The appeal of certain class members in a suit against Time Warner
Cable Inc. with respect to attorneys' fees, remains pending,
according to the company's April 29, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2010.

On June 16, 1998, plaintiffs in "Andrew Parker and Eric
DeBrauwere, et al. v. Time Warner Entertainment company, L.P.
and Time Warner Cable," filed a purported nationwide class-action
lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of New York claiming that TWE sold its subscribers' personally
identifiable information and failed to inform subscribers of
their privacy rights in violation of the Cable Communications
Policy Act of 1984 and common law.

The plaintiffs seek damages and declaratory and injunctive
relief.

On Aug. 6, 1998, TWE filed a motion to dismiss, which was denied
on Sept. 7, 1999.

On Dec. 8, 1999, TWE filed a motion to deny class certification,
which was granted on Jan. 9, 2001 with respect to monetary
damages, but denied with respect to injunctive relief.

On June 2, 2003, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
vacated the district court's decision denying class
certification as a matter of law and remanded the case for
further proceedings on class certification and other matters.

On May 4, 2004, plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification, which the company opposed.

On Oct. 25, 2005, the court granted preliminary approval of a
class settlement arrangement, but final approval of that
settlement was denied on Jan. 26, 2007.

On Oct. 25, 2005, the district court granted preliminary approval
of a class settlement arrangement, but final approval of that
settlement was denied on Jan. 26, 2007.

The parties subsequently reached a revised settlement to resolve
this action on terms that are not material to the company and
submitted their agreement to the district court on April 2, 2008.

On July 6, 2009, the district court granted approval of the
settlement, which certain class members have appealed with
respect to attorneys' fees.

Time Warner Cable Inc. -- http://www.timewarnercable.com/--  
operates as a cable operator in the U.S.  The company operates
in five geographic areas: New York state (including New York
City), the Carolinas, Ohio, southern California (including Los
Angeles) and Texas.


TIME WARNER CABLE: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Complaint
-----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a third amended complaint against Time Warner Cable
Inc. are appealing the dismissal of their suit with the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, according to the
company's April 29, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March
31, 2010.

On Sept. 20, 2007, Brantley, et al. v. NBC Universal, Inc., et
al. was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California against the company and Time Warner.

The complaint, which also named as defendants several other
programming content providers as well as other cable and
satellite providers, alleged violations of Sections 1 and 2 of
the Sherman Antitrust Act.

Among other things, the complaint alleged coordination between
and among the programmer defendants to sell and/or license
programming on a "bundled" basis to the distributor defendants,
who in turn purportedly offer that programming to subscribers in
packaged tiers, rather than on a per channel (a la carte) basis.

The plaintiffs, who seek to represent a purported nationwide
class of cable and satellite subscribers, demand, among other
things, unspecified treble monetary damages and an injunction to
compel the offering of channels to subscribers on an "a la
carte" basis.

On Dec. 3, 2007, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in this
action that, among other things, dropped the Section 2 claims
and all allegations of horizontal coordination.

On Dec. 21, 2007, the programmer defendants, including Time
Warner, and the distributor defendants, including TWC, filed
motions to dismiss the First Amended Complaint.

On March 10, 2008, the court granted these motions, dismissing
the First Amended Complaint with leave to amend.

On March 20, 2008, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint
that modified certain aspects of the First Amended Complaint in
an attempt to address the deficiencies noted by the court in its
prior dismissal order.

On April 22, 2008, the programmer defendants, including Time
Warner, and the distributor defendants, including the company,
filed motions to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint, which
motions were denied by the court on June 25, 2008.

On July 14, 2008, the programmer defendants and the distributor
defendants filed motions requesting the court to certify its
June 25, 2008 order for interlocutory appeal to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which motions were denied by the
district court on Aug. 4, 2008.

On July 14, 2008, the distributor defendants and the programmer
defendants filed motions requesting the court to certify its June
25, 2008 order for interlocutory appeal to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which motions were denied by the
district court on Aug. 4, 2008.

On May 4, 2009, by stipulation of the parties, plaintiffs filed a
third amended complaint and on June 12, 2009, the distributor
defendants and the programmer defendants filed a motion to
dismiss the Third Amended Complaint, which the district court
granted with prejudice on Oct. 15, 2009, terminating the action.

On April 19, 2010, plaintiffs appealed this decision to the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Time Warner Cable Inc. -- http://www.timewarnercable.com/--  
operates as a cable operator in the U.S.  The company operates
in five geographic areas: New York state (including New York
City), the Carolinas, Ohio, southern California (including Los
Angeles) and Texas.

TOMMY HILFIGER: Recalls 1,700 Tommy Hilfiger Sweatshirts
--------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Tommy Hilfiger U.S.A. Inc., of New York, N.Y., announced a
voluntary recall of about 400 Tommy Hilfiger Sweatshirts in the
United States and 1,300 in Canada.  Consumers should stop using
recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed.

The sweatshirts fail to meet federal flammability standards for
wearing apparel, posing a risk of burn hazard to consumers.

No injuries or incidents have been reported.

This recall involves Tommy Hilfiger brand children's sweatshirts
sold in sizes 4 to 16.  The sweatshirts have the letters "N.Y.C."
and "Hilfiger College" printed on the front.  Sweatshirts
included in this recall were sold in three styles.  Pictures of
the recalled products are available at:

   http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10233.html

The recalled products were manufactured in Indonesia and sold
though Tommy Hilfiger retail stores nationwide, Macy's Herald
Square (N.Y.) and at Tommy.com from August 2009 through January
2010 for between $50 and $70.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled sweatshirts
and contact Tommy Hilfiger to receive a full refund.  For
additional information, contact Tommy Hilfiger U.S.A. at (800)
866-6922 between 7:00 a.m. and 12:00 a.m., Eastern Time, daily,
or visit Tommy Hilfiger's website at http://www.tommy.com/


TOYOTA MOTOR: Plaintiffs Says Economic Damages Could Top $7 Bil.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad at The National Law Journal reports that
plaintiffs counsel could seek as much as $7.35 billion from
Toyota Motor Co. to compensate consumers for the diminished value
of their vehicles in light of problems with sudden unintended
acceleration, one of those lawyers said last week.

"I think we're blazing a new trail," said W. Daniel "Dee" Miles
III, a partner at Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis & Miles
in Montgomery, Ala.  He said the Toyota cases come with unique
circumstances compared to other consumer class actions.

Miles spoke during a full-day conference at the Westin South
Coast Plaza hotel in Costa Mesa, Calif., organized by the scores
of plaintiffs firms in the multidistrict litigation (MDL) against
Toyota. The first hearing in the MDL was scheduled for today in
federal court in nearby Santa Ana, Calif. The court was expected
to discuss which plaintiffs lawyers will serve on the lead
counsel committees in the case.

U.S. District Judge James Selna of the Central District of
California issued a temporary order appointing Cari Dawson and
Lisa Gilford of Alston & Bird as lead defense counsel in the
economic loss cases, and Vince Galvin and Joel Smith of Bowman
and Brooke as lead defense counsel in the personal injury and
wrongful death cases. He did not appoint specific plaintiffs
lawyers in his order.

More than 8 million Toyotas have been recalled for defects
associated with sudden unintended acceleration. More than 200
lawsuits have been consolidated in the MDL, most of them claiming
economic damages on behalf of consumers whose vehicles are now
worth less. Additional claims seek damages for those who died or
were injured, allegedly due to acceleration in their Toyotas.

The Toyota plaintiffs will enjoy some distinct advantages over
other tort actions arising from consumer contracts, said Miles,
who addressed a core group of about 40 lawyers. Among them is the
fact that several consumer ratings agencies have issued hard
estimates that Toyota vehicles have declined in value by between
2.6 percent and 3.77 percent.

That would put losses to consumers at between $5.1 billion and
$7.35 billion.

Lawyers at the conference were realistic about the challenges
they will face. In particular, they discussed the need to weed
out some of their weakest cases in the MDL, which Toyota could
suggest for a possible bellwether trial.

"We definitely have some hurdles," said Yvonne Flaherty of
Lockridge, Grindal, Nauen in Minneapolis.

Miles remained optimistic that plaintiffs lawyers would succeed.
"We have some of the best lawyers in this case."

The conference featured many of the most prominent lawyers in the
Toyota litigation, including Richard Arsenault of Neblett, Beard
& Arsenault in Alexandria, La., who organized the event; Mark
Geragos of the Law Offices of Mark Geragos in Los Angeles, who
was the scheduled keynote speaker; Mark Robinson of Robinson,
Calcagnie & Robinson in Newport Beach, Calif.; and Elizabeth
Cabraser of San Francisco's Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein.


TRANSOCEAN LTD: Files Petition in S.D. Tex. to Limit Liability
--------------------------------------------------------------
Transocean Ltd. (NYSE: RIG) (SIX: RIGN), at the instruction of
its insurers and in order to preserve insurance coverage,
disclosed that several of its affiliated companies have filed a
petition under the federal Limitation of [Shipowner's] Liability
Act, 46 U.S.C. Sec. 30501, et seq., in connection with the recent
Deepwater Horizon casualty.

A copy of the Complaint and Petition for Exoneration from or
Limitation of Liability in the admiralty proceeding captioned In
re the Complaint and Petition of Triton Asset Leasing GmbH, et
al., Case No. 10-cv-01721 (S.D. Tex) (Ellison, J.), is available
at http://is.gd/c8zj1and the Petitioners are represented by:

          Frank A. Piccolo, Esq.
          PREIS & ROY PLC
          Wesleyan Tower
          24 Greenway Plaza, Suite 2050
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: 713-355-6062
          E-mail: fpiccolo@preisroy.com

               - and -  

          Edward F. Kohnke, IV, Esq.
          Edwin G. Preis, Jr., Esq.
          Richard J. Hymel, Esq.
          Carl J. Hebert, Esq.
          PREIS & ROY PLC
          102 Versailles Blvd., Suite 400
          Lafayette, LA 70509
          Telephone: 377-237-6062
          E-mail: nkohnke@preisroy.com
                  epreis@preisroy.com

               - and -  

          Innes Mackillop, Esq.
          White Mackillop & Gallant P.C.
          2200 West Loop South, Suite 1000
          Houston, TX 77027
          Telephone: 713-599-0211
          E-mail: imackillop@wmglegal.com

               - and -  

          George M. Gilly, Esq.
          Evans Martin McLeod, Esq.
          PHELPS DUNBAR, LLP
          Canal Place
          365 Canal Street, Suite 2000
          New Orleans, LA 70130-6534
          Telephone: 504-566-1311
          E-mail: gillyg@phelps.com
                  mcleodm@phelps.com

               - and -  

          Marc G. Matthews, Esq.
          PHELPS DUNBAR, LLP
          700 Louisiana, Suite 2600
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: 713-626-1386
          E-mail: marc.matthews@phelps.com

Transocean said it believes this step is necessary to protect the
interests of its employees, its shareholders and the company.

The Company noted that one of the primary goals of this filing is
to consolidate in a single court many of the lawsuits that have
been filed following the Deepwater Horizon casualty to initiate
an orderly process for these lawsuits and claims before a single,
impartial federal judge. The filing also would establish a single
fund from which legitimate claims may be paid. Transocean
believes this type of orderly process is in the best interests of
all parties involved.

The company emphasized, however, that its focus remains centered
on remediation and meeting the needs of its injured and deceased
employees and their family members during this difficult time --
as demonstrated by the efforts of its family response team
members. The Company intends to pursue resolution with its
employees as quickly as possible, but out of respect, not before
the upcoming memorial service.

The company also emphasized that this filing does not impact
lawsuits filed under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, 33 U.S.C.
Sec. 2701, et seq., and that it will continue to provide all
possible support to BP and the Unified Command.

Among other things, the complaint asks that the Court issue an
injunction restraining certain lawsuits underway against these
companies in any jurisdiction other than the Southern District of
Texas. The petitioners noted in the complaint that more than 100
lawsuits have been filed against the companies in multiple states
and courts.

As set forth under Federal Law, the complaint also asks that the
companies be judged not liable on claims for certain, defined
losses or damages relating to the casualty or, if they are judged
to be liable, that the liability for such claims be limited to
the value of their interest in the Deepwater Horizon rig and its
freight including the accounts receivable and accrued accounts
receivable as of April 28, 2010. The petitioners assert in the
filing that the entire value of their interest does not exceed
$26,764,083. The petitioning companies in the action are Triton
Asset Leasing GmbH, owner; Transocean Holdings LLC, contract
operator; Transocean Deepwater Inc., employer of Deepwater
Horizon crew, and Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling Inc.,
employer of land-based crew.

Transocean, Ltd. is the world's largest offshore drilling
contractor and the leading provider of drilling management
services worldwide. With a fleet of 139 mobile offshore drilling
units plus three ultra-deepwater units under construction,
Transocean's fleet is considered one of the most modern and
versatile in the world due to its emphasis on technically
demanding segments of the offshore drilling business. Transocean
owns or operates a contract drilling fleet of 45 High-
Specification Floaters (Ultra-Deepwater, Deepwater and Harsh-
Environment semisubmersibles and drillships), 26 Midwater
Floaters, 10 High-Specification Jackups, 55 Standard Jackups and
other assets utilized in the support of offshore drilling
activities worldwide.


TYCO ELECTRONICS: Approval of Settlement in "Stumpf" Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
The approval of Tyco International Ltd.'s agreement settling the
matter Stumpf v. Tyco International Ltd., et al., for $79
million, remains pending, according to Tyco Electronics Limited's
April 29, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 26, 2010.

Tyco International and certain of its former directors and
officers were named as defendants in over 40 purported securities
class action lawsuits.  As a part of the Separation and
Distribution Agreement, any existing or potential liabilities
related to the securities class actions were allocated among Tyco
International, Covidien, and the company.

The company is responsible for 31% of potential liabilities that
may arise upon the resolution of remaining pending litigation.  
In 2007, Tyco International settled 32 of the purported
securities class action lawsuits arising from the actions alleged
to have been taken by its prior management in a class action
settlement, for which the company was responsible for 31% of the
settlement amount.  A number of individuals and entities who
opted out of the class action settlement filed actions against
Tyco International and/or Tyco International, Covidien, and the
company, all of which actions have been settled subsequently.

Nearly all of the remaining securities lawsuits were subsequently
settled, and in the second quarter of fiscal 2010, Tyco
International reached an agreement in principle to settle the
remaining significant lawsuit, Stumpf v. Tyco International Ltd.,
et al., for $79 million, with the company being responsible for
$24 million, pursuant to the sharing formula in the Separation
and Distribution Agreement.

The settlement will be subject to court approval and may be
subject to opt-out claims.  As the company had previously
established reserves for this case during the second quarter of
fiscal 2009, the agreement in principle did not impact its
Condensed Consolidated Statement of Operations.

Tyco Electronics Limited -- http://www.tycoelectronics.com/-- is  
a global provider of engineered electronic components,
network solutions, wireless systems and undersea
telecommunication systems.  The company designs, manufactures,
and markets products for customers in industries from automotive,
appliance, and aerospace and defense to telecommunications,
computers, and consumer electronics.  Its products are produced
in approximately 100 manufacturing sites in over 25 countries.  
The company is a wholly owned subsidiary of Tyco International
Limited.


UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Amended Complaint Adds 30 Employee-Defendants
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CaliforniaHealthline.com reports that attorneys for a California
surgery center filed an amended complaint in Los Angeles federal
court to add more than 30 employers and self-funded health plans
as defendants in a national class-action lawsuit against
UnitedHealth Group, citing a report appearing in the Los Angeles
Daily Journal.

                           Lawsuit Details

The suit, brought by Downey Surgical Clinic, alleges that
UnitedHealth Group's use of its Ingenix database led to routine
underpayments for out-of-network care.

The new defendants -- which include self-insured companies such
as Best Buy, Cingular Wireless and General Electric -- did not
directly interact with the Ingenix database because UnitedHealth
Group administered claims for the self-funded accounts. However,
prosecutors are seeking to hold the employers liable for the
underpayments, which frequently shifted costs to patients.

             Questions Over Setting Out-of-Network Rates

Under California law, insurers must reimburse out-of-network
health care providers based on "reasonable and customary value"
for services based on "statistically credible information that is
updated at least annually."

However, HMOs and insurers in California generally do not provide
substantial information on how they set their out-of-networks
rates.

Observers say the lawsuit could spur efforts to increase
transparency in how insurers and health care providers establish
reimbursement rates for out-of-network care.


WAL-MART STORES: Paying Up to $86 Mil. in Calif. Wage & Hour Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Stempel and Brad Dorfman at Reuters report that Wal-Mart
Stores Inc agreed to pay as much as $86 million to settle a
class-action lawsuit accusing it of failing to pay vacation,
overtime and other wages to thousands of former workers in
California.

About 232,000 people will share in the settlement, which was
disclosed on Tuesday in a federal court filing.

It requires a minimum payout of $43 million, and "far exceeds
other recent settlements" involving Wal-Mart, the filing shows.
The accord requires court approval.

Wal-Mart spokesman Greg Rossiter declined to comment.

The world's largest retailer was accused in the original 2006
complaint of failing to pay a variety of wages to former workers
as required under California law.

In agreeing to settle, the Bentonville, Arkansas-based company
did not concede that any wages remained unpaid, according to
Tuesday's filing.

The settlement is separate from Wal-Mart's 2008 agreement to pay
as much as $640 million to settle 63 federal and state class-
action lawsuits alleging it deprived workers of wages.

Last December, Wal-Mart also agreed to pay $40 million to settle
a class-action lawsuit over wages in Massachusetts.

The case is In re: Wal-Mart Stores Inc Wage and Hour Litigation,
Case No. 06-02069 (N.D. Calif.).


ZURN PEX PLUMBING: D. Minn. Certifies Plaintiff Class
-----------------------------------------------------
A federal court judge has certified a class action against Zurn
Pex, Inc., for claims related to "pex" plumbing systems that fail
and leak prematurely. The class certification allows all owners
of Zurn pex plumbing systems in Minnesota to bring their claims
in a single class action lawsuit. It is estimated that as many as
50,000 properties in Minnesota have Zurn pex systems.

Pex systems are plastic pipe plumbing systems made from cross-
linked polyethylene.  The pipe is joined together by fittings
that are clamped in place.  Zurn's pex fittings can be identified
by a "Q PEX" stamp on their side.

The class action alleges that Zurn used brass fittings that were
susceptible to failure from processes called stress corrosion
cracking and dezincification. The suit claims that Zurn used
foreign manufacturers to supply fittings made from brass that was
destined to crack and leak when used in this type of plumbing
system.

According to one of the plaintiff's attorneys:

          Shawn M. Raiter, Esq.
          Larson King, LLP
          30 7th Street West
          Saint Paul, MN 55102
          Telephone: (651) 312-6500
          E-mail: sraiter@larsonking.com

problems with Zurn's brass fittings can cause significant damage.
"Water damage from a total failure, or even a slow leak, can
cause serious damage.  Many of the brass fittings in a typical
residential pex system are behind drywall or between floors.  If
undetected, water damage caused by a leaking fitting can be
substantial."

This was the first class certification sought in the coordinated
litigation of lawsuits brought against Zurn in Minnesota,
Michigan, Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, New Mexico, Alabama,
Louisiana, North Carolina and Virginia.  More lawsuits in other
states are expected and class certification will be sought for
property owners in states other than Minnesota.   

Zurn sold its pex systems across the country.  Through
information obtained in the lawsuits, Mr. Raiter estimates that
Zurn has received thousands of warranty claims for leaking or
cracked fittings.  Because of these failures, Zurn stopped
selling the brass fittings in certain areas.

While Zurn initially honored its warranty and covered the damage
caused by the leaks, the company stopped paying claims, leaving
homeowners and plumbers to pay for the damage themselves.  The
lawsuits ask that Zurn pay for the replacement of all brass
fittings or pex systems -- regardless of whether fittings have
already failed -- as a way to prevent damage caused by future
leaks and failures.  They also seek reimbursement for plumbers
and others who have paid for repairs or damage.

The lawyers recommend that plumbers who have had problems with
Zurn systems and owners of properties with Zurn pex systems
contact them to discuss their rights.  "It is important that
consumers are aware of these lawsuits.  If consumers provide
their contact information, we can keep them informed about the
status of the litigation.  Also, if the lawsuits are successful,
contact information can help us notify consumers how to obtain
their share," Mr. Raiter said.

More information about the lawsuits may be obtained at
http://www.zurnclassaction.com/

Zurn fittings can be identified by a Q PEX stamp in the side of
the brass fitting.

                            *********

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  * * *