CAR_Public/100520.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Thursday, May 20, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 98

                            Headlines

AFFINION GROUP: Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration Denied
AMERICAN HONDA: Suit Complains About Defective Bike Piston Rings
ARIZONA: ACLU Leads Challenge Against New Immigration Law
ASTROFUEL: Mass. Suit Filed to Invalidate Home Heating Oil Liens
BRUSH ENGINEERED: Defends Small Tube's Third-Party Complaint

BURGER KING: Settles "Castenada" Suit for $7.5 Million
BURGER KING: Law Firm Ready to Bring Suit for 82 Restaurants
BURGER KING: Suits Over "Restaurant Operating Funds" Dismissed
BURLINGTON COAT: Faces Amended FLSA-Violations Complaint
BURLINGTON COAT: Faces "Jackson" Action in Florida

CIGNA CORP: 11th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Dentists' Class Action
CRUM & FORSTER: Plaintiffs' Appeal on Dismissed Claims Pending
DENBURY RESOURCES: Weiss & Lurie Files Shareholder Suit in N.Y.
FOWLER BROTHERS: Accused in N.Y. Suit of Violating Labor Laws
FRONTIER FINANCIAL: Shareholder Lawsuit Filed in W.D. Wash.

HENRY GORDY: Family Dollar Recalls 1.8 Million Toy Dart Gun Sets
INTERMUNE INC: Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint Still Pending
LENNOX INTERNATIONAL: Court Certifies Class in "Keilholtz" Suit
MINNESOTA: State Retirees Say They're Being Shortchanged Benefits
MOA ENTERTAINMENT: Recalls 12,011 Sandy the Squirrel Plush Toys

NOVARTIS PHARMACEUTICALS: Jury Verdict in Gender Bias Suit
SAIA INC: Plaintiff Appeals Denial of Approval of Settlement
T-MOBILE USA: Accused of Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices
TENNESSEE VALLEY: Two Claims in Suits Over Ash Spill Dismissed
TENNESSEE VALLEY: Schedule for Oral Arguments in Petition Set

TENNESSEE VALLEY: Six TVARS Directors Face Suit in Tennessee
VISTAPRINT NV: Plaintiffs' Appeal of Dismissed Suit Pending

                            *********

AFFINION GROUP: Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Circuit Court of Alabama for Greene County has denied the
plaintiff's motion for reconsideration on the decision to compel
arbitration in a purported consumer fraud class-action suit,
according to the company's April 30, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2010.

On Nov. 12, 2002, a class-action complaint was filed against
Sears, Roebuck & Co., Sears National Bank, Cendant Membership
Services Holdings Subsidiary LLC (now know as Affinion Membership
Services Holdings Subsidiary LLC), and Allstate
Insurance Co. in the Circuit Court of Alabama for Greene County,
alleging, among other things, breach of contract, unjust
enrichment, breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing and
violations of the Illinois consumer fraud and deceptive practices
act.

The case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Alabama, but was remanded to the Circuit Court of
Alabama for Greene County.

The company has filed a motion to compel arbitration, which was
granted by the court on Jan. 31, 2008.  In granting the
company's motion, the court further ordered that any arbitration
with respect to this matter take place on an individual (and not
class) basis.

On Feb. 28, 2008, plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration
of the court's order. The court has yet to rule on plaintiffs'
motion.

On April 9, 2010, the court denied plaintiffs' motion for
reconsideration.

Affinion Group Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.affiniongroup.com--  
is a global provider of integrated marketing and loyalty
solutions to companies around the world.  Affinion partners with
other companies to develop customized marketing programs that
provide products and services to their end customers.


AMERICAN HONDA: Suit Complains About Defective Bike Piston Rings
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Honda CBR 1000 bikes with
liquid-cooled inline 4-cylinder engines in model years 2008-09
have defective piston rings and burn too much oil, causing danger
of "on-the-road failures," a class action claims in Los Angeles
Federal Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Schumer v. American Honda Motor
Company, Inc., Case No. 10-cv-03639 (C.D. Calif.), is available
at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/05/17/HondaBikes.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by;

          Gretchen M. Nelson, Esq
          KREINDLER & KREINDLER LLP
          707 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 4100
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: 213-622-6449
          E-mail: gnelson@kreindler.com

               - and -

          James E. Miller, Esq.
          Karen Leser-Grenon, Esq.
          SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP
          65 Main St.
          Chester, CT 06412
          Telephone: 860-526-1100
          E-mail: jmiller@sfmslaw.com
                  kleser@sfmslaw.com

               - and -

          James C. Shah, Esq.
          SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP
          35 East State St.
          Media, PA 19063
          Telephone: 610-891-9880
          E-mail: jshah@sfmslaw.com

               - and -

          Rose Luzon, Esq.
          SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP
          401 West A St., Suite 2350
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: 619-235-2416
          E-mail: rluzon@sfmslaw.com


ARIZONA: ACLU Leads Challenge Against New Immigration Law
---------------------------------------------------------
The New Mexico Business Weekly reports that the American Civil
Liberties Union and a coalition of groups filed a class action
lawsuit challenging Arizona's new immigration law.

The suit charges that the Arizona measure unlawfully interferes
with federal power and authority over immigration matters in
violation of the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

The action also charges that the law invites racial profiling
against people of color in violation of the equal protection
guarantee and prohibition on unreasonable seizures under the 14th
and Fourth Amendments. The plaintiffs also claim it infringes on
the free speech rights of day laborers and others in Arizona.

The suit includes a plaintiff from New Mexico who is attending
Arizona State University, Jesus Cuauhtemoc Villa. New Mexico does
not require proof of U.S. citizenship or immigration status to
obtain a driver's license. Villa does not have a U.S. passport
and does not want to carry his birth certificate and risk losing
it, according to a news release from the organizations filing
suit.

Under the new Arizona law, if he cannot supply proof of legal
status upon demand, law enforcement officials are required to
arrest and detain him, according to the coalition filing the
lawsuit.

Another plaintiff, Jim Shee, is a U.S.-born citizen of Spanish
and Chinese descent. He said he has been stopped twice already by
local law enforcement officers in Arizona and asked for his
papers.

Other plaintiffs include organizations that focus on labor,
domestic violence, day laborers and human services. These include
the Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, the Asian Chamber of
Commerce of Arizona, the Muslim American Society, the Japanese
American Citizens League, Service Employees International Union
Local 5 and United Food and Commercial Workers International.

The suit was filed in U.S. District Court for the District of
Arizona. The coalition filing the suit includes the Mexican
American Legal Defense and Education Fund, the National
Immigration Law Center, the National Association for the
Advancement of Colored People, the ACLU of Arizona, the National
Day Labor Organizing Network and the Asian Pacific American Legal
Center.

A copy of the Complaint in Friendly House, et al. v. Whiting, et
al., Case No. 10-cv-01061 (D. Ariz.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/05/17/ACLU.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Omar C. Jadwat, Esq.
          Lucas Guttentag, Esq.
          Tanaz Moghadam, Esq.
          AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION
          IMMIGRANTS' RIGHTS PROJECT
          125 Broad St., 18th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: 212-549-2660
          E-mail: ojadwat@aclu.org
                  lguttentag@aclu.org
                  tmoghadam@aclu.org

               - and -

          Linton Joaquin, Esq.
          Karen C. Tumlin, Esq.
          Nora A. Preciado, Esq.
          Melissa S. Keaney, Esq.
          Vivek Mittal, Esq.
          Ghazal Tajmiri, Esq.
          NATIONAL IMMIGRATION LAW CENTER
          3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 2850
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Telephone: 213-639-3900
          E-mail: joaquin@nilc.org
                  tumlin@nilc.org
                  preciado@nilc.org
                  keaney@nilc.org
                  mittal@nilc.org
                  tajmiri@nilc.org
               
               - and -

          Thomas A. Saenz, Esq.
          Cynthia Valenzuela Dixon, Esq.
          Victor Viramontes, Esq.
          Gladys Limon, Esq.
          Nicholas Espiritu, Esq.
          MEXICAN AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND
          634 S. Spring St., 11th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90014
          Telephone: 213-629-2512
          E-mail: tsaenz@maldef.org
                  cvalenzuela@maldef.org
                  vviramontes@maldef.org
                  glimon@maldef.org
                  nespiritu@maldef.org

               - and -

          Daniel J. Pochoda, Esq.
          Anne Lai, Esq.
          ACLU FOUNDATION OF ARIZONA
          77 E. Columbus St., Suite 205
          Phoenix, AZ 85012
          Telephone: 602-650-1854
          E-mail: dpochoda@acluaz.org   
                  alai@acluaz.org

               - and -

          Cecillia D. Wang, Esq.
          Harini P. Raghupathi, Esq.
          AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION  
          IMMIGRANTS' RIGHTS PROJECT
          39 Drumm St.
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: 415-343-0775
          E-mail: cwang@aclu.org
                  hraghupathi@aclu.org

               - and -

          Nina Perales, Esq.
          Ivan Espinoza-Madrigal, Esq.
          MEXICAN AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND
          110 Broadway St., Suite 300
          San Antonio, TX 78205
          Telephone: 210-224-5476
          E-mail: nperales@maldef.org   
                  iespinoza@maldef.org

               - and -

          Julie A. Su, Esq.
          Ronald Lee, Esq.
          Yungsuhn Park, Esq.
          Connie Choi, Esq.
          Carmina Ocampo, Esq.
          ASIAN PACIFIC AMERICAN LEGAL CENTER
          1145 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 200
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: 213-977-7500
          E-mail: jsu@apalc.org
                  rlee@advancingequality.org
                  ypark@apalc.org
                  cchoi@apalc.org
                  cocampo@apalc.org

               - and -

          Chris Newman, Esq.
          Lisa Kung, Esq.
          NATIONAL DAY LABOR ORGANIZING NETWORK
          675 S. Park View Street, Suite B
          Los Angeles, CA 90057
          Telephone: 213-380-2785
          E-mail: newman@ndlon.org
                  kung@ndlon.org

               - and -

          Daniel R. Ortega, Jr., Esq.
          ROUSH, MCCRACKEN, GUERRERO, MILLER & ORTEGA
          1112 E. Washington St.
          Phoenix, AZ 85034
          Telephone: 602-253-3554
          E-mail: danny@rmgmo.com

               - and -

          Laura D. Blackburne, Esq.
          NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT
          OF COLORED PEOPLE (NAACP)
          4805 Mt. Hope Dr.
          Baltimore, MD 21215
          Telephone: 410-580-5700
          E-mail: lblackburne@naacpnet.org

               - and -

          Bradley S. Phillips, Esq.
          Paul J. Watford, Esq.
          Joseph J. Ybarra, Esq.
          MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP
          355 South Grand Ave., 35th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94105-2907
          Telephone: 213-683-9100
          E-mail: brad.phillips@mto.com
                  paul.watford@mto.com
                  joseph.ybarra@mto.com
                  elisabeth.neubauer@mto.com

               - and -
               
          Susan T. Boyd, Esq.
          Yuval Miller, Esq.
          Elisabeth J. Neubauer, Esq.
          MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP
          560 Mission St., 27th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-1560
          Telephone: 415-512-4000
          E-mail: susan.boyd@mto.com
                  yuval.miller@mto.com


ASTROFUEL: Mass. Suit Filed to Invalidate Home Heating Oil Liens
----------------------------------------------------------------
Julie Manganis at The Salem News reports that a Salem, Mass.,
woman who helped uncover a local fuel oil dealer's questionable
business practices has now filed a class-action lawsuit against
the company and its owner.

The lawsuit was filed late last week in Salem Superior Court on
behalf of Jacqueline Wilkins and other customers of a business
that goes by several names, including Astrofuel and Anchor Fuel.

All of the businesses, which also include Apollo Oil, are
controlled by Anita and Peter Davekos of Marblehead, who ran the
company from locations in Marblehead and Swampscott, Mass.

Ms. Wilkins is believed to be among dozens of North Shore
residents who had liens improperly attached to the titles of
their homes after disputing what Ms. Wilkins and several others
say were grossly inflated bills for oil and services they did not
order.

Ms. Wilkins is represented by:

          Chuck Rodman, Esq.
          Rodman | Walker | Di Marco
          72 River Park
          Needham, MA 02494

who will have to persuade a judge to grant the lawsuit class-
action status, but if that happens, anyone who believes they were
defrauded by the company would become part of the lawsuit.

Mr. Rodman is alleging a number of violations of state consumer
and credit laws, as well as fraud.  Among the allegations in the
lawsuit:

     (A) Sales documents presented to customers did not include
         accurate information about interest charges, late fees
         and other charges.

     (B) The liens filed by Anita Davekos purported to be for
         labor and materials, when no work was actually done.

     (C) The amounts sought in the liens included unlawful
         charges for undisclosed cancellation, collection and
         purported "lien" fees "instituted for the purpose of
         artificially inflating the amounts of the liens."

     (D) The liens were never properly enforced or dissolved,
         leaving a cloud on the titles of homeowners, with no
         recourse other than to pay the liens, usually for
         thousands of dollars.

                         150 liens filed

The company's practices came to light after Ms. Wilkins
accidentally learned of the lien on her home while at the Salem
Registry of Deeds on another matter.

It's the second lawsuit filed against the oil business this year;
in March, the state attorney general filed suit against the
company.

The Davekoses have not responded to the attorney general's
lawsuit, according to the case docket, skipping a hearing on a
preliminary injunction in March and failing to submit an answer
to the complaint.  No lawyer has appeared on their behalf.

A judge in that case has ordered the company to stop the most
egregious of its practices, including an order that bars them
from filing new liens.

But the existing liens -- some 150 of them by one count --
haven't been touched.

In fact, Ms. Wilkins was unable to obtain a mortgage modification
on her Salem home because of the cloud on her title, according to
the complaint.

A lien against a home's title can also prevent a homeowner from
refinancing or selling the property until they pay to have the
lien removed. While the liens are technically invalid, there is
no mechanism to have them removed unless the person holding the
lien agrees.

Ms. Wilkins used Astrofuel one time, shortly after buying her
home in 2006, after finding a coupon for $100 worth of free oil
and a burner service.

She used the coupon for the oil delivery and paid the balance,
$129.

Ms. Wilkins didn't use the company again and didn't think
anything of it until almost two years later.  That's when she
discovered the lien for $3,533 for "burner services, fuel oil, a
filing fee and labor."

                        $2,600 in fees added

When she contacted the company, Anita Davekos sent her a list of
charges, including $231.90 for the tank of oil she'd already paid
for with the coupon and a check, as well as two more tanks of oil
that day (Ms. Wilkins' home has just two tanks, and she purchased
oil for only one).  The company not only "charged back" the
coupon, but also tacked on $355 in interest, almost $1,000 in
"late fees," a $400 "cancellation fee," a $916 "collection fee"
and a $300 "lien fee."

The lawsuit contends that the company never disclosed any of
those fees at the time Ms. Wilkins ordered and paid for her tank
of oil.

Nor did they ever contact her to try to collect any of the fees
before going to the registry to file the lien, which they never
notified her about.

"Instead, Ms. Davekos surreptitiously went to the Registry of
Deeds office and placed a lien on Ms. Wilkins' residence without
her knowledge for an amount that far exceeds any logical or
reasonable computation of a monetary amount based on the oil that
was delivered" to Ms. Wilkins, Mr. Rodman says in the complaint.

After Ms. Wilkins began investigating, she discovered dozens of
other liens filed by Anita Davekos against other customers.

Several of them said in interviews with The Salem News last year
and earlier this year that they had no idea about the existence
of the liens until they were contacted by Ms. Wilkins or a
reporter.

She also learned that the type of lien placed against her home,
called a mechanics lien, is intended to be used only by
contractors performing work on a home's permanent fixtures (such
as a plumber installing a new boiler or a carpenter putting in a
new kitchen) and not for things like oil deliveries.

In most of the cases Ms. Wilkins found, the homeowners said no
burner service or other work on the heating system was ever
performed, though Anita Davekos claimed that work had been done.

The lawsuit seeks to recoup actual damages, as well as punitive
damages, against the company and Anita Davekos.

Like the attorney general's lawsuit, it is also seeking the
dissolution of all of the liens, as well as an injunction barring
the company from engaging in similar business practices.

Anita Davekos did not return a call for comment.


BRUSH ENGINEERED: Defends Small Tube's Third-Party Complaint
------------------------------------------------------------
Brush Engineered Materials Inc., continues to defend an amended
third-party complaint filed by Small Tube Manufacturing Corp. in
relation to a purported class action over beryllium exposure.

A purported class action styled Gary Anthony v. Small Tube
Manufacturing Corporation d/b/a Small Tube Products Corporation,
Inc., et al., was filed in the Court of Common Pleas of
Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania, case number 000525, on Sept.
7, 2006.

The case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania, case number 06-CV-4419, on Oct. 4,
2006.

The only named plaintiff is Gary Anthony.

The defendants are Small Tube Manufacturing Corporation, d/b/a
Small Tube Products Corporation, Inc.; Admiral Metals Inc.; Tube
Methods, Inc.; and Cabot Corporation.

The plaintiff purports to sue on behalf of a class of current and
former employees of the U.S. Gauge facility in Sellersville,
Pennsylvania who have ever been exposed to beryllium for a period
of at least one month while employed at U.S. Gauge.  The
plaintiff has brought claims for negligence.

Plaintiff seeks the establishment of a medical monitoring trust
fund, cost of publication of approved guidelines and procedures
for medical screening and monitoring of the class, attorneys'
fees and expenses.  Defendant Tube Methods, Inc. filed a third-
party complaint against Brush Wellman Inc. in that action on Nov.
15, 2006.

Tube Methods alleges that Brush supplied beryllium-containing
products to U.S. Gauge, and that Tube Methods worked on those
products, but that Brush is liable to Tube Methods for
indemnification and contribution.  Brush moved to dismiss the
Tube Methods complaint on Dec. 22, 2006.

On Jan. 12, 2007, Tube Methods filed an amended third-party
complaint, which Brush moved to dismiss on Jan. 26, 2007;
however, the Court denied the motion on Sept. 28, 2007.

Brush filed its answer to the amended third-party complaint on
Oct. 19, 2007.

On Nov. 14, 2007, two of the defendants filed a joint motion for
an order permitting discovery to make the threshold determination
of whether plaintiff is sensitized to beryllium.

On Feb. 29, 2008, Brush filed a motion for summary judgment based
on plaintiff's lack of any substantially increased risk of CBD.

Oral argument on this motion took place on June 13, 2008.  On
Sept. 30, 2008, the court granted the motion for summary judgment
in favor of all of the defendants and dismissed plaintiff's class
action complaint.

On Oct. 29, 2008, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal.

The Court of Appeals had granted a motion to stay the appeal due
to the bankruptcy of one of the appellees, Millennium
Petrochemicals.

On April 3, 2009, Small Tube Manufacturing filed a motion for
relief in bankruptcy court from the automatic stay, asking that
the bankruptcy court modify the stay to allow Small Tube
Manufacturing's indemnification claim against Millennium
Petrochemicals and the Anthony case to proceed to final judgment,
including all appeals.

On May 14, 2009, the bankruptcy court approved a stipulation and
order modifying the automatic stay to permit Millennium
Petrochemicals and Small Tube Manufacturing to participate in the
appeal.

On May 27, 2009, Small Tube Manufacturing filed an unopposed
motion with the Court of Appeals to lift the stay, which the
court granted on June 22, 2009.

On July 29, 2009, the company and the other appellees filed their
brief in the Court of Appeals.

The Court of Appeals heard oral arguments on Jan. 11, 2010, and
the matter is now under submission.

No 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.

Brush Engineered Materials Inc. -- http://www.beminc.com/--  
through its wholly-owned subsidiaries, supplies highly engineered
advanced enabling materials to global markets.  Products include
precious and non-precious specialty metals, inorganic chemicals
and powders, specialty coatings, specialty engineered beryllium
alloys, beryllium and beryllium composites, and engineered clad
and plated metal systems.


BURGER KING: Settles "Castenada" Suit for $7.5 Million
------------------------------------------------------
Burger King Holdings, Inc., has agreed to settle the class action
captioned Castenada v. Burger King Corp. and Burger King
Holdings, Inc., No. CV08-4262, for $7.5 million, according to the
company's April 30, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March
31, 2010.

On Sept. 10, 2008, a class action lawsuit was filed against the
company in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California.

The complaint alleged that all 92 Burger King restaurants in
California leased by the company and operated by franchisees
violate accessibility requirements under federal and state law.

In September 2009, the court issued a decision on the plaintiffs'
motion for class certification.  In its decision, the court
limited the class action to the 10 restaurants visited by the
named plaintiffs, with a separate class of plaintiffs for each of
the 10 restaurants and 10 separate trials.

In March 2010, the company agreed to settle this lawsuit with
respect to the 10 restaurants by agreeing to pay $7.5 million,
with the company funding $2.5 million and the balance funded by
the company's insurer.  The insurer will also reimburse the
Company for $1.5 million in legal and consulting fees.  The
settlement is subject to final court approval.

Burger King Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.bk.com/-- is a fast  
food hamburger restaurant.  As of June 30, 2009, the company
owned or franchised a total of 11,925 restaurants in 73 countries
and United States territories, of which 1,429 restaurants were
company restaurants and 10,496 were owned by its franchisees.  Of
these restaurants, 7,233 or 61% were located in the United States
and 4,692 or 39% were located in its international markets.  
BKH's restaurants feature flame-broiled hamburgers, chicken and
other specialty sandwiches, french fries, soft drinks and other
food items.  The company generates revenues from three sources:
retail sales at company restaurants; franchise revenues, and
property income from restaurants that BKH leases or subleases to
franchisees.  The company operates in three reportable segments:
the United States and Canada; Europe, the Middle East, Africa and
Asia Pacific (EMEA/APAC), and Latin America.


BURGER KING: Law Firm Ready to Bring Suit for 82 Restaurants
------------------------------------------------------------
Burger King Holdings, Inc., in April 2010, received a demand from
the law firm representing the plaintiffs in the matter Castenada
v. Burger King Corp. and Burger King Holdings, Inc.  The company
was notified that the law firm was prepared to bring a class
action covering 82 other restaurants, according to the company's
April 30, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

In the Castenada suit, U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California had limited the class action to 10
restaurants.

Burger King Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.bk.com/-- is a fast  
food hamburger restaurant.  As of June 30, 2009, the company
owned or franchised a total of 11,925 restaurants in 73 countries
and United States territories, of which 1,429 restaurants were
company restaurants and 10,496 were owned by its franchisees.  Of
these restaurants, 7,233 or 61% were located in the United States
and 4,692 or 39% were located in its international markets.  
BKH's restaurants feature flame-broiled hamburgers, chicken and
other specialty sandwiches, french fries, soft drinks and other
food items.  The company generates revenues from three sources:
retail sales at company restaurants; franchise revenues, and
property income from restaurants that BKH leases or subleases to
franchisees.  The company operates in three reportable segments:
the United States and Canada; Europe, the Middle East, Africa and
Asia Pacific (EMEA/APAC), and Latin America.


BURGER KING: Suits Over "Restaurant Operating Funds" Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Two suits against Burger King Holdings, Inc., alleging that the
company had no right to amend its existing supply agreements to
reduce certain payments, has been dismissed, according to the
company's April 30, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March
31, 2010.

The National Franchisee Association, Inc. filed two class action
lawsuits on May 4, 2009, claiming to represent Burger King
franchisees and alleging that BKC, The Coca-Cola Company and Dr
Pepper Snapple Group had no right to amend their existing supply
agreements to reduce certain payments, known as "restaurant
operating funds", to Burger King restaurants without the
franchisees' consent.

The two suits, both filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California, are:

     (1) National Franchisee Association v. Burger King
Corporation and The Coca-Cola Company, No. 09 CV 939 W NLS; and

     (2) National Franchisee Association v. Burger King
Corporation and Dr Pepper Snapple Group f/k/a Dr Pepper/Seven Up,
Inc., Case No. 09 CV 939 W NLS.

In February 2010, the company and a group of franchisees formed a
task force to resolve the dispute.  The task force came to a
marketing solution that rendered the cases moot, and the parties
dismissed the lawsuits.

Burger King Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.bk.com/-- is a fast  
food hamburger restaurant.  As of June 30, 2009, the company
owned or franchised a total of 11,925 restaurants in 73 countries
and United States territories, of which 1,429 restaurants were
company restaurants and 10,496 were owned by its franchisees.  Of
these restaurants, 7,233 or 61% were located in the United States
and 4,692 or 39% were located in its international markets.  
BKH's restaurants feature flame-broiled hamburgers, chicken and
other specialty sandwiches, french fries, soft drinks and other
food items.  The company generates revenues from three sources:
retail sales at company restaurants; franchise revenues, and
property income from restaurants that BKH leases or subleases to
franchisees.  The company operates in three reportable segments:
the United States and Canada; Europe, the Middle East, Africa and
Asia Pacific (EMEA/APAC), and Latin America.


BURLINGTON COAT: Faces Amended FLSA-Violations Complaint
--------------------------------------------------------
Burlington Coat Factory Investments Holdings, Inc., faces an
amended complaint alleging violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act, according to the company's April 30, 2010, Form 10-K/T
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
transition period from May 31, 2009 to Jan. 30, 2010.

A putative class action lawsuit, entitled May Vang, and all
others similarly situated, v. Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse
Corporation, Case No. 09-CV-08061-CAS, was filed in the Superior
Court of the State of California on Sept. 17, 2009.

The named plaintiff purports to assert claims on behalf of all
current, former, and future employees in the United States and
the State of California for the relevant statutory time period.  
Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on Nov. 16, 2009.

The amended complaint asserts claims for failure to pay all
earned hourly wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act,
failure to pay all earned hourly wages in violation of the
California Labor Code, providing compensatory time off in lieu of
overtime pay, forfeiture of vacation pay, failure to provide meal
and rest periods, secret payment of lower wages than that
required by statute or contract, failure to provide accurate,
written wage statements, and unfair competition.  
The complaint seeks certification as a class with respect to the
FLSA claims, certification of a class with respect to California
law claims, appointment of class counsel and class
representative, civil penalties, statutory penalties, declaratory
relief, injunctive relief, actual damages, liquidated damages,
restitution, pre-judgment interest, costs of suit and attorney's
fees.

Burlington Coat Factory Investments Holdings, Inc. --
http://www.burlingtoncoatfactory.com/-- is a nationally  
recognized retailer of high-quality, branded apparel at everyday
low prices.  The company currently serves its customers through
its 449 stores in 44 states and Puerto Rico.


BURLINGTON COAT: Faces "Jackson" Action in Florida
--------------------------------------------------
Burlington Coat Factory Investments Holdings, Inc., faces a
collective action, entitled Gail Jackson, on her own behalf and
other similarly situated, v. Burlington Coat Factory Direct
Corp., Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse Corp. and XYZ entities
1-100, Case No. 10-60110-ASG, according to the company's April
30, 2010, Form 10-K/T filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the transition period from May 31, 2009
to Jan. 30, 2010.

The action was filed in the U.S. States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida on Jan. 22, 2010.

The named plaintiff, a former department manager, is seeking
overtime compensation and other relief pursuant to the FLSA.  
Moreover, the named plaintiff claims that she performed work
involving job duties that were primarily nonexempt in nature and
is seeking overtime compensation, liquidated damages, costs and
reasonable attorney's fees on behalf of all similarly situated
employees in the United States.  

Burlington Coat Factory Investments Holdings, Inc. --
http://www.burlingtoncoatfactory.com/-- is a nationally  
recognized retailer of high-quality, branded apparel at everyday
low prices.  The company currently serves its customers through
its 449 stores in 44 states and Puerto Rico.


CIGNA CORP: 11th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Dentists' Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Leigh Jones at The National Law Journal reports that a federal
appeals court has scotched a multibillion-dollar RICO class
action launched by the American Dental Association and its
members against major insurance companies for their alleged
failure to pay providers.

A three-judge panel of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
threw out that the purported class action, finding that the
complaint did not meet the controversial heightened pleading
standards required under two recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions.

The court upheld the suit's dismissal in favor of Cigna Corp. and
MetLife Inc. and their subsidiaries.

The May 14 decision, written by Circuit Chief Judge Joel Dubina,
found that the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act
case could not survive the pleading standards under the U.S.
Supreme Court's Twombly and Iqbal decisions. In Bell Atlantic
Corp. v. Twombly, the Court in 2007 required plaintiffs to show
the plausibility, not just possibility, of relief based on claims
made in a complaint. Last year, in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, the high
court required plaintiffs to present more than conclusory facts
in their pleadings and instead to present claims that reasonably
supported an inference of liability.

The defense bar has lauded both Twombly and Iqbal as a way to
filter out meritless claims, while plaintiffs' attorneys have
asserted that the higher standards preclude clients with limited
resources or access to information from having their day in
court.


The lawsuit was filed in 2003 by three dentists and the American
Dental Association in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida on behalf of potentially hundreds of other
dentist in the insurers' networks. Related to so-called "deny,
reduce and delay" multidistrict litigation there involving
physicians with similar claims against insurers, the lawsuit
alleged that the insurers violated the RICO Act by "bundling"
dental services rendered. Such bundling, the dentists alleged,
resulted in reimbursement for a smaller number of services at a
lower price. After the U.S. Supreme Court issued the Twombly
decision, the plaintiffs amended their complaint under the new
standard. In 2008, the district court dismissed the case without
prejudice, finding that it did not meet that new standard.

In affirming the lower court, Dubina wrote that the "present case
reflects the concerns that motivated the Supreme Court to adopt a
new pleading standard in Twombly and Iqbal." It found that not
only did the dentists fail to meet the Twombly and Iqbal
standard, but they also did not establish their claims under
procedural rules pertaining to RICO allegations. "[W]e cannot
infer a scheme-driven deception from a complaint that provides no
details of fraud or conspiracy," Dubina wrote.

Representing the individual plaintiffs was G. Robert Blakey, a
professor at the University of Notre Dame Law School. He said
that he sensed defeat during oral arguments.

"It was clear from the minute I opened my mouth," he said. "The
Court of Appeals was a buzzsaw."  Blakey estimated damages at
between $5 billion and $6 billion.

James Griffith Jr., a partner in the Philadelphia office of Akin
Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, represented MetLife. Jamie Zysk Isani,
an associate in the Miami office of Hunton & Williams,
represented Cigna. Neither attorney was immediately available for
comment. MetLife provided a written statement. "MetLife has long
believed that the allegations made by the ADA were without merit,
and we were confident that the court would rule in our favor."

The other judges on the appeals panel were Peter Fay and Harold
Albritton, who was sitting by designation from the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Alabama.


CRUM & FORSTER: Plaintiffs' Appeal on Dismissed Claims Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
The appeal of the plaintiffs on the dismissal of antitrust claims
and RICO claims against Crum & Forster Holdings Corp. remains
pending in the U.S. Court of Appeal for the Third Circuit,
according to the company's April 30, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2010.

The company and its wholly-owned subsidiary, United States Fire
Insurance Company, among numerous other insurance company and
insurance broker defendants, have been named as defendants in a
class action suit filed by policyholders alleging, among other
things, that the defendants used the contingent commission
structure to deprive policyholders of free competition in the
market for insurance.

The action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Jersey.

Plaintiffs seek certification of a nationwide class consisting of
all persons who between Aug. 26, 1994, and the date of the class
certification engaged the services of any one of the broker
defendants and who entered into or renewed a contract of
insurance with one of the insurer defendants.

The trial court dismissed the federal antitrust claims and RICO
claims with prejudice and declined to accept supplemental
jurisdiction over plaintiffs' state law claims.

On Oct. 24, 2007, plaintiffs filed an appeal with the U.S. Court
of Appeal for the Third Circuit.

The court heard oral arguments on April 21, 2009 in Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania.

The court took the matter under submission and has not yet issued
a ruling.

Crum & Forster Holdings Corp. -- http://www.cfins.com/--  
operates as a commercial property and casualty insurance company
in the United States.  The company writes a range of commercial
coverage, including workers' compensation, general liability,
commercial automobile, property, commercial multi-peril, accident
and health, bail bonds, personal automobile, homeowners', and
surety coverages.  It provides its products through wholesale
brokers, independent regional retail firms, and national brokers.  
The company is based in Morristown, New Jersey.  Crum & Forster
Holdings Corp. is a subsidiary of Fairfax Inc.


DENBURY RESOURCES: Weiss & Lurie Files Shareholder Suit in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit against Denbury Resources, Inc. and
certain individuals associated with the Company was commenced on
behalf of all former Encore Acquisition Company shareholders
whose shares were acquired by Denbury pursuant to a Joint Proxy
Statement/Prospectus dated February 5, 2010.

The complaint charges that Denbury miscalculated the shares
payable to Encore shareholders, violating the Merger Agreement,
the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. The case is in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York, civil action number 10-cv-1917,
before the Honorable David G. Trager.

If you are a former Encore shareholder who received Denbury stock
pursuant to the Proxy Statement, you may move the court no later
than July 19, 2010, to serve as a lead plaintiff of the class. In
order to serve as a lead plaintiff, you must meet certain legal
requirements. You do not need to seek appointment as a lead
plaintiff in order to share in any recovery.

If you want to obtain a copy of the complaint or want more
information about Weiss & Lurie or this action, or if you want to
obtain a Certification form to serve as a lead plaintiff, please
visit http://www.weisslurie.com/

If you wish to receive an investor package or if you wish to
discuss this action, have any questions concerning this notice or
your rights or interests with respect to this matter, or if you
have any information you wish to provide to us, please contact:

Joseph H. Weiss, Esq., or Mark D. Smilow, Esq., by telephone at
(888) 593-4771 or (212) 682-3025 or via Internet electronic mail
at infony@weisslurie.com or by writing Weiss & Lurie, The French
Building, 551 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1600, New York City 10176.


FOWLER BROTHERS: Accused in N.Y. Suit of Violating Labor Laws
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Fowler Brothers, an apple
farm in Wolcott, N.Y., paid legal Mexican workers less than
minimum wage and violated other labor laws, a class action claims
in Rochester Federal Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Salazar-Martinez v. Fowler Brothers,
Inc., et al., Case No. 10-cv-06257 (W.D.N.Y.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/05/17/EmployMay17.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Dan Getman, Esq.
          GETMAN & SWEENEY, PLLC
          9 Paradies Lane
          New Paltz, NY 12561
          Tel: 845-255-9370
          E-mail: dgetman@getmansweeney.com

               - and -

          Robert J. Willis, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT J. WILLIS
          5 W. Hargett St., Suite 404
          Raleigh, NC 27601
          Telephone: 919-821-9031


FRONTIER FINANCIAL: Shareholder Lawsuit Filed in W.D. Wash.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP filed a class action in the
United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington on behalf of purchasers of Frontier Financial
Corporation (Nasdaq: FTBK) common stock during the period between
July 22, 2008, and March 16, 2010, inclusive.  Hagens Berman is
currently investigating whether the Class Period should be
expanded through April 30, 2010, the date the bank was placed
into receivership by the Federal Deposit Insurance Company.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court
no later than June 14, 2010. If you wish to discuss this action
or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or
interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Karl Barth of
Hagens Berman at (206) 623-7292, or FTBK@hbsslaw.com via e-mail.
If you are a member of this class, you can view a copy of the
complaint as filed or join this class action online at
http://www.hbsslaw.com/cases-investigations/frontier-bank

Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as
lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to
do nothing and remain an absent class member.

The complaint charges Frontier and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Frontier is a financial holding company that, prior to the FDIC
intervention, provided financial services through its commercial
bank subsidiary, Frontier Bank.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business and financial results and engaged in improper
behavior which harmed Frontier's investors by failing to disclose
the extent of seriously delinquent commercial real estate loans
and construction and land loans. The Company also failed to
adequately and timely record losses for its impaired loans,
causing its financial results and its Tier 1 capital ratio to be
materially false. As a result of defendants' false and misleading
statements, Frontier stock traded at artificially inflated prices
during the Class Period, reaching a high of $186.00 per share on
September 19, 2008.

In July 2008, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp ("FDIC") and the
state of Washington's Department of Financial Institutions
("DFI") conducted an investigation into Frontier's banking
practices and cited Frontier with engaging in certain "unsafe and
unsound" practices. In March 2009, Frontier entered into a cease-
and-desist order with banking regulators and agreed to take
certain corrective actions related to the findings of the July
2008 report by the FDIC and DFI.

Then on March 16, 2010, after the market closed, Frontier
announced that it had received a Supervisory Prompt Corrective
Action Directive from the FDIC. The FDIC warned that the Company
was "critically undercapitalized" which could lead to Frontier
being placed into conservatorship or receivership, raising doubt
about the ability of the Company to continue as a going concern.
Frontier further restated its previously announced fourth quarter
and year end 2009 results as the FDIC determined that Frontier's
loan loss provision and its valuation adjustment of other real
estate owned were understated by $30 million and $3.5 million,
respectively. On this news, Frontier's stock dropped $1.35 per
share to close at $2.89 per share on March 17, 2010, a one-day
decline of nearly 32%, on volume of 710,400 shares.

On April 30, 2010, the FDIC placed Frontier Bank in receivership.  
When trading in Frontier shares resumed, they immediately dropped
to $0.40 per share -- a loss of more than 99% from the Class
Period highs.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
Frontier common stock during the Class Period, and possibly
through April 30, 2010. The plaintiff is represented by Hagens
Berman, which has expertise in prosecuting investor class actions
and extensive experience in actions involving financial fraud.


HENRY GORDY: Family Dollar Recalls 1.8 Million Toy Dart Gun Sets
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Family Dollar Stores Inc., of Charlotte, N.C., announced a
voluntary recall of about 1.8 million toy dart gun sets, due to
an aspiration hazard.  CPSC and Family Dollar have received
reports of two asphyxiation deaths involving a 9-year-old boy in
Chicago, Ill. and a 10-year-old boy in Milwaukee, Wis.

If a child places the soft, pliable plastic toy dart in his/her
mouth, the toy can be inhaled into the throat and prevent the
child from breathing.

The toy dart guns, imported by Henry Gordy International Inc., of
Plainfield, N.J., were sold exclusively at Family Dollar stores.
Family Dollar is working cooperatively with CPSC to announce this
recall because Henry Gordy International has refused to recall
the toy dart gun sets.

The "Auto Fire" toy target set is sold with an orange and yellow
toy gun (item #P238) or a blue and yellow toy gun (item #9328),
eight orange darts and a small target with numbers from 1 to 20.
The gun's item number is located on one side of the handle in
raised lettering.  The soft plastic darts measure just over one
inch in length and have a small suction cup at one end with a
diameter of about 1/2 inch.  The target board is black, yellow,
red and green, and measures five inches in diameter.  "Gordy Toy"
for "Ages 8+" is printed on the packaging.  Pictures of the
recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10234.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold
exclusively at Family Dollar stores nationwide from September
2005 through January 2009 for about $1.50.

Consumers should immediately take the toy target sets from
children and discard them.  Consumers can also return the guns
and darts to a Family Dollar store for a full refund.  For
additional information, contact Family Dollar at (800) 547-0359
between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through
Friday, or visit the firm's website at
http://www.familydollar.com/


INTERMUNE INC: Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
InterMune Inc.'s motion to dismiss an amended complaint alleging
fraudulent misrepresentation of the medical benefits of Actimmune
for the treatment of Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis (IPF), remains
pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, 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 May 2008, a complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California entitled Deborah Jane
Jarrett, Nancy Isenhower, and Jeffrey H. Frankel v. InterMune,
Inc., W. Scott Harkonen, and Genentech, Inc., Case No. C-08-
02376.  Plaintiffs alleged that they were administered Actimmune,
and they purported to sue on behalf of a class of consumers and
other end-payors of Actimmune.

The complaint alleged that the company fraudulently
misrepresented the medical benefits of Actimmune for the
treatment of IPF and promoted Actimmune for IPF.  The complaint
asserted various claims against the company, including civil
RICO, unfair competition, violation of various state consumer
protection statutes, and unjust enrichment.  The complaint sought
various damages in an unspecified amount, including compensatory
damages, treble damages, punitive damages, restitution,
disgorgement, prejudgment and post-judgment interest on any
monetary award, and the reimbursement of the plaintiffs' legal
fees and costs. The complaint also sought equitable relief.

Between June 2008 and September 2008, three additional complaints
were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California alleging similar facts.  In February 2009, the
Court consolidated the four complaints for pretrial purposes.

The motions to dismiss in all four cases were heard in February
2009.  In April 2009, the Court granted the motions to dismiss
the complaints in all four cases in their entirety and granted
the plaintiffs leave to amend the complaints.

Following the initial motion to dismiss, the plaintiffs have
filed amended complaints and on Jan. 25, 2010, the company and
the other defendants each filed motions to dismiss the most
recently filed amended complaints.

Pursuant to stipulation of the parties, plaintiffs have filed an
opposition to these motions.

The motions were fully briefed as of March 8, 2010 and was set to
be heard on May 10, 2010.

InterMune Inc. -- http://www.intermune.com/-- is a biotechnology  
company focused on the research, development and
commercialization of innovative therapies in pulmonology and
hepatology.  InterMune has an R&D portfolio addressing idiopathic
pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) and hepatitis C virus (HCV) infections.  
The pulmonology portfolio includes Esbriet(TM) (pirfenidone) for
which InterMune has completed a Phase 3 program in patients with
IPF (CAPACITY).  A Marketing Authorization Application (MAA) is
under review by the European Medicines Agency (EMA).  The
hepatology portfolio includes the HCV protease inhibitor compound
danoprevir (also known as RG7227 or ITMN-191, partnered by Roche)
that entered Phase 2b in August 2009 and a second-generation HCV
protease inhibitor research program.


LENNOX INTERNATIONAL: Court Certifies Class in "Keilholtz" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
has issued an order certifying a nationwide class of plaintiffs
in the matter styled Keilholtz v. Lennox Hearth Products, Lennox
Industries and Lennox International, Inc., according to Lennox
International Inc.'s April 29, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2010.

The class action lawsuit against the company was filed on
Feb. 6, 2008.

The lawsuit, which involves no personal injury claims, alleges
that certain of the company's single-pane, glass-front, gas
fireplaces are hazardous and that consumers were not adequately
warned, and seeks economic damages.

On Feb. 16, 2010, the court issued an order certifying a
nationwide class of plaintiffs.

Through its subsidiaries, Lennox International Inc. --
http://www.lennoxinternational.com/-- is a global leader in the  
heating, air conditioning, and refrigeration markets.


MINNESOTA: State Retirees Say They're Being Shortchanged Benefits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that two retired Minnesota state
employees have filed a class action lawsuit arguing that the
Legislature has violated the contractual rights of public sector
retirees to receive pension benefits at levels promised when they
retired.

In the legislative session that ended Monday, state lawmakers
curtailed the yearly rate of increase for pension benefits from a
2.5-percent annual increase to between 1 and 2 percent depending
on the pension fund. Attorneys for the state employees say that
violates the U.S. and Minnesota constitutions.

The attorneys say retirees will lose millions of dollars in
promised benefits. They say thousands of public sector retirees
are eligible to join the lawsuit.


MOA ENTERTAINMENT: Recalls 12,011 Sandy the Squirrel Plush Toys
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
MOA Entertainment Co. LLC, of Bloomington, Minn., announced a
voluntary recall of about 1200 produced and 11 sold Sandy the
Squirrel Plush Toys.  Consumers should stop using the product
immediately unless otherwise instructed.

Young children can remove and ingest the squirrel's nose, which
poses a choking hazard.

No injuries or incidents have been reported.

This recall involves the Sandy the Squirrel plush toy, which
measures approximately 1 foot high by 4.5 inches wide.  It is a
brown and tan plush toy with a purple skirt and bikini top.  
"Po #: 86849" and the production date of 01/2010 are printed on
the toy's smaller white tag.  Pictures of the recalled products
are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10736.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold
exclusively at Nickelodeon, 4U and NU stores in the Mall of
America in March 2010 for about $10

Consumers should take the toy away from children and return it to
the Nickelodeon Store, Spongebob 4U, or NU Stuff stores in
Nickelodeon Universe at Mall of America to receive a full refund.
Consumers can also contact Mall of America for a full refund or
exchange for a different toy of equal value.  For additional
information, contact for Nickelodeon Universe toll-free at (877)
336-9716 or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.nickelodeonuniverse.com/


NOVARTIS PHARMACEUTICALS: Jury Verdict in Gender Bias Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Liz Jones at FiercePharma.com reports that a federal jury in
Manhattan has found that Novartis Pharmaceuticals discriminated
against female sales representatives in the U.S. and must pay
$3.4 million in compensatory damages to a dozen women plus
punitive damages.

After five days of deliberations, the jury of four men and five
women determined the company engaged in a pattern or practice of
discrimination by paying its female sales force less than its
male employees and denying them the same opportunities for
promotions, NASDAQ reports.

More than 5,600 women make up the class that was suing Novartis
and included female sales representatives and entry-level
managers who worked at the company since 2002, according to an
April 7 statement issued by Sanford Wittels & Heisler LLP, the
law firm representing the plaintiffs.

The complaint detailed specific discriminatory incidents as the
basis for the female employees' complaints, including a Novartis
manager encouraging an employee to get an abortion and a manager
stating a preference not to hire females because "first comes
love, then comes marriage, then comes flex time and a baby
carriage," the law firm says in the statement.

David Sanford, a lawyer for the women, told jurors in his May 10
closing arguments that the company "tolerated a culture of gender
discrimination in pay, and promotion, tolerated a culture of
sexism, a boys' club atmosphere," Bloomberg says. But Richard
Schnadig, a lawyer for the company, told jurors at the end of the
trial that the "fair, decent, responsive company" sought to
advance the careers of women and took firm steps against
mistreatment. He added that the case lacks merit.

Novartis says in a statement that it is disappointed in the
verdict and plans to appeal, according to Bloomberg. "We believe
the plaintiffs' claims were unfounded," the company said, adding
that it has been "recognized for its commitment to an inclusive
environment."


SAIA INC: Plaintiff Appeals Denial of Approval of Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
The appeal of the plaintiff on the denial of the preliminary
approval on the settlement entered into with Saia, Inc., remains
pending in the U.S. Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit,
according to the company's April 30, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2010.

The company is a defendant in a lawsuit originally filed in July
2007 in California state court on behalf of California dock
workers alleging various violations of state labor laws.  In
August 2007, the case was removed to the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California.

The claims include the alleged failure of the company to provide
rest and meal breaks and the alleged failure to reimburse the
employees for the cost of work shoes, among other claims.

In January 2008, the parties negotiated a conditional class-wide
settlement under which the company would pay $800,000 to settle
these claims.  This pre-certification settlement is subject to
court approval.

In March 2008, the District Court denied preliminary approval and
the named Plaintiff filed a petition with the U.S. Court of
Appeal for the Ninth Circuit seeking permission to appeal this
ruling.

The petition was granted and the appeal is now pending.

Saia, Inc. -- http://www.saia.com/-- is a less-than-truckload  
provider of regional, interregional and guaranteed services
covering 34 states.  With headquarters in Georgia and a network
of 147 terminals, Saia employs 7,200 people.


T-MOBILE USA: Accused of Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices
-------------------------------------------------------------
June Williams at Courthouse News Service reports that T-Mobile
lured in customers with promises of free round-trip flights, but
never delivered, a class action claims in King County Court.  
After offering a "Fly Free in '08" promotion, T-Mobile rejected
people for "various, arbitrary reasons," and made it impossible
"to contact a representative for assistance by telephone, e-mail,
or any other electronic means," the class claims.

T-Mobile offered free tickets to people who subscribed to its
"myFaves" calling plan for a 2-year period, but the "offer was
false and misleading because it failed to disclose to plaintiff
and the class that even if they met the eligibility requirements
of the Fly Free in '08 offer, few if any consumers would actually
receive their round-trip airfare," named plaintiff Richard Fine
says.

Mr. Fine claims he met all the requirements for the free ticket,
but T-Mobile told him his booking request form was incomplete and
would have to be filled out again.  Mr. Fine says he called T-
Mobile repeatedly to resolve the problem and finally was told
that his information had been accepted.

"Shortly thereafter, plaintiff received another phone call from
someone acting on T-Mobile's behalf who inexplicably asked
plaintiff to confirm that plaintiff no longer wanted his free
flight.  After informing her that, indeed, he still wanted his
free flight, plaintiff was assured that he would receive it and
that he would be contacted within a month of his chosen departure
date," the complaint states.

"Thereafter, plaintiff received a message from someone acting on
T-Mobile's behalf asking him to contact them regarding his
flight. Plaintiff attempted to call back the number provided
three times during normal business hours but was unable to reach
anyone.

"To date, plaintiff has still not received the free round-trip
flight T-Mobile promised him."

Mr. Fine seeks restitution and punitive damages for class members
in 39 states and the District of Columbia, alleging breach of
contract and unfair and deceptive trade.  

A copy of the Complaint in Fine v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., Case No.
10-2-17363-3 (Wash. Super. Ct., King Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/05/17/TMobile.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Beth E. Terrell, Esq.
          TERRELL MARSHALL & DAUDT PLLC
          3600 Fremont Ave. North
          Seattle, WA 98103
          Telephone: 206-816-6603
          E-mail: bterrell@tmdlegal.com

               - and -

          William M. Sweetnam, Esq.
          SWEETNAM LLC
          5 Revere Dr., Suite 200
          Northbrook, IL 60062
          Telephone: 847-498-7500
          E-mail: wms@sweetnamllc.com

               - and -

          David M. Arbogast, Esq.
          Jeffrey K. Berns, Esq.
          ARBOGAST & BERNS LLP
          6303 Owensmouth Ave., 10th Floor
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367
          Telephone: 818-961-2000
          E-mail: darbogast@law111.com
                  jberns@law111.com


TENNESSEE VALLEY: Two Claims in Suits Over Ash Spill Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee has
dismissed the claims related to Tennessee Valley Authority's
decision to build and operate the ash pond, the claims related to
TVA's recovery and remediation activities, and the demands for
punitive damages and a jury trial, according to the company's
April 30, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

Fifty-seven lawsuits based on the Kingston ash spill have been
filed, and two of these have been voluntarily dismissed.  All of
the remaining cases are pending in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Tennessee.

The lawsuits, four of which are proposed class actions, have been
filed by residents, businesses, and property owners in the
Kingston area.  The plaintiffs generally allege various causes of
action based in tort - including nuisance and strict liability -
and inverse condemnation, and generally seek unspecified
compensatory and punitive damages, court orders to clean up the
plaintiffs' properties and surrounding properties, and other
relief.

With regard to the proposed class actions and certain other
suits, TVA filed several motions, including motions to dismiss
some or all of the claims.

On March 26, 2010, the court issued its decision on these
motions.  The court dismissed the claims related to TVA's
decision to build and operate the ash pond, the claims related to
TVA's recovery and remediation activities, and the demands for
punitive damages and a jury trial.  The court denied TVA's motion
with regard to claims concerning TVA's use, maintenance, and
upkeep of the ash pond, along with the inverse condemnation
claims raised by certain of the plaintiffs.

TVA is the sole defendant in all suits but one proposed class
action, and the plaintiffs in that case have named several TVA
employees as defendants.  On March 24, 2010, the court dismissed
these employees from the case.

Tennessee Valley Authority -- http://www.tva.gov-- is a wholly  
owned but self-funded United States government corporation,
mandated by federal charter to supply power.  TVA has 36,914
megawatts of dependable generating capacity.  TVA's power
facilities include 11 fossil plants, 29 hydroelectric dams, three
nuclear plants, a pumped-storage facility, multiple
combustion turbine sites, and 16,000 miles of transmission lines.  
Through its locally-owned distributors, TVA provides
power to serve people across parts of seven states in the
Tennessee Valley region.


TENNESSEE VALLEY: Schedule for Oral Arguments in Petition Set
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has scheduled
oral arguments in Tennessee Valley Authority's petition for
rehearing for the week of May 24, 2010, according to the
company's April 30, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March
31, 2010.

In April 2006, TVA was added as a defendant to a class action
lawsuit brought in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Mississippi by 14 Mississippi residents allegedly
injured by Hurricane Katrina.

The plaintiffs sued seven large oil companies and an oil company
trade association, three large chemical companies and a chemical
trade association, and 31 large companies involved in the mining
and/or burning of coal.  The plaintiffs allege that the
defendants' greenhouse gas emissions contributed to global
warming and were a proximate and direct cause of Hurricane
Katrina's increased destructive force.

The plaintiffs are seeking monetary damages among other relief.  
The district court dismissed the case on the grounds that the
plaintiffs lacked standing.

The plaintiffs appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

In October 2009, the Fifth Circuit decided that the plaintiffs
have standing to assert their public and private nuisance,
trespass, and negligence claims, and that none of these claims
present political questions, but also concluded that their unjust
enrichment, fraudulent misrepresentation, and civil conspiracy
claims must be dismissed for standing reasons.  
Accordingly, the Fifth Circuit reversed the district court's
judgment in part, dismissed the plaintiffs' suit in part, and
remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings.

TVA and the other defendants filed a petition seeking a rehearing
by the entire Fifth Circuit, which the Fifth Circuit granted,
vacating the lower court's decision.  Oral argument before the
entire Fifth Circuit is scheduled for the week of May 24, 2010.

Tennessee Valley Authority -- http://www.tva.gov-- is a wholly  
owned but self-funded United States government corporation,
mandated by federal charter to supply power.  TVA has 36,914
megawatts of dependable generating capacity.  TVA's power
facilities include 11 fossil plants, 29 hydroelectric dams, three
nuclear plants, a pumped-storage facility, multiple
combustion turbine sites, and 16,000 miles of transmission lines.  
Through its locally-owned distributors, TVA provides
power to serve people across parts of seven states in the
Tennessee Valley region.


TENNESSEE VALLEY: Six TVARS Directors Face Suit in Tennessee
------------------------------------------------------------
Six current members of Tennessee Valley Authority Retirement
System's Board of Directors face a lawsuit filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, according to
Tennessee Valley Authority's April 30, 2010, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2010.

On March 5, 2010, eight current and former participants in and
beneficiaries of the Tennessee Valley Authority Retirement System
(TVARS) filed suit against the six current members of the TVARS
Board of Directors.

The lawsuit challenges the TVARS Board's decision to:

     (1) reduce the calculation for cost of living adjustment
         benefits for calendar years 2010 through 2013,

     (2) reduce the interest crediting rate for the fixed fund
         accounts,

     (3) increase the eligibility age to receive COLAs to
         age 60, and

     (4) suspend the TVA contribution requirements for fiscal
         years 2010 through 2013.

The plaintiffs allege that the amendments violated the TVARS
Board members' fiduciary duties to the plaintiffs (and the
purported class) and the plaintiffs' contractual rights, among
other claims.  The plaintiffs seek damages, an order directing
the TVARS Board to rescind the amendments, and other relief.  
Another group may file a similar lawsuit.

Tennessee Valley Authority -- http://www.tva.gov-- is a wholly  
owned but self-funded United States government corporation,
mandated by federal charter to supply power.  TVA has 36,914
megawatts of dependable generating capacity.  TVA's power
facilities include 11 fossil plants, 29 hydroelectric dams, three
nuclear plants, a pumped-storage facility, multiple
combustion turbine sites, and 16,000 miles of transmission lines.  
Through its locally-owned distributors, TVA provides
power to serve people across parts of seven states in the
Tennessee Valley region.


VISTAPRINT NV: Plaintiffs' Appeal of Dismissed Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
The appeal of the plaintiffs of the dismissal of a consolidated
complaint against VistaPrint, N.V., remains pending in the U.S.
Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, according to the company's April
30, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

On July 29, 2008, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas
against Vistaprint Corp., Vistaprint USA, Inc., Vertrue, Inc. and
Adaptive Marketing, LLC.

Adaptive Marketing, LLC is a Vertrue, Inc., company that provides
subscription-based membership discount programs, including
programs that are offered on the company's Vistaprint.com
website.

The Texas Complaint alleges that the Defendants violated, among
other statutes, the Electronic Funds Transfer Act, the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act, the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices-
Consumer Protection Act and the Texas Theft Liability Act, in
connection with certain membership discount programs offered to
the company's customers on the company's Vistaprint.com website.  
The Texas Complaint also seeks recovery for unjust enrichment,
conversion, and similar common law claims.

Subsequent to the filing of the Texas complaint, in July, August
and September 2008, several nearly identical purported class
action lawsuits were filed in these U.S. District Court's:

     (a) District of New Jersey,
     (b) Southern District of Alabama,
     (c) District of Nevada,
     (d) District of Massachusetts, and
     (e) District of Florida,

against the same Defendants, and in one case Vistaprint Limited,
on behalf of different plaintiffs.

The complaints in each of these nearly identical lawsuits include
substantially the same purported Federal and common law claims as
the Texas Complaint but contain different state law claims.

In addition, on Aug. 28, 2008, a purported class action lawsuit
asserting substantially the same Federal and common law claims as
the Texas Complaint, but containing a state law claim under the
Massachusetts Unfair Trade Practices Act, was filed by a
different plaintiff in the United States District Court, District
of Massachusetts, against Vistaprint Limited, Vistaprint USA,
Inc. and the Vertrue Defendants.

Among other allegations, the plaintiffs in each action claim that
after ordering products on the company's Vistaprint.com website
they were enrolled in certain membership discount programs
operated by the Vertrue Defendants and that monthly subscription
fees for the programs were subsequently charged directly to the
credit or debit cards they used to make purchases on
Vistaprint.com, in each case purportedly without their knowledge
or authorization.

The plaintiffs also claim that the Defendants failed to disclose
to them that the credit or debit card information they provided
to make purchases on Vistaprint.com would be disclosed to the
Vertrue Defendants and would be used to pay for monthly
subscriptions for the membership discount programs.  The
plaintiffs have requested that the Defendants be enjoined from
engaging in the practices complained of by the plaintiffs.  They
also are seeking an unspecified amount of damages, including
statutory and punitive damages, as well as pre-judgment and post-
judgment interest and attorneys' fees and costs for the purported
class.

In response to opposing motions filed by the plaintiffs and the
Defendants, on Dec. 11, 2008, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation ordered the transfer of all of the outstanding cases
to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas for
coordinated pretrial proceedings.

As a result of the ruling of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation, on March 2, 2009, four of the existing plaintiffs
filed a Consolidated Complaint with the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Texas.

On April 17, 2009, Vistaprint USA, Incorporated filed a Motion to
Dismiss the Consolidated Complaint.

On Aug. 31, 2009, the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Texas dismissed all of the claims against the
Defendants and ruled on substantive grounds that the Defendants
had not violated any of the statutes or common law claims cited
by the plaintiffs.

In September 2009, the plaintiffs filed an appeal with the Fifth
Circuit Court of Appeals in Texas.

VistaPrint, N.V. -- http://www.vistaprint.com-- is an online  
provider of coordinated portfolios of marketing products and
services to small businesses globally.  The company offers a
range of products and services ranging from printed business
cards, brochures and post cards to apparel, invitations and
announcements, holiday cards, calendars, creative design
services, copywriting services, direct mail services, promotional
gifts, signage, Website design and hosting services, and e-mail
marketing services.  The company has automated and integrated the
design and production process, from design conceptualization to
product shipment and service delivery.

                            *********

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  * * *