CAR_Public/100525.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Tuesday, May 25, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 101

                            Headlines

AKEENA SOLAR: Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit Pending
AMCOR: Class Action Against Box Cartel Will Test New Ground
ATHENAHEALTH INC: Faces "Casula" Suit in Massachusetts
BP PLC: Daniel Becnel Wants 100 Gulf Oil Spill Suits Consolidated
BP PLC: Beasley Allen Files Property Owner Suit After Oil Spill

CITY OF NEW YORK: Suit Complains About NYPD Electronic Database
COMBS DISTRIBUTION: Cal. Sup. Ct. Says Farmworkers Not Employees
CUSHING MLP: Agrees to Pay $3.6 Mil. to Settle Securities Lawsuit
CUTERA INC: Plaintiffs' Appeal in Dismissed Suit Remains Pending
CUTERA INC: Settlement in TCPA-Violations Suit Gets Final Okay

FIRST CLOVERLEAF: Sued in Ill. for Improper Interest Computation
FIRST NIAGARA: Two Pennsylvania Suits Dismissed
GO DADDY: Call Center Workers Sue for Unpaid Bonuses & Overtime
IAC/INTERACTIVECORP: NY Court Dismissed Securities Complaint
KNAUF PLASTERBOARD: Chinese Drywall Jury Trial Ready in Miami

LA FITNESS: Recurring Billing Practice Leads to Class Action Suit
M/I HOMES: Remains a Defendant in Suit Over Chinese Drywall
M/I HOMES: Continues to Defend Former Employee's Suit in Florida
MONTANA POWER: D. Mont. Approves $62.9 Mil. Settlement Pacts
MORGAN KEEGAN: Mutual Fund Owners File Suit in W.D. Tenn.

NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE: 3rd Cir. Tosses Fan's Class Action Suit
PHILIP MORRIS: Fla. Jury Finds Smoker Failed to Prove Her Case
POLO RALPH: Preliminary Approval of $4 Mil. Employee Settlement
PUTNAM INVESTMENT: Court Mulls Motion to Dismiss Tillery Action
REALOGY CORP: Court Denies Class Certification in Minnesota Suit

REDLANDS COMMUNITY: Employees Seek $18 Mil. for Unpaid Overtime
REWARDS GROUP: Investors Threaten to Launch Class Action Lawsuit
SMYX TECHNOLOGIES: California Court Consolidates Four Suits
SONY COMPUTER: 5th "Removal of OS Option" in PS3 Suit Filed
TARGET CORP: Recalls 350,000 Woven Storage Trunks

TEREX CORPORATION: Faces Three Securities Suit in Connecticut
TEREX CORPORATION: Faces Four ERISA-Related Complaints in Conn.
WALMART STORES: Recalls 900,000 Digital Coffee Makers
XEROX CORP: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Lawsuit
XEROX CORP: Nov. 29 Trial Date Set in Texas Consolidated Lawsuit

XEROX CORP: Plaintiffs Seek to File Supplement in Amended Suit

                            *********

AKEENA SOLAR: Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------
Akeena Solar, Inc.'s motion to dismiss a putative class action
complaint remains pending U.S. District Court Northern District
of California, San Jose Division, according to the company's
May 3, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

A May 24, 2010, hearing has been set for Akeena Solar, Inc.'s
motion to dismiss a putative class action complaint

On May 18, 2009, the company and certain of its officers were
named in a putative class action complaint alleging violations of
the federal securities laws.

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

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

A hearing on the motion to dismiss is currently scheduled for May
24, 2010.

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


AMCOR: Class Action Against Box Cartel Will Test New Ground
-----------------------------------------------------------
Elisabeth Sexton at The Sydney Morning Herald reports that a
class action against the packaging companies Amcor and Visy will
be a test case for whether price-fixing cases can only succeed if
the plaintiffs did not pass on higher prices to their own
customers, a Federal Court judge said yesterday.

Amcor and Visy's primary defence is that they did not overcharge
purchasers of cardboard boxes. A fallback argument is that if the
court finds they did overcharge, their customers suffered no loss
because they passed on the higher cost.

Justice Peter Jacobson made his comments yesterday when the
barrister for thousands of cardboard-box purchasers, Ian Wylie,
said his clients would argue that "as a proposition of law, pass-
through is not available as a defence".

"That may or may not be right," Justice Jacobson said. "That
relies on some American case law which has not been tested here."

Mr Wylie also said that none of his clients had been able to pass
on to their own customers the alleged overcharging during a five-
year cartel.

"A very large volume of them are small, for example fruit and
vegetable packers, who are subject to the whims of the major
grocery chains," he said. "The prices they are able to achieve
are simply dictated to them by their customers."

Amcor's solicitor, Richard Harris, a partner of Allens Arthur
Robinson, told the court that the issue would be "central and
critical" to the defence.

"A central issue is that if there was any overcharge, a very
significant portion of that will have been passed through to
their customers," he said. "There are some very complex
accounting and economic principles as to how these customers
might have passed through even if they say they haven't."

The case has been set down for trial in March.

Yesterday's hearing related to an application by Amcor and Visy
for the court to order some of the plaintiffs to produce
documents relating to their pricing practices. Argument on the
application was adjourned.

The class action, filed in 2006, alleges senior executives of
Amcor and Visy colluded to fix cardboard box prices, initially in
2000 and later in a series of secondary agreements.

It covers similar ground to the competition regulator's
prosecution of Visy, which was settled before trial in 2007.
Amcor received immunity from prosecution by the Australian
Competition and Consumer Commission because it provided
information to the regulator.

Amcor said in March that an expert report, commissioned by the
plaintiffs and which it disputed, had estimated damages at $466
million plus $231 million in interest.


ATHENAHEALTH INC: Faces "Casula" Suit in Massachusetts
------------------------------------------------------
athenahealth, Inc., faces a putative shareholder class action
complaint captioned Casula v. athenahealth, Inc. et al, Civil
Action No. 1:10-cv-10477, according to the company's May 3, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

The suit was filed on March 19, 2010, in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Massachusetts against the company and certain
of its current and former officers.

The complaint alleges that the defendants violated the federal
securities laws by disseminating false and misleading statements
through a press release, statements by senior management, and SEC
filings.  The alleged false and misleading statements concern,
among other things, the amortization period for deferred
implementation revenues.

The complaint seeks unspecified damages, costs, and expenses.

athenahealth, Inc. -- http://www.athenahealth.com/-- is a  
leading provider of Internet-based business services for
physician practices. athenahealth's service offerings are based
on proprietary web-native practice management and electronic
health record (EHR) software, a continuously updated payer
knowledge-base, integrated back-office service operations, and
automated and live patient communication services.


BP PLC: Daniel Becnel Wants 100 Gulf Oil Spill Suits Consolidated
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Curt Anderson at The Associated Press reports that an attorney
wants more than 100 lawsuits filed against BP and other companies
involved in the massive Gulf of Mexico oil spill combined quickly
in a single federal court to avoid what he called legal chaos
that could delay potential payments of billions of dollars in
damages.

Louisiana lawyer Daniel Becnel on Wednesday asked a federal
judicial panel in Washington state to order the lawsuits in five
Gulf Coast states centralized in New Orleans or a federal court
elsewhere in Louisiana, the state so far hit hardest by the
spill. There are currently about 130 lawsuits, although that list
grows each day.

The panel, formally known as the U.S. Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation, earlier this month said it would not
decide on consolidation of oil spill cases until July, but Becnel
wants them to reconsider that decision.

Meanwhile, at least eight federal judges have already held
hearings on oil spill cases in Louisiana and Texas, with some
having to step aside because of conflicts such as family
ownership of company stock.

At the same time, environmental groups have sued the federal
government, claiming lax regulations and special exemptions
contributed to the BP PLC spill and are an ongoing threat for
future offshore drilling.

"It's a mess," said Becnel, whose clients include shrimpers,
oystermen, restaurant owners and others. "The purpose of having
the multidistrict panel is so you don't have a lot of competing
orders and you don't waste a lot of time."

Although BP is paying claims to people and businesses affected by
the spill, those amounts could eventually be dwarfed by damages
resulting from a major class action case involving tens of
thousands of plaintiffs in Louisiana, Texas, Florida, Alabama and
Mississippi. So far, potential class action lawsuits have been
filed by fishing and seafood interests, the tourism industry,
restaurants and clubs, property owners losing vacation renters --
even vacationers who claim the spill forced them to cancel and
lose a deposit.

There are four main defendants: BP, which leased the sunken
Deepwater Horizon; rig operator Transocean; oil services company
Halliburton, which handled the cementing of the well; and Cameron
Inc., which made the blowout preventer that apparently failed to
stop the gusher after the rig exploded April 20, killing 11
workers.

Lamar McKay, BP America chairman and president, told a Senate
committee this week that the company had paid out $15 million in
claims through Tuesday, mostly to shrimpers and commercial
fishermen who have little or no income because of the spill.

"We intend to continue replacing this lost income for as long as
the situation warrants. We are responding to claims as quickly
and as responsibly as possible," McKay testified.

BP has also filed a request with the federal judicial panel to
consolidate the lawsuits, but favors appointment of a judge in
Houston near the headquarters or major operations of the
companies involved.

Transocean, meanwhile, has already filed in Houston federal court
to limit its liability under special maritime law to $27 million.
That cap could be thrown out if a judge found Transocean's
negligence was a cause of the disaster.

Several recent lawsuits filed by environmental groups claim the
Interior Department's Minerals Management Service -- already
under fire on Capitol Hill for a cozy relationship with oil
companies it regulates -- issued special exemptions and bent
rules that may have contributed to the Deepwater Horizon
disaster.

One lawsuit, filed in Alabama federal court by the Gulf
Restoration Network, Sierra Club and Earthjustice, asked a
federal judge to stop MMS from exempting oil companies from
requirements to disclose blowout and worst-case scenarios. The
lawsuit also contends that MMS did not perform a required
environmental impact analysis of a potential blowout at the
Deepwater Horizon drilling site.

"This case is about lax regulation," said Earthjustice attorney
David Guest. "It is actually easier to get a permit for an
offshore oil drilling rig than for a hot dog stand."

An MMS spokesman did not immediately respond Wednesday to an e-
mail seeking comment.


BP PLC: Beasley Allen Files Property Owner Suit After Oil Spill
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ashton Daigle at Legal Newsline reports that Alabama plaintiffs
firm Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis & Miles has filed
another class action lawsuit against BP and other companies
related to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

The lawsuit, which was announced Thursday and alleges negligence
and wanton misconduct, also names Haliburton and Cameron
International as defendants.

According to the petition, the firm seeks to, "represent property
owners and rental agencies that have incurred damages related to
the disaster, including: real property damages; personal property
damages; loss of profits and earning capacity; loss of commercial
and subsistence use of natural resources; increased costs of
public services; and, loss of revenues."

Jere Beasley, the law firm's founding shareholder, said that, as
oil continues to gush from the underwater well, vacationers are
canceling plans and reservations.

As a result, property owners are losing revenues they depend on
during the summer months from rental properties.

"Many of these property owners are accustomed to losses sustained
from hurricanes and natural disasters, but no one anticipated
losing rental income from a manmade disaster of this magnitude,"
Beasley said. "We are working to help ensure their legal rights
are protected and that those responsible are held accountable."

Alabama economic development officials estimate the state could
potentially see losses in the range of $200 million due to
canceled vacations along the Gulf Coast, Beasley said.

According to the suit, "The oil spill also comes at what would
normally be the beginning of the most profitable time for the
Gulf Coast region, which traditionally collects almost 73 percent
of its lodging revenues in the second and third quarters (April-
September). More than $533 million was spent by tourists along
the Alabama Gulf Coast in the 2008-09 fiscal year. Early
estimates indicate tourism in the area may be down by 30 to 50
percent this summer."

The lawsuit was filed in federal court on behalf of plaintiffs
Relax on the Beach, Inc., and Sunshine Rentals Enterprises. It
seeks to represent individuals and businesses that, "own, operate
and derive income, booking fees, or commissions from rental
properties on the Gulf Coast and have suffered damages related to
the disaster."

Beasley's firm has already filed class action lawsuits on behalf
of the restaurant owners, Louisiana businesses, BP shareholders
and individuals who have suffered property damages.

Beasley, a former of lieutenant governor in the state, is also
working with state Attorney General Troy King on lawsuits against
more than 70 pharmaceutical companies.

He's also the campaign chairman for Democratic Congressman Artur
Davis, who is running for governor this year.


CITY OF NEW YORK: Suit Complains About NYPD Electronic Database
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a class action demands the
New York Police Department stop keeping innocent people's names
in an electronic database the NYPD "use(s) to conduct criminal
investigations" after police officers stop and frisk them and
find nothing, or file charges that are dismissed.  State law
requires such information to be sealed, but the NYPD refuses to
do that, so that "a huge number of law-abiding people -- most of
whom are black or Latino -- are being treated as criminal
suspects," according to the complaint in New York County Court.

The class claims the NYPD has "stopped and interrogated people
nearly 3 million times" since 2003 -- and that more than 80
percent of them were blacks and Latinos.  "Even though nearly 90
percent of people stopped have done absolutely nothing unlawful -
- as evidence by the fact that they are neither arrested nor
given a summons -- the NYPD is entering the personal information
of every person stopped into a department database."  And police
Commissioner Raymond Kelly says the cops will keep this
information "indefinitely," according to the complaint.

The class seeks declaratory judgment that the NYPD is violating
state law.  It wants the records of innocent people sealed.  

A copy of the Complaint in Lino, et al. v. The City of New York,
et al., Index No. _____ (N.Y. Sup. Ct., N.Y. Cty.), is available
at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/05/20/NYCLU.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Christopher Dunn, Esq.
          NEW YORK CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION
          125 Broad St., 19th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: 212-607-3300

               - and -

          Alyssa Bell, Esq.
          Mindy Friedman, Esq.
          Rachel Presa, ESq.
          WASHINGTON SQUARE LEGAL SERVICES, INC.
          245 Sullivan St., 5th Floor
          New York, NY 10012
          Telephone: 212-998-6430


COMBS DISTRIBUTION: Cal. Sup. Ct. Says Farmworkers Not Employees
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mike McKee at The Recorder reports that for 97 years, neither
California legislators nor the courts ever clarified who
qualified as an employer under the state Industrial Welfare
Commission's wage orders.

That changed on Thursday when the California Supreme Court
decided, in part, who doesn't qualify -- at least in business
relationships where employees work for independent contractors.

Specifically, the court held unanimously that farmworkers
couldn't seek unpaid wages from the two companies that marketed
strawberries they picked for their boss, an independent
contractor who went broke while they worked for him.

The ruling in Martinez v. Combs, 10 C.D.O.S. 6119, shot down the
hopes of not only thousands of farmworkers, but janitors, food
service workers and others dependent on jobs in which employers
contract with third parties for services.

William Hoerger, who argued the farmworkers' case, said Thursday
he was "immensely disappointed" that his clients were "walking
away with their hands empty." But he was thrilled that the high
court reaffirmed the Legislature's 1913 decision that gave the
IWC the unfettered authority to decide employer liability in wage
cases.

"The result of this is really to keep California in the
mainstream of state protections for workers," Hoerger, the
director of litigation, advocacy and training for San Francisco-
based California Rural Legal Assistance Inc., said. "It's an
important case for the future."

The California Employment Lawyers Association, of Encino, Calif.,
also embraced the ruling, saying in a prepared statement it
"acknowledges the constitutionally derived powers of the IWC."

About 180 farmworkers sued Guadalupe-based Apio Inc. and Combs
Distribution Co. of Santa Maria -- the companies that contracted
with the workers' boss, Isidro Munoz Sr., to market and sell
strawberries -- after their pay dried up in the summer of 2000.

The workers claimed that the companies qualified as employers
after their boss's insolvency because of old IWC wage orders that
defined employers as those who have "control over wages, hours or
working conditions" and "suffers or permits any person to work."

They claimed that the companies benefited from their labor and
essentially ran Munoz's operations by contracting to be the "sole
judge" of the crop's quality and sending personnel into the field
to confirm that the strawberries were ready for market.

In her ruling, Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdegar found those
arguments "unreasonably broad" and held that Munoz and his
foremen "had the exclusive power to hire and fire his workers, to
set their wages and hours, and to tell them when and where to
report to work."

The plaintiffs' argument, she wrote, could extend liability to
grocery stores that purchased the strawberries and consumers who
ate them.

"That the IWC has not," she continued, "in nearly a century of
administering the minimum wage, seen fit to propose plaintiffs'
downstream-benefit theory of liability strongly suggests the
theory is not reasonably necessary to permit the commission to
discharge its statutory responsibilities."

Werdegar's ruling delved deeply into the history of the IWC,
finding -- to the employee advocates' pleasure -- that the
Legislature in 1913 definitely intended the organization to be
the final arbiter defining employment relationships in suits
filed under the state Labor Code.

"Courts must give the IWC's wage orders independent effect," she
wrote, "in order to protect the commission's delegated authority
to enforce the state's wage laws and, as appropriate, to provide
greater protection to workers than federal law affords."

Apio's attorney, Effie Anastassiou of Salinas' Anastassiou &
Associates, didn't return a call seeking comment.


CUSHING MLP: Agrees to Pay $3.6 Mil. to Settle Securities Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RTT News reports that Cushing MLP Total Return Fund has agreed to
pay $3.6 million to settle a securities class action lawsuit
filed by Terri Bachow.

The lawsuit was filed against Swank Energy Income Advisers L.P.,
Swank Capital LLC, Jerry Swank, Mark Fordyce, and the Fund's
outside trustees pending in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Texas.

The lawsuit relates to allegations concerning the Fund's
treatment of its deferred tax asset under financial accounting
standard No. 109.

Although all of the named defendants have denied any liability or
responsibility for the claims made and make no admission of any
wrongdoing, the Fund believes that it is in the best interests of
its shareholders to settle the matter.

The Fund anticipates that the entire settlement amount will be
paid by its insurers and that the Fund will not incur any further
costs or liability from this settlement.


CUTERA INC: Plaintiffs' Appeal in Dismissed Suit Remains Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
The appeal of the plaintiffs on the dismissal of a consolidated
suit against Cutera Inc., remains pending in the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, according to the company's May 3,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

Two securities class action lawsuits were filed against the
company and two of the company's executive officers in April 2007
and May 2007, respectively, in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California following declines in the
company's stock price.

The plaintiffs claim to represent purchasers of the company's
common stock from Jan. 31, 2007, through May 7, 2007.  The
complaints generally allege that materially false statements and
omissions were made regarding the company's financial prospects,
and seek unspecified monetary damages.

On Nov. 1, 2007, the Court ordered the two cases consolidated.

On Dec. 17, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated, amended
complaint, and on Jan. 31, 2008, the company filed a motion to
dismiss that complaint.  On Sept. 30, 2008, in response to the
company's motion, the Court issued an order dismissing the
plaintiffs' amended complaint without prejudice.

On Oct.28, 2008, the plaintiffs filed a Notice Of Intention Not
to File A Second Amended Consolidated Complaint.

On Nov. 25, 2008, the Court closed the case on its own
initiative.

On Nov. 26, 2008, the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal to the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, on April 16, 2009
the plaintiffs filed their opening brief with that Court, on June
17, 2009, the company filed its response to Plaintiff's brief, on
July 1, 2009 the plaintiffs filed their response to the company's
brief, and on Feb. 11, 2010, both parties presented oral argument
to the Court of Appeals.

No decision has yet been rendered by the Court of Appeals.

Brisbane, California-based Cutera Inc. -- http://www.cutera.com/
-- provides laser and other energy-based aesthetic systems for
practitioners worldwide.  Since 1998, Cutera has been developing
innovative, easy-to-use products that enable physicians and other
qualified practitioners to offer safe and effective aesthetic
treatments to their patients.


CUTERA INC: Settlement in TCPA-Violations Suit Gets Final Okay
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Illinois Circuit Court, Cook County, gave its final approval
to the settlement in a suit against Cutera Inc., alleging
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, according to
the company's May 3, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March
31, 2010.

A class action lawsuit was filed against the company in January
2008 in the Illinois Circuit Court, Cook County, by Bridgeport
Pain Control Center, Ltd., seeking monetary damages, injunctive
relief, costs and other relief.

The complaint alleged that the company violated the TCPA by
sending unsolicited advertisements by facsimile to the plaintiff
and other recipients nationwide during the four-year period
preceding the lawsuit without the prior express invitation or
permission of the recipients. Two state law claims, limited to
Illinois recipients, alleged a class period of three and five
years, respectively.

Under the TCPA, recipients of unsolicited facsimile
advertisements may be entitled to damages of $500 per violation
for inadvertent violations and $1,500 per violation for knowing
or willful violations.  On Feb. 22, 2008, the company removed the
case to federal court in the Northern District of Illinois.

On Aug. 25, 2009, following negotiations between the parties, the
parties entered into a settlement agreement that would resolve
the case on a class-wide basis.

On April 6, 2010, the Court gave its final approval for the
settlement.

Under the terms of the settlement, the company paid a total of
$950,000 in exchange for a full release of facsimile-related
claims.  The company included $850,000 in its 2009 Condensed
Consolidated Statements of Operations for the cost of the
settlement, net of the estimated administrative expenses expected
to be recoverable from its insurance carrier.

Brisbane, California-based Cutera Inc. -- http://www.cutera.com/
-- provides laser and other energy-based aesthetic systems for
practitioners worldwide.  Since 1998, Cutera has been developing
innovative, easy-to-use products that enable physicians and other
qualified practitioners to offer safe and effective aesthetic
treatments to their patients.


FIRST CLOVERLEAF: Sued in Ill. for Improper Interest Computation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Holleran at the St. Clair Record reports that an
Edwardsville, Ill.-based real estate company has filed a class
action lawsuit against First Cloverleaf Bank, claiming the bank
wrongly raked in extra money from it and other companies after
basing annual interest rates on a period of less than 12 months.

Prime Development filed the putative class action lawsuit May 6
in St. Clair County Circuit Court against First Cloverleaf Bank.

Bernard Ysursa of Belleville represents Prime Development.

Prime Development claims First Cloverleaf enticed it into
executing a commercial loan with the bank by quoting interest at
a certain interest rate. However, the bank either did not include
a time period or stated a "per annum" rate in Prime Development's
loan agreement, according to the complaint.

First Cloverleaf Bank has four locations: three in Edwardsville
and one in Wood River.

"Plaintiff and the class paid the Bank monthly installment
payments on their loans," the suit states. "Upon receipt of the
installment payments, and unbeknownst to Plaintiff and the Class,
the Bank unlawfully allocated interest to itself at the rate of
101.4% (101.7% leap year) of the agreed-upon annual rate of
interest that the Bank stated in the Loan Agreements, and then
allocated the remainder of the installment payment to a reduction
in principal on the loans."

By using a period of less than 12 months to compute the interest
on the unpaid portion of Prime Development's loan, the bank
charged extra interest than it represented to Prime Development
and other class plaintiffs, the complaint says.

Because of the way it prepared its loans, First Cloverleaf caused
confusion among its clients about the yearly interest cost, Prime
Development claims.

"As a proximate cause of the above-described deceptive and unfair
conduct of the Bank, Plaintiff and Class were deceived into
borrowing money from the Bank and were damaged to the extent that
they were charged interest at a higher rate than quoted by the
Bank and agreed upon as conspicuously stated in their Promissory
Notes and Loan Agreements," the suit states.

According to an article in the St. Louis Business Journal, Prime
Development was forced into bankruptcy in 2007, owing more than
$6.6 million to First Bank, Bank of Edwardsville and Bank of
O'Fallon.

Prime Development was the developer of the Fairfield subdivision
in Glen Carbon and the Stonebriar subdivision on the outskirts of
Troy, the article states.

In its four-count complaint, Prime Development alleges breach of
contract, violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive
Business Practices Act and violations of the Illinois Interest
Act.

Prime Development wants the court to certify its complaint as a
class action; to award it and the class economic, actual and
compensatory damages; to adjust downward the principal balance on
current loans that the bank computes interest at less than 12
months; and to award it pre-judgment interest, costs, attorneys'
fees and other relief the court deems just.

St. Clair County Circuit Court case number: 10-L-231.


FIRST NIAGARA: Two Pennsylvania Suits Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------
Two class actions against First Niagara Financial Group, Inc.,
has been dismissed without prejudice, according to the company's
May 3, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

The company has entered into a merger agreement with Harleysville
National Corporation, and expects the merger to close early in
the second quarter of 2010.

The company has been named as a defendant in two separate class
actions filed in the Court of Common Pleas, Montgomery
County, Pennsylvania:

     (1) Seibert v. Harleysville National Corp., et al.; and
     (2) McAuvic v. Geraghty, et al.

Both actions challenge the terms of the proposed merger.

The Seibert and McAuvic complaints each charge that Harleysville
and its directors breached their fiduciary duties to Harleysville
stockholders by failing to negotiate a fair price for
Harleysville National Corporation stock.  In addition, the
plaintiffs claim that the process leading to the proposed merger
was unfair.

The complaints allege that the company aided and abetted the
breaches of fiduciary duty by Harleysville and its directors.
The complaints seek to enjoin the proposed merger and to recover
money damages.

A substantially similar case was filed in Montgomery County
naming only Harleysville and its directors as defendants and
captioned Shoemaker v. Geraghty, et al.

On April 14, 2010, plaintiffs filed stipulations dismissing all
three of these cases, without prejudice.

First Niagara Financial Group, Inc. -- http://www.fnfg.com/--  
provides a range of retail and commercial banking, as well as
other financial services through its wholly owned savings bank
subsidiary, First Niagara Bank.  First Niagara Bank is a
community bank providing financial services to individuals,
families, and businesses through its branch network located
across Upstate New York and Western Pennsylvania.  The Bank's
subsidiaries provide a range of financial services to individuals
and small and medium size companies.  The subsidiaries include
First Niagara Commercial Bank (the Commercial Bank), whose
primary purpose is to generate municipal deposits; First Niagara
Funding, Inc., which primarily originates and holds some of the
Bank's commercial real estate and business loans, and First
Niagara Risk Management, Inc. (FNRM).


GO DADDY: Call Center Workers Sue for Unpaid Bonuses & Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Murphy at The Register reports that disgruntled former
employees of domain-name registrar Go Daddy have filed a class
action lawsuit against the company, claiming potentially millions
of dollar in "stolen" bonuses and overtime.

The suit claims that the domain-name market leader broke the law
by using a "subjective and arbitrary" process to withhold
commissions from its call centre techies, and then fired one when
he blew the whistle.

It also alleges that by treating sales commissions as
discretionary bonuses, Go Daddy has avoided paying its staff
overtime at the proper rate.

One plaintiff told us that he believes the company is using these
tricks to wipe $ million to $20 million a year from its labor
costs.  

"In my first 30 days, they pulled about $1,300 in bonuses from
me, that was about half my income," said Toby Harris, one of
three named plaintiffs.

According to Harris, call centre staff have 12 minutes to run
through a check-list of updates and up-sells with each customer.
A score below 80 per cent means no bonus. Harris scored 78 per
cent in his first month, despite being the top-selling employee.

Harris was fired earlier this year, after only a couple of months
at the company. His termination letter says he was fired for not
sufficiently validating a customer's identity, but he claims to
be a "whistleblower" who was wrongfully dismissed.

Go Daddy is believed to have about a thousand Inbound Technical
Sales and Support Specialists, who handle all sales and tech
support calls to the company.  Most are based in Arizona.

The case could cover all of Go Daddy's call center staff going
back five years.


IAC/INTERACTIVECORP: NY Court Dismissed Securities Complaint
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has
dismissed the second amended complaint in a consolidated
purported shareholder class-action lawsuit against
IAC/InteractiveCorp alleging violations of the federal securities
laws remains pending, 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.

Beginning on Sept. 20, 2004, 12 purported shareholder class-
action suits were commenced in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York against IAC and certain of its
officers and directors, alleging violations of the federal
securities laws.  These cases arose out of the company's Aug. 4,
2004 announcement of its earnings for the second quarter of 2004
and generally alleged that the value of the company's stock was
artificially inflated by pre-announcement statements about its
financial results and forecasts that were false and misleading
due to the defendants' alleged failure to disclose various
problems faced by the company's travel businesses (which in 2005
were spun off into a separate public company, Expedia, Inc.).

On Dec. 20, 2004, the district court consolidated the 12
lawsuits, appointed co-lead plaintiffs, and designated co-lead
plaintiffs' counsel.

On May 20, 2005, the plaintiffs in the federal securities class
action filed a consolidated amended complaint.  Like its 12
predecessors, the amended complaint generally alleged that the
value of the company's stock was artificially inflated by pre-
announcement statements about the company's financial results and
forecasts that were false and misleading due to the
defendants' alleged failure to disclose various problems faced by
the company's then travel businesses.  The plaintiffs sought to
represent a class of shareholders who purchased IAC common stock
between March 31, 2003 and Aug. 3, 2004.  The defendants were IAC
and 14 current or former officers or directors of the company or
its former Expedia travel business.  The complaint purported to
assert claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, as
well as Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, and
sought damages in an unspecified amount.

On Sept. 15, 2005, IAC and the other defendants filed motions to
dismiss both the securities class-action and the shareholder
derivative suits, which the plaintiffs opposed.  On Oct. 12,
2006, the court heard oral argument on the motions.

On March 22, 2007, the court issued an opinion and order (i)
granting the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint in the
securities class action, with leave to replead, and (ii) granting
the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint in the
shareholder derivative suits, with prejudice.

On May 15, 2007, the plaintiffs in the securities class-action
filed a second amended complaint.  The new pleading continues to
allege that the defendants failed to disclose material
information concerning problems at the company's then-travel
businesses and to assert the same legal claims as its
predecessor.  On Aug. 15, 2007, the defendants filed a motion to
dismiss the second amended complaint, which motion the plaintiffs
have opposed, which motion remains pending.

On March 19, 2010, the district court issued a memorandum opinion
and order granting the defendants' motion and dismissing the
second amended complaint with prejudice.

Judgment was entered on March 20, 2010, and the plaintiffs' time
to appeal has expired.

On April 1, 2010, as a result of the district court's ruling, the
plaintiffs' appeal from the dismissal of the complaint in the two
related consolidated shareholder derivative suits was dismissed
with prejudice on consent.

The suit is "In re IAC/InteractiveCorp Securities Litigation,
Case No. 1:04-cv-07447-RJH," (S.D.N.Y.) (Holwell, J.).

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Gregory M. Nespole, Esq.
         Wolf, Haldenstein, Adler, Freeman & Herz L.L.P.
         270 Madison Avenue
         New York, NY 10016;

              - and -

         Jeffrey S. Nobel, Esq.
         Schatz & Nobel
         One Corporate Center, 20 Church Street, Suite 1700
         Hartford, CT 06103
         Phone: 860-493-6292

Representing the defendants is

         Stephen R. DiPrima, Esq.
         Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz
         51 West 52nd Street
         New York, NY 10019
         Phone: (212) 403-1382
         Fax: (212) 403-2000
         e-mail: srdiprima@wlrk.com


KNAUF PLASTERBOARD: Chinese Drywall Jury Trial Ready in Miami
-------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Brinkmann at the South Florida Business Journal reports that
Miami-Dade County Circuit Court may soon host the nation's first
class action lawsuit over high-sulfur Chinese drywall.
A jury trial is set for the first week of June. A hearing to
certify a potential class of plaintiffs is set for May 27.

The plaintiffs, Jason Harrell and Melissa Harrell, filed suit in
January 2009 against Knauf Plasterboard Tianjin Co. Ltd., a
German-owned Chinese company that manufactured the defective
drywall installed by their homebuilder, South Kendall
Construction Corp.

South Kendall Construction, also a defendant, filed for
bankruptcy in March, citing numerous claims for damages due to
the drywall problem.


LA FITNESS: Recurring Billing Practice Leads to Class Action Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Berger & Montague, P.C. has filed a consumer
class action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania on behalf of: (1) former members of L.A. Fitness
International, LLC who have incurred at least one additional
monthly billing charge after they timely cancelled their Monthly
Dues Membership Agreements with LA Fitness, despite the fact that
they were up to date with dues payments at the time they mailed
their cancellation notices; and (2) current members of LA Fitness
who entered into Monthly Dues Membership Agreements which contain
egregious cancellation provisions and who will be forced to pay
dues for one or more months after they cancel their memberships.

If you wish to discuss this action, supply information about
these claims, or have any questions concerning your rights or
interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel:

          Eric Lechtzin, Esq.
          Berger & Montague
          Telephone: 215-875-3000
          E-mail: elechtzin@bm.net

A copy of the Class Action Complaint in Bilgram v. L.A. Fitness
International, LLC, Case No. 10-cv-02326 (E.D. Pa.), can be
viewed on Berger & Montague, P.C.'s website at
http://www.bergermontague.com/or or http://is.gd/cjBuJor may be  
requested from the Court.  

LA Fitness operates health and fitness clubs throughout the
United States. The complaint alleges that LA Fitness breached its
Monthly Dues Membership Agreement and violated state consumer
protection laws. Specifically, LA Fitness represented to members
that its Monthly Dues Membership Agreement was a "monthly"
contract that could be terminated -- along with monthly dues
billing -- simply by following the contract's procedures for
cancellation. The plaintiff alleges this representation was
deceptive because, in actuality, due to LA Fitness's unfair
practices, it was and is virtually impossible to cancel the
contract without being charged at least one or two months of
additional dues, even when members follow the Company's stated
cancellation procedures.

These unfair practices include: (1) imposing an unreasonably long
30-day notice requirement (20 days for newer contracts) prior to
the next billing date for members to cancel and avoid incurring
additional monthly charges; (2) using prepaid last month's dues
to extend contracts beyond members' usage, despite the Company's
representation in the contract that "no further billing will
occur" after timely mailing of a cancellation notice; (3) failing
to inform members that they can only cancel by using a particular
cancellation form, obtainable only in-person at an LA Fitness
club; (4) delaying members who want to cancel their memberships
by refusing to allow them to cancel in-person, or by telephone,
e-mail or facsimile; and (5) systematically ignoring proper and
timely cancellation notices in order to continue automatic
billing of dues from members bank accounts or credit cards.

For more information, please contact:

          Sherrie R. Savett, Esq.
          Barbara A. Podell, Esq.
          Michael T. Fantini, Esq.
          Eric Lechtzin, Esq.
          BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
          1622 Locust Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: 215-875-3000

Berger & Montague, founded in 1970, is a pioneer in class action
litigation. The firm's approximately 70 attorneys concentrate
their practice in complex litigation, including consumer
protection, securities fraud, antitrust, civil and human rights,
and environmental and mass torts, and have recovered several
billion dollars for consumers and investors.


M/I HOMES: Remains a Defendant in Suit Over Chinese Drywall
-----------------------------------------------------------
M/I Homes Inc., continues to remains a defendant in a suit over
Chinese manufactured drywall, 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 March 5, 2009, a resident of Florida and an owner of one of
the company's homes filed a complaint on behalf of himself and
other similarly situated owners and residents of homes in the
United States or alternatively in Florida, against M/I Homes,
Inc., and certain other identified and unidentified
manufacturers, builders, and suppliers of drywall.

The plaintiff alleges that M/I Homes built his home with
defective drywall, manufactured by certain of the defendants,
that contains sulfur or other organic compounds capable of
harming the health of individuals and damaging metals.

The plaintiff alleges physical and economic damages and seeks
legal and equitable relief, medical monitoring and attorney's
fees.

The company filed a responsive pleading on or about April 30,
2009.

This case has been consolidated with other similar actions not
involving the company and transferred to the Eastern District of
Louisiana pursuant to an order from the United States Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation for coordinated pre-trial
proceedings (collectively, the In Re: Chinese Manufactured
Drywall Product Liability Litigation).  In connection with the
administration of the In Re: Chinese Manufactured Drywall Product
Liability Litigation, the same homeowner and five other
homeowners are named as plaintiffs in an omnibus class action
complaint filed in December 2009 against a certain identified
manufacturer of drywall and others (including the company) and
one other homeowner is named as a plaintiff in another omnibus
class action complaint filed in March 17, 2010, against various
unidentified manufacturers of drywall and others (including the
company) (collectively, the MDL Omnibus Actions).

As they relate to the company, the Initial Action and the MDL
Omnibus Actions address substantially the same claims and seek
substantially the same relief.

Based in Columbus, Ohio, M/I Homes Inc. --
http://www.mihomes.com/-- is a builder of single-family homes.   
The company's homes are marketed and sold under the trade names
M/I Homes and Showcase Homes.  The company has homebuilding
operations in Columbus and Cincinnati, Ohio; Chicago, Illinois;
Indianapolis, Indiana; Tampa and Orlando, Florida; Charlotte and
Raleigh, North Carolina; and the Virginia and Maryland suburbs of
Washington, D.C.


M/I HOMES: Continues to Defend Former Employee's Suit in Florida
----------------------------------------------------------------
M/I Homes Inc., continues to defend a complaint filed by a former
employee.

On March 14, 2008, a former employee filed a complaint in the
U.S. District Court, Middle District of Florida, on behalf of
himself and those similarly situated, against M/I Homes, Inc.,
alleging that he and other construction superintendents were
misclassified as exempt and not paid overtime compensation under
the Fair Labor Standards Act and seeking equitable relief,
damages and attorneys' fees.

Six other individuals have filed consent forms in order to join
the action.

The company filed an answer on or about Aug. 21, 2008.

No further updates were reported in 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.

Based in Columbus, Ohio, M/I Homes Inc. --
http://www.mihomes.com/-- is a builder of single-family homes.   
The company's homes are marketed and sold under the trade names
M/I Homes and Showcase Homes.  The company has homebuilding
operations in Columbus and Cincinnati, Ohio; Chicago, Illinois;
Indianapolis, Indiana; Tampa and Orlando, Florida; Charlotte and
Raleigh, North Carolina; and the Virginia and Maryland suburbs of
Washington, D.C.


MONTANA POWER: D. Mont. Approves $62.9 Mil. Settlement Pacts
------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Volz at The Associated Press reports that a federal judge on
Thursday approved settlements worth $62.9 million in three class-
action lawsuits brought by shareholders and former employees of
Montana Power Co. who said the defunct utility's leaders were
responsible for its collapse.

The resolution of the three lawsuits is part of a larger $115
million global settlement of claims against the former energy
giant that went bankrupt in 2003 after its leaders sold the
company's utility assets to become a telecommunications company
called Touch America.

U.S. District Judge Sam Haddon approved the settlements despite
complaints from some plaintiffs that the amounts were too low. He
acknowledged the amount of money in the settlements "mediocre, or
perhaps even minuscule," but said it was the best that could be
hoped after nearly a decade of litigation.

The $115 million settlement fund is made up of $68 million from
insurance companies, $33 million from the investment firm Goldman
Sachs and $14 million from the law firm Milbank Tweed. Goldman
Sachs and Milbank Tweed advised Montana Power Co. on the sale of
its assets, which took place from the late 1990s to 2002.

Marjorie Schmechel, a shareholder and the daughter of former
Montana Power Co. President Paul Schmechel, who retired in 1992,
told the judge that the last leaders of the once-proud company
looted it and drove it out of business. This settlement fund
doesn't include payment by any of those company leaders, allowing
them to escape real accountability, she said.

"If that is how corporations in America work ... then our
corporate system is broken," she said. "They used shareholder
money as if it belonged to them and they engaged in a series of
actions that trashed the company in three years."

The company and the other defendants have denied the plaintiffs'
claims, saying they were victims of a collapse in the
telecommunications market, and specifically, the fiberoptics
market.

Shareholders who claimed Montana Power sold its utility assets
without giving its shareholders the chance to vote on it were
awarded $39 million in their class-action settlement.

Haddon also approved a $19 million settlement to shareholders who
claimed the company made false statements about its income and
customer base in 2001 to prop up its faltering stock price.

The money from those two settlements will come from the $115
million global settlement fund. The remainder of the settlement
fund, about $57 million, goes to a trust responsible for
distributing the money to shareholders through federal bankruptcy
court in Delaware.

The third class-action lawsuit settled Thursday involved former
employees who claimed the company breached its responsibility to
them by not protecting their retirement plans. That $4.9 million
settlement will be paid through insurance the company carried and
individual defendants outside of the settlement fund.

Under the global settlement, all three of the proposed agreements
had to be approved for the plaintiffs in any of the cases to
receive payment. Attorneys in the cases estimated it could take
anywhere from four months to a year for the settlements to be
finalized and the plaintiffs paid.

The former energy giant began selling off its assets in the late
1990s. It sold its electrical-generating plants to PPL Montana,
its coal business to Westmoreland Coal Co., its independent power
operations to BBI Power Corp. and its oil and gas operations to
PanCanadian Petroleum Ltd.

In February 2002, NorthWestern Corp. completed its $1.1 billion
purchase of Montana Power's transmission and distribution system
for electricity and natural gas and Montana Power became Touch
America. Within five months, the company's stock fell below $1
per share.

Touch America filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 2003.

There are still a couple of loose ends to the lawsuits. Haddon
questioned $8 million in attorney fees requested by the
plaintiffs attorneys in one of the lawsuits, and next week plans
to either appoint a mediator or set a hearing examining those
fees.

Haddon also gave the defendant named in the $19 million
securities lawsuit three additional weeks to agree to that
settlement after the judge excluded from the settlement five
plaintiffs who opted out of the lawsuit and could file their own
separate lawsuits.


MORGAN KEEGAN: Mutual Fund Owners File Suit in W.D. Tenn.
---------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a class action lawsuit has been
filed against Memphis-based Morgan Keegan alleging that investors
in four mutual funds were not informed about risky investments
that resulted in $1 billion in losses.

The lawsuit claiming violation of federal securities laws was
filed in U.S. District Court in Memphis by Labaton Sucharow LLP
on Wednesday.

The states of Mississippi, Alabama, Kentucky and South Carolina
along with the Securities and Exchange Commission and the
Financial Industry Regulatory Authority have previously announced
administrative actions against Morgan Keegan, which is owned by
Birmingham, Ala.-based Regions Financial Corp.

Kathy Ridley, a spokeswoman for Morgan Keegan, said the filing is
similar to other class action lawsuits that are still pending in
court and there are no new allegations.

A copy of the Complaint in Palmour v. Morgan Keegan & Company,
Inc., et al., Case No. 10-cv-02380 (W.D. Tenn.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/05/21/Securities.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq.
          BRANSTETTER, STRANCH & JENNINGS, PLLC
          227 Second Ave. North
          Nashville, TN 37201
          Telephone: 615-254-8801
          E-mail: gstranch@branstetterlaw.com

               - and -

          Christopher J. Keller, Esq.
          Alan I. Ellman, Esq.
          Stefanie J. Sundel, Esq.
          LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
          140 Broadway
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: 212-907-0700

               - and -

          George S. Trevor, Esq.
          PEARSON, SIMON, WARSHAW, & PENNY, LLP
          44 Montgomery St., Suite 2450
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: 415-433-9000


NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE: 3rd Cir. Tosses Fan's Class Action Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Shannon P. Duffy at The Legal Intelligencer reports that a ticket
to a football game doesn't come with any promise that the contest
will be an honest one, a federal appeals court ruled on
Wednesday, rejecting an appeal by fans who said they were
defrauded in the recent New England Patriots "Spygate" scandal.

In Mayer v. Belichick, the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held
that a lower court correctly dismissed the suit on the grounds
that fans cannot claim any "cognizable injury" that stems from
paying to watch a game that is later deemed to have an element of
cheating.  A copy of the Third Circuit's Opinion is available at:

     http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/092237p.pdf

"Ticket-holders and other fans may have legitimate issues with
the manner in which they are treated. However, the one thing they
cannot do is bring a legal action in a court of law," Senior U.S.
Circuit Judge Robert E. Cowen wrote.

"No one in the past has ever brought a legal action quite like
this one," Cowen wrote in an opinion joined by 3rd Circuit Judge
D. Michael Fisher and visiting U.S. District Judge Gene E.K.
Pratter of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

At issue in the appeal, Cowen said, was "the alleged existence of
a very specific but very different and unusual right: namely, the
right of a ticketholder to see an 'honest' game played in
compliance with the fundamental rules of the NFL itself."

Although the case was unique, Cowen found that the courts have
consistently rejected comparable claims, such as the ruling that
said boxing fans weren't cheated when Mike Tyson was disqualified
for biting a chunk out of Evander Holyfield's ear. As the New
York Appellate Division explained in that case: "that there was
nothing in any contract promising a fight that did not end in a
disqualification."

Cowen and Fisher had aggressively questioned lawyers for the NFL
when the case was argued in April, suggesting to some court
watchers that the 3rd Circuit might be poised to revive the suit.

But Wednesday's ruling slammed the door shut on any such claims.

"A ruling in favor of [the ticket-holders] could lead to other
disappointed fans filing lawsuits because of 'a blown call' that
apparently caused their team to lose or any number of allegedly
improper acts committed by teams, coaches, players, referees and
umpires, and others," Cowen wrote.

"This court refuses to countenance a course of action that would
only further burden already limited judicial resources and force
professional sports organizations and related individuals to
expend money, time, and resources to defend against such
litigation," Cowen wrote.

In the suit, a proposed class action, lead plaintiff Carl Mayer,
a New York Jets fan, claimed that he and other ticket holders
were cheated out of what they had paid for -- an honest game,
played under NFL rules -- when the New England Patriots
surreptitiously filmed the signals of their opponents.

Plaintiffs lawyer Bruce I. Afran of Princeton, N.J., argued that
U.S. District Judge Garrett Brown of the District of New Jersey
erred in tossing the suit out on the grounds that the Patriots'
violation of the rule didn't harm the fans.

In his appellate brief, Afran said the case was about "a massive,
systematic organizational scheme to steal opponents' signals and
cheat ticket-holders of a contest played according to NFL rules."

The brief said that "such pervasive cheating has consistently
given the Patriots an unfair, illegal advantage over its
opponents and systematically deprived plaintiffs of the right to
witness football matches played fairly as advertised and
according to NFL rules, which is what plaintiffs contracted for."

The NFL hit Patriots coach Bill Belichick with a $500,000 fine
and the team lost a first-round draft choice.

Now the 3rd Circuit has ruled that the NFL should be left to
enforce its rules without any interference from the courts.

"It is not the role of judges and juries to be second-guessing
the decision taken by a professional sports league purportedly
enforcing its own rules. In fact, we generally lack the
knowledge, experience, and tools in which to engage in such an
inquiry," Cowen wrote.

The NFL was represented in the appeal by attorney Shepard
Goldfein of Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom. The Patriots and
Belichick were represented by Daniel L. Goldberg of Bingham
McCutchen in Boston.

Mayer and his lawyer, Bruce Afran, both worked for consumer
advocate Ralph Nader earlier in their careers and consider
"Spygate" a consumer-fraud case.

"It's a clear issue of consumer fraud. The mere fact that this is
in the context of football doesn't mean that the people who pay
to see the game have no rights," Afran told the Associated Press
on Wednesday.

Many NFL ticket holders struggle to pay the high ticket price and
deserve an honest game in return, he said.

The court's ruling, Afran said in the AP interview, "seems to
suggest that no matter how much ticket holders pay, they can be
defrauded by NFL teams. And it puts the NFL on the same level as
professional wrestling."

NFL spokesman Greg Aiello declined to comment except to say the
ruling speaks for itself.


PHILIP MORRIS: Fla. Jury Finds Smoker Failed to Prove Her Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
A Duval County, Fla., jury ruled in favor of Philip Morris USA
(PM USA) last week in a lawsuit filed by the family of a smoker
following a 2006 Florida Supreme Court decision that decertified
a class action but allowed former class members to file
individual lawsuits.

"We believe that the jury correctly decided that the plaintiff
failed to prove her case," said Murray Garnick, Altria Client
Services senior vice president and associate general counsel,
speaking on behalf of PM USA.

At trial, the court allowed the jury to rely on general findings
made in the decertified class action that are totally unrelated
to the plaintiff in this case.

"The jury reached the correct result despite the fact that the
trial court adopted an unfair trial plan that eliminated any
requirement that the plaintiff prove that PM USA did anything
wrong to recover damages," said Garnick. "Each federal trial
court that has reviewed the trial plan used in these state cases
has found that they violate Florida law and are
unconstitutional," said Garnick.

About 4,000 Engle-related claims are pending in federal court and
have been put on hold pending a federal appeals court review of
the state-law and constitutional issues that arise from allowing
the plaintiff to rely on prior Engle jury findings.

The case is Gil de Rubio v. PM USA, et al.


POLO RALPH: Preliminary Approval of $4 Mil. Employee Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court granted preliminary approval of
a $4 million class action settlement last week in a lawsuit filed
by more than 6,700 former Polo Ralph Lauren employees in
California.

The former Polo employees sued the luxury fashion retailer for
wages they claim had been unpaid since 2002. They alleged
managers kept them locked inside Polo stores for up to half an
hour after their shifts ended to search them for stolen
merchandise. The workers also alleged Polo used fraud to deny
them overtime pay in its California stores and denied them rest
breaks.

The lawsuit settled during trial following four years of
litigation.  This order is the first step in a settlement process
that is expected to end in October when class members will be
paid. One of the plaintiffs' attorneys:

          Patrick R. Kitchin, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF PATRICK R. KITCHIN
          565 Commercial Street, 4th Floor     
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: 415-677-9058
          E-mail: prk@kitchinlegal.com

explained,  "The court's order permits us to send notice of the
settlement to class members. We anticipate thousands will submit
claims in the coming weeks."

Kitchin previously represented Polo employees in another class
action against the fashion icon that settled for $1.5 million in
2007. In that case the employees alleged Polo forced them to
purchase Polo clothing to wear as a uniform--a violation of
California's labor laws. Shortly after the employees filed that
lawsuit, Polo revoked its work uniform policy. According to
industry analysts, that lawsuit led to significant changes in the
practices of retailers throughout California.

Kitchin believes the current settlement will encourage other
retailers in California to take a close look at their labor
policies and practices. "While 'bag checks' on employees might be
an appropriate loss prevention tool," Kitchin said, "if it's part
of their job, they are entitled to be paid for the time."

Another of the workers' attorneys:

          Nancy E. Hudgins, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF NANCY E. HUDGINS
          565 Commercial Street, 4th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: 415-979-0100

said, "From the beginning, this case was about an honest day's
pay for an honest day's work. Our clients are very pleased with
the outcome."


PUTNAM INVESTMENT: Court Mulls Motion to Dismiss Tillery Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Amelia Flood at The Madison County Record reports that Madison
County Circuit Judge Barbara Crowder has taken under advisement
both motions to amend and to dismiss two long-running mutual fund
class actions that plaintiffs' counsel calls "fixable" and
defense counsel calls "lawyer-driven."

Crowder heard arguments in the two cases brought by lead
plaintiffs Steve and Beth Dudley Wednesday afternoon. Attorney
Stephen Tillery filed the claims in 2003.

The Dudleys are leading two classes against Putnam International
Equity Fund and Putnam Investment Funds over the alleged
mismangament of the mutual funds.

At the center of both the motions to amend and dismissal moves is
an opinion from the Fifth District Appellate Court entered in a
similar case, Kircher v. Putnam Funds Trust.

In that decision, authored by Appellate Judge Stephen Spomer, the
court ruled that the Kircher class actions ran afoul of the 1998
Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act (SLUSA). The
appellate court ordered Crowder, the presiding judge in the
Kircher case, to dismiss.

At Wednesday's hearing, plaintiffs' attorney Robert King of
Korein Tillery argued that the while the appellate court read the
claims too broadly, his clients and class should still be able to
amend their complaint and that SLUSA allows for the amendments.


King told Crowder that the plaintiffs had winnowed their case
down so that the claims were "crystal clear."

"We came to the conclusion that 'Yes, this is fixable,'" King
said of the issues with the first set of claims.

He said that plaintiffs have tossed a series of complaints
stemming from so-called "market timing" issues.

King cited a 50-page response the defense filed Tuesday night as
proof that there were issues of fact still in play.

A copy of that response to the motions to amend is not yet
available in the case file.

Defense counsel James Carroll countered that the amendment was
untimely and that the case had dragged on long enough.

"This case should be dead," Carroll told Crowder, "taking nothing
away from the ingenuity and relentlessness," of his
opponents. "There's not a lot of room for interpretation in the
Fifth District opinion."

He called the move to amend the complaint after seven years of
litigation a "lawyer-driven" attempt to keep the case alive.

Carroll argued that the appellate court's April ruling was clear.

"Negligence has been found already to be out," Carroll said. "All
he's done is change the words. The substance of the case hasn't
changed. They've been aware of the inadequacies of these claims
under SLUSA for years."

Carroll argued that the appellate court had already rejected all
of the claims King argued the amendment held and that the rest
were precluded by SLUSA.

"If they think they're entitled to amend, let them file a new
case," Carroll said.

Crowder questioned Carroll at length about that statement, asking
whether a dismissal with prejudice of the class actions would
preclude the Dudleys from seeking individual relief.

Carroll told her that they could join a multi-district class
action on the verge of settlement in Baltimore, Md. as one remedy
and that others were available.

King disagreed, arguing his clients would not be able to join a
pending class.

He told Crowder that his clients, at least as individuals, should
be able to amend their claims.

King also countered Carroll's timeliness argument, pointing out
that the case spent nearly four years in federal court over the
remand issue before Crowder ruled in 2007 on a defense motion for
judgment on the pleadings. King said that had been the first
substantive ruling in the case. With that in mind, he said, an
amended complaint was not out of place.

Crowder told both attorneys that she would read the pleadings and
try to enter a judgment as quickly as possible.

The cases are among a number pending both in Madison County and
across the country. The Kircher cases were also filed by Tillery.

They have bounced between Madison County and the federal courts
since their filings.

The Dudley cases reached the U.S. Supreme Court on the issue of
remand before the high court sent them back to Edwardsville.

Carroll of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher, & Flom in Boston,
Rebecca Jackson of St. Louis and others represent the defendants
in the suits.

The Dudley cases are Madison case numbers 03-L-1539 and 03-L-
1540.

The Kircher case is Madison case number 03-L-1255.


REALOGY CORP: Court Denies Class Certification in Minnesota Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hennepin County District Court, Minnesota, has denied class
certification in a putative class action against Realogy Corp.'s
Minnesota operations, according to the company's May 3, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

The suit is Larpenteur v. Burnet Realty, Inc., d/b/a Coldwell
Banker Burnet, and Burnet Title, Inc., No. 27 CV 0824562.

This putative class action was filed on Sept. 26, 2008, against
the company's Minnesota operations for NRT and Title Resource
Group alleging that the brokerage's affiliated business
relationship with TRG and the practice of referring business to
TRG violates the brokerage's fiduciary duty as a broker and sales
agent to its customers. Plaintiffs allege that there are lower
cost comparable alternatives to TRG's Burnet Title and that
recommending the higher costing Burnet Title is a breach of duty.

The complaint further alleges that the brokerage was unjustly
enriched as a result of the affiliated business relationship.
As to Burnet Title, the complaint alleges that it aided and
abetted the breach of the company's fiduciary duty to the
customer.

Discovery for this class action has commenced.

In December 2008, the company's Minnesota operations for NRT and
TRG - the defendants in this action - filed a motion to strike
the class action allegation and a motion for judgment on the
pleadings.

On March 6, 2009, the Court denied without prejudice defendants'
motion for judgment on the pleadings, to strike class allegations
and to deny class certification.

Plaintiff's motion for class certification was filed on Jan. 4,
2010, and the company's opposition papers were filed on Jan. 15,
2010.  An evidentiary hearing on the class certification motion
was held from Jan. 25 to 27, 2010.

By decision, dated March 10, 2010, the court denied class
certification.

Realogy Corp. -- http://www.realogy.com/-- is a global provider  
of real estate and relocation services with a diversified
business model that includes real estate franchising, brokerage,
relocation and title services.  Realogy's world-renowned brands
and business units include Better Homes and Gardens Real Estate,
CENTURY 21, Coldwell Banker, Coldwell Banker Commercial, The
Corcoran Group, ERA, Sotheby's International Realty, NRT LLC,
Cartus and Title Resource Group.  Collectively, Realogy's
franchise systems have approximately 15,000 offices and 270,000
sales associates doing business in 92 countries around the world.


REDLANDS COMMUNITY: Employees Seek $18 Mil. for Unpaid Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jesse B. Gill at The Sun reports that a group of former Redlands
Community Hospital employees are taking the hospital to court
June 1, claiming they are owed millions in unpaid wages and
overtime.

The class-action lawsuit alleges the hospital lowered the base
pay of employees working 12-hour shifts after a 1999 state law
passed requiring overtime pay for employees working more than
eight hours in a day.

When the hospital lowered the base pay of employees, the suit
claims the move meant employees ended up with the same pay as
before the law was passed.

Hospital spokeswoman Nikyah Pfeiffer issued a statement Thursday
saying the "vast majority" of the staff voted to continue working
the 12-hour shifts following the new law in 1999, agreeing to the
wage change.

Pfeiffer also pointed out that the hospital had been cleared by
the state Labor and Workforce Development Agency of any
violations of state overtime law back in 2007.

"Based on the state's own investigation and stated opinion, we
are vigorously defending our actions in this case and believe
that the legal process will support our decision," the hospital's
statement said.

The lawsuit seeks damages near $18 million, said Santa Ana-based
attorney Frank Coughlin, who is representing the hospital
employees.

Elias Urgas -- one of about 1,000 workers named in the lawsuit --
worked at the hospital as a respiratory therapist between 1997
and 2005.

"They cut the wages to make it look like I was making overtime
when I was making the same amount as before," Urgas said. "We
want to get paid for all of the hours we didn't get paid,
according to the law."


REWARDS GROUP: Investors Threaten to Launch Class Action Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
ABC News reports from Australia that investors in the Rewards
Group may launch a class action against their collapsed
management investment scheme provider.

Before it ran out of money, Rewards Group managed 12,000 hectares
of forestry and fruit plantations for investors across Australia.
Since December, the Macpherson and Kelley law firm has been
investigating why income for some fruit schemes is below
projected profits.

The firm's Ron Willemsen says it hasn't received a satisfactory
response.

"We haven't received any straight answers to our correspondence
and it will be something that we are looking to now explore
further," he says.

"If it happens that a number of people have similar claims, it
may well be that some sort of class action proceeding will follow
in the not too distant future. "


SMYX TECHNOLOGIES: California Court Consolidates Four Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa
Clara, has consolidated four lawsuits against Symyx Technologies,
Inc., in relation to its proposed merger with Accelrys, Inc.,
according to the company's May 3, 2010, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

On April 7, 2010, a class action lawsuit was filed in the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara,
purportedly on behalf of the stockholders of Symyx, against Symyx
and its directors and chief financial officer, as well as
Accelrys and a subsidiary of Accelrys, which alleged, among other
things, that Symyx's directors breached their fiduciary duties to
the stockholders of Symyx in connection with the proposed merger
of Symyx and Accelrys.

Since then, three additional suits have been filed, also in Santa
Clara County, each of which is substantially similar to the first
lawsuit.

The lawsuits are challenging the proposed merger of Symyx and
Accelrys and seeking, among other things, to enjoin the
defendants from completing the merger on the agreed-upon terms.  
The lawsuits were ultimately consolidated into a single action.

The company expects the plaintiffs to file a single, consolidated
complaint, which will serve as the only complaint in the combined
litigation going forward.  Symyx expects that the consolidated
complaint, like the four filed complaints, will seek, among other
things, to enjoin the defendants from completing the merger as
currently contemplated.

Symyx Technologies, Inc. -- http://www.symyx.com/-- helps R&D-
based companies in life sciences, chemicals, energy, and consumer
and industrial products achieve breakthroughs in innovation,
productivity, and return on investment.  Symyx software and
scientific databases power laboratories with the information that
generates insight, enhances collaboration and drives
productivity.  Products include a market-leading electronic
laboratory notebook, decision support software, chemical
informatics and sourcing databases.


SONY COMPUTER: 5th "Removal of OS Option" in PS3 Suit Filed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey Harper and Zachary Kummer, individually and on behalf of  
others similarly situated v. Sony Computer Entertainment America,
Inc., Case No. 10-cv-02197 (N.D. Calif. May 21, 2010), accuses the
PlayStation 3 developer of intentionally disabling the "Install
other OS" feature and other advertised features of its PlayStation
video game console.  Messrs. Harper and Kummer say that Sony
Computer's removal of the OS Feature constitutes a breach of its
contract with the PS3 owners, constitutes a breach of the implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and violates California
consumer protection statues.

On April 1, 2010, Sony announced that it was removing the Other OS
feature of the original PS3s with its Firmware 3.21, a new
system software update for the PS3 system, to address unspecified
"security concerns."  Messrs. Harper and Kummer explain that PS3
owners that do not install the update can no longer access the
PlayStation Network, play games online, access online features, or
play PS3 games or Blu-Ray discs that require the Firmware 3.21.  
PS3 owners that do install the software update, however, lose all
access to the OS Feature and are effectively locked out from
accessing roughly 10 gigabytes of memory on their PS3's internal
hard drive.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Rose F. 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

               - and -

          Joseph G. Sauder, Esq.
          Matthew D. Schelkopf, Esq.
          Benjamin F. Johns, Esq.
          CHIMICLES & TIKELLIS LLP
          One Haverford Centre
          361 West Lancaster Avenue
          Haverford, PA 19041
          Telephone: (610) 642-8500
          E-mail: JGS@chimicles.com
                  MDS@chimicles.com
                  BFJ@chimicles.com

               - and -

          Christopher G. Hayes, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF CHRISTOPHER G. HAYES
          225 South Church Street
          Weat Chester, PA 19382
          Telephone: (610) 431-9505
          E-mail: chris@chayeslaw.com

               - and -

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

Coverage of Kennedy v. Sony Computer Entertainment America Inc.,
Case No. 10-cv-01811 (N.D. Calif.), appeared in the Class Action
Reporter on Mon., May 3, 2010; coverage of Baker v. Sony
Computer Entertainment, LLC, Case No. 10-cv-01897 (N.D. Calif.),
appeared in the Class Action Reporter on Wed., May 5, 2010;
coverage of Densmore v. Sony Computer Entertainment America, Inc.,
Case No. 10-cv-01945 (N.D. Calif.), appeared in the Class Action
Reporter on Wed., May 12, 2010; and coverage of Wright v. Sony
Computer Entertainment America, Inc., Case No. 10-cv-01975 (N.D.
Calif.), appeared in the Class Action Reporter on Wed., May 12,
2010.


TARGET CORP: Recalls 350,000 Woven Storage Trunks
-------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with,
Target Corp., of Minneapolis, Minn., announced a voluntary recall
of about 350,000 Woven Storage Trunks.  Consumers should stop
using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed.

The lid of the trunk can drop suddenly when released, posing a
strangulation hazard to small children opening or reaching into
the trunks.

CPSC has received two reports of injuries that occurred when the
storage trunks' lids suddenly closed on children, including one
report of an 18-month-old girl who reportedly suffered brain
damage when the trunk's lid came down on the back of her neck and
pinned her throat against the rim of the trunk.

This recall involves 14 different models of the storage trunks
made of woven rattan, abaca or banana leaf with standard hinges.
They measure more than 1.1 feet in length, width and depth and
are brown or natural color.  Pictures of the recalled products
are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10239.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and Philippines
and sold through Target stores nationwide and on the Web at
http://www.target.com/from February 2009 through April 2010 for  
between $50 and $130.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled storage
trunks and return them to any Target store for a full refund or
replacement product.  For additional information, contact Target
at (800) 440-0680 between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Central Time,
Monday through Friday, or visit the firm's website at
http://www.target.com/


TEREX CORPORATION: Faces Three Securities Suit in Connecticut
-------------------------------------------------------------
Terex Corporation faces three securities class action complaints,
all filed in the U.S. District Court, District of Connecticut,
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 has recently been named in a number of class action
lawsuits, which generally cover the period from February 2008 to
February 2009.  These lawsuits include three securities class
action lawsuits, four ERISA class action lawsuits and one
stockholder derivative lawsuit.  The lawsuits allege, among other
things, that certain of the company's SEC filings and other
public statements contained false and misleading statements which
resulted in damages to the company, the plaintiffs and the
members of the purported class when they purchased the company's
securities and that there were breaches of fiduciary duties and
of ERISA disclosure requirements.  These actions are at the very
early stages and the company has no information other than as set
forth in the complaints.  The complaints all seek, among other
things, unspecified compensatory damages, costs and expenses.

The three securities class action complaints are:

     (1) Sheet Metal Workers Local 32 Pension Fund, individually
         and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Terex
         Corporation, Ronald M. DeFeo, Thomas J. Riordan and
         Phillip C. Widman, filed Dec. 21, 2009;

     (2) Michael Glassman, Trustee on behalf of the Kathleen &
         Michael Glassman Family Trust, individually and on
         behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v.
         Terex Corporation, Ronald M. DeFeo, Phillip C. Widman
         and Thomas J. Riordan, filed Jan. 15, 2010; and

     (3) James C. Hays, individually and on behalf of himself
         and all others similarly situated v. Terex Corporation,
         Ronald M. DeFeo, Phillip C. Widman and Thomas J.
         Riordan, filed Feb. 5, 2010.  

Terex Corporation -- http://www.terex.com/-- is a diversified  
global manufacturer operating in four business segments: Aerial
Work Platforms, Construction, Cranes, and Materials Processing.  
Terex manufactures a broad range of equipment for use in various
industries, including the construction, infrastructure,
quarrying, mining, shipping, transportation, refining, energy and
utility industries.  Terex offers a complete line of financial
products and services to assist in the acquisition of Terex
equipment through Terex Financial Services.


TEREX CORPORATION: Faces Four ERISA-Related Complaints in Conn.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Terex Corporation faces four class action complaints alleging
violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, all
filed in the United States District Court, District of
Connecticut, 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 has recently been named in a number of class action
lawsuits, which generally cover the period from February 2008 to
February 2009.  These lawsuits include three securities class
action lawsuits, four ERISA class action lawsuits and one
stockholder derivative lawsuit.  The lawsuits allege, among other
things, that certain of the company's SEC filings and other
public statements contained false and misleading statements which
resulted in damages to the company, the plaintiffs and the
members of the purported class when they purchased the company's
securities and that there were breaches of fiduciary duties and
of ERISA disclosure requirements.  These actions are at the very
early stages and the company has no information other than as set
forth in the complaints.  The complaints all seek, among other
things, unspecified compensatory damages, costs and expenses.


The four ERISA class action complaints are:

     (1) Kenneth M. Lipman, on behalf of himself and a class of
         persons similarly situated v. Terex Corporation, the
         Administrative Committee of the Terex Corporation and
         Affiliates' 401(k) Retirement Savings Plan, Ronald M.
         DeFeo, Phillip C. Widman, the Board of Directors of
         Terex Corporation and Does 1-10, filed Jan. 5, 2010;

     (2) Eddie Webb and Binyam Ghebreghiorgis, individually and
         on behalf of all others similarly situated  v. Terex
         Corporation, Ronald M. DeFeo, G. Chris Andersen,
         Paula H. J. Cholmondeley, Donald DeFosset, William H.
         Fike, Thomas J. Hansen, Donald P. Jacobs, David A.
         Sachs, Oren G. Shaffer, David C. Wang, Helge H.
         Wehmeier, Phillip C. Widman, Administrative Committee
         of the Terex Corporation and Affiliates' 401(k)
         Retirement Savings Plan and Does 1-10, filed Feb. 3,
         2010;

     (3) Scott Hollander, on behalf of himself and all others
         similarly situated v. Terex Corporation, Ronald DeFeo,
         G. Chris Andersen, Paula Cholmondeley, Donald DeFosset,
         William Fike, Thomas Hansen, Donald Jacobs, David
         Sachs, Oren Shaffer, David Wang, Helge Wehmeier, the
         Administrative Committee of The Terex Corporation and
         Affiliates' 401 (k) Retirement Savings Plan, Phillip
         Widman and Does 1-20, filed Feb. 8, 2010; and

     (4) Mark Caswell, on behalf of himself and all others
         similarly situated v. Terex Corporation, Ronald DeFeo,
         G. Chris Anderson, Paula H. J. Cholmondeley, Donald
         DeFosset, William H. Fike, Thomas J. Hansen, Donald P.
         Jacobs, David A. Sachs, Oren G. Shaffer, David C. Wang,
         Helge H. Wehmeier, The Administrative Committee of the
         Terex Corporation and Affiliates' 401(k) Retirement
         Savings Plan, Phillip C. Widman, and Does 1-20, filed
         Feb. 23, 2010.

Terex Corporation -- http://www.terex.com/-- is a diversified  
global manufacturer operating in four business segments: Aerial
Work Platforms, Construction, Cranes, and Materials Processing.  
Terex manufactures a broad range of equipment for use in various
industries, including the construction, infrastructure,
quarrying, mining, shipping, transportation, refining, energy and
utility industries.  Terex offers a complete line of financial
products and services to assist in the acquisition of Terex
equipment through Terex Financial Services.


WALMART STORES: Recalls 900,000 Digital Coffee Makers
-----------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with,
Walmart Stores Inc., of Bentonville, Ark., announced a voluntary
recall of about 900,000 General Electric(R)-branded 12-cup
digital coffee makers.  .  Consumers should stop using recalled
products immediately unless otherwise instructed.

The coffee maker can overheat, posing fire and burn hazards to
consumers.

Walmart has received 83 reports of overheating, smoking, melting,
burning and fire, including three reports of minor burn injuries
to consumer's hands, feet and torso.  Reports of property damage
include a significant kitchen fire and damage to countertops,
cabinets and a wall.

This recall involves General Electricr-brand 12-cup coffee makers
sold in white or black.  The digital coffee maker has
programmable functions and plastic housing.  The GE logo is
printed on the base of the coffee maker and the model number is
printed on the bottom of the base.  Pictures of the recalled
products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10238.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold
exclusively at Walmart stores nationwide from March 2008 through
January 2010 for about $30.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled coffee
makers and return the product to any Walmart for a full refund.  
For additional information, contact Walmart at (800) 925-6278
between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m., Central Time, Monday through
Friday, or visit the firm's website at http://www.walmart.com/


XEROX CORP: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Xerox Corporation continues to defend a consolidated securities
law action captioned In re Xerox Corporation Securities
Litigation.

A consolidated securities law action (consisting of 17 cases) is
pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Connecticut.

Defendants are the company, Barry Romeril, Paul Allaire and G.
Richard Thoman.

The consolidated action is a class action on behalf of all
persons and entities who purchased Xerox Corporation common stock
during the period Oct. 22, 1998, through Oct. 7, 1999, inclusive
and who suffered a loss as a result of misrepresentations or
omissions by Defendants as alleged by Plaintiffs.

The Class alleges that in violation of Section 10(b) and/or 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and SEC Rule
10b-5 thereunder, each of the defendants is liable as a
participant in a fraudulent scheme and course of business that
operated as a fraud or deceit on purchasers of the company's
common stock during the Class Period by disseminating materially
false and misleading statements and/or concealing material facts
relating to the defendants' alleged failure to disclose the
material negative impact that the April 1998 restructuring had on
the company's operations and revenues.

The complaint further alleges that the alleged scheme:

     (i) deceived the investing public regarding the economic
         capabilities, sales proficiencies, growth, operations
         and the intrinsic value of the company's common stock;

    (ii) allowed several corporate insiders, such as the named
         individual defendants, to sell shares of privately held
         common stock of the company while in possession of
         materially adverse, non-public information; and

   (iii) caused the individual plaintiffs and the other members
         of the purported class to purchase common stock of the
         company at inflated prices.

The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages in favor of
the plaintiffs and the other members of the purported class
against all defendants, jointly and severally, for all damages
sustained as a result of defendants' alleged wrongdoing,
including interest thereon, together with reasonable costs and
expenses incurred in the action, including counsel fees and
expert fees.

In 2001, the Court denied the defendants' motion for dismissal of
the complaint.  The plaintiffs' motion for class certification
was denied by the Court in 2006, without prejudice to refiling.

In February 2007, the Court granted the motion of the
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Welfare Fund of
Local Union No. 164, Robert W. Roten, Robert Agius and Georgia
Stanley to appoint them as additional lead plaintiffs.

In July 2007, the Court denied plaintiffs' renewed motion for
class certification, without prejudice to renewal after the Court
holds a pre-filing conference to identify factual disputes the
Court will be required to resolve in ruling on the motion.  After
that conference and Agius's withdrawal as lead plaintiff and
proposed class representative, in February 2008 plaintiffs filed
a second renewed motion for class certification.  In April 2008,
defendants filed their response and motion to disqualify Milberg
LLP as a lead counsel.

On Sept. 30, 2008, the Court entered an order certifying the
class and denying the appointment of Milberg LLP as class
counsel.  Subsequently, on April 9, 2009, the Court denied
defendants' motion to disqualify Milberg LLP.

The parties have filed motions to exclude certain expert
testimony.

On Nov. 6, 2008, the defendants filed a motion for summary
judgment.  Briefing with respect to each of these motions is
complete.

On April 22, 2009, the Court denied plaintiffs' motions to
exclude the testimony of two of defendants' experts.  The Court
has not yet rendered decisions regarding the other pending
motions.

The individual defendants and the company deny any wrongdoing and
are vigorously defending the action.

In the course of litigation, the company periodically engages in
discussions with plaintiffs' counsel for possible resolution of
this matter.  

No further updates were reported in the company's May 3, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

Xerox Corporation -- http://www.xerox.com/-- is engaged in  
developing, manufacturing, marketing, servicing and financing a
range of document equipments, software, solutions and services.  
Digital systems include printing and publishing systems; digital
presses, advanced and basic multifunctional devices (MFD's),
which can print, copy, scan and fax; digital copiers; laser and
solid ink printers, and fax machines.  The company provides
software and workflow solutions with which businesses can print
books, create personalized documents for their customers, and
scan and route digital information. Xerox also offers software,
support and supplies, such as toner, paper and ink.


XEROX CORP: Nov. 29 Trial Date Set in Texas Consolidated Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A Nov. 29, 2010, trial date has been set in a consolidated action
against Xerox Corporation in Texas, according to the company's
May 3, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

In late September and early October 2009, nine purported class
action complaints were filed by Affiliated Computer Services,
Inc. shareholders challenging ACS's proposed merger with Xerox.  
Two actions were filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery which
subsequently were consolidated into one action.

Seven actions were filed in state courts in Texas, which
subsequently were consolidated into one action in the Dallas
County Court at Law No. 3.

The operative complaints in the Delaware and Texas actions name
as defendants ACS and/or the members of ACS's board of directors
and Xerox Corporation and/or Boulder Acquisition Corp., a wholly
owned subsidiary of Xerox.

Pursuant to a stipulation entered into by all parties in the
Delaware and Texas actions on Nov. 20, 2009, the Texas plaintiffs
agreed to stay prosecution of the Texas action until agreed
otherwise by the defendants and ordered by the Texas court, and
all plaintiffs agreed that any further prosecution of the
Delaware and Texas actions, or any claims that could have been
brought in those actions, would proceed in the Delaware action.

The Texas court has calendared a trial date of Nov. 29, 2010, for
administrative purposes in the event that all issues are not
resolved in the Delaware proceedings.

Xerox Corporation -- http://www.xerox.com/-- is engaged in  
developing, manufacturing, marketing, servicing and financing a
range of document equipments, software, solutions and services.  
Digital systems include printing and publishing systems; digital
presses, advanced and basic multifunctional devices (MFD's),
which can print, copy, scan and fax; digital copiers; laser and
solid ink printers, and fax machines.  The company provides
software and workflow solutions with which businesses can print
books, create personalized documents for their customers, and
scan and route digital information. Xerox also offers software,
support and supplies, such as toner, paper and ink.


XEROX CORP: Plaintiffs Seek to File Supplement in Amended Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a consolidated suit filed a motion seeking leave to
amend and to supplement the amended complaint against Xerox
Corporation, according to the company's May 3, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2010.

Merger Agreement Between Xerox and Affiliated Computer Services,
Inc.:

In late September and early October 2009, nine purported class
action complaints were filed by Affiliated Computer Services,
Inc. shareholders challenging ACS's proposed merger with Xerox.

Two actions were filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery which
subsequently were consolidated into one action.

Seven actions were filed in state courts in Texas, which
subsequently were consolidated into one action in the Dallas
County Court at Law No. 3.

The operative complaints in the Delaware and Texas actions name
as defendants ACS and/or the members of ACS's board of directors
and Xerox Corporation and/or Boulder Acquisition Corp., a wholly
owned subsidiary of Xerox.

On Oct. 22, 2009, a class of ACS shareholders was certified in
the Delaware action.  Pursuant to a stipulation entered into by
all parties in the Delaware and Texas actions on Nov. 20, 2009,
the Texas plaintiffs agreed to stay prosecution of the Texas
action until agreed otherwise by the defendants and ordered by
the Texas court, and all plaintiffs agreed that any further
prosecution of the Delaware and Texas actions, or any claims that
could have been brought in those actions, would proceed in the
Delaware action.

On Dec. 11, 2009, plaintiffs in the Delaware action filed an
amended complaint alleging, among other things, that:

     (i) the Individual Defendants breached their fiduciary
duties to ACS and its shareholders by authorizing the sale of ACS
to Xerox for what plaintiffs deem inadequate consideration and
pursuant to inadequate process, and the Xerox Defendants aided
and abetted these alleged breaches;

    (ii) the Individual Defendants breached their fiduciary
duties to ACS and its shareholders by agreeing to the provisions
of the merger agreement relating to the consideration to be paid
to the holders of Class B shares which the Delaware plaintiffs
allege violates the ACS certificate of incorporation and is,
therefore, void, and the Xerox Defendants aided and abetted these
alleged breaches; and

   (iii) the Individual Defendants breached their fiduciary
duties by failing to disclose material facts in the Oct. 23,
2009, Form S-4 filed with the SEC in connection with the merger.

The amended complaint seeks, among other things, to enjoin the
defendants from consummating the merger on the agreed-upon terms,
and unspecified compensatory damages, together with the costs and
disbursements of the action.

On Dec. 16, 2009, the Delaware court so ordered a stipulation
between Xerox, ACS and certain Individual Defendants and the
plaintiffs in the Delaware action providing, among other things,
that in exchange for modifying certain provisions of the merger
agreement and other consideration, the plaintiffs would not seek
to enjoin any shareholder vote on the closing of the merger, nor
take any action for the purpose of preventing or delaying the
closing of the merger.

On Jan. 20, 2010, the Delaware court so ordered a stipulation by
all parties in the Delaware action providing, among other things,
for a trial to take place May 10-14, 2010 on the claims for
damages asserted in the action.

On Jan. 29, 2010, defendants moved to dismiss the amended
complaint and on Feb. 8, 2010, plaintiffs moved for partial
summary judgment.  That motion was fully briefed and argued
before the Delaware court on April 5, 2010, and the Delaware
court reserved judgement on the motion.

All defendants have answered the amended complaint, mooting their
previously filed motions to dismiss.

On April 28, 2010, plaintiffs filed a motion seeking leave to
amend and to supplement the amended complaint.

The merger between ACS and Xerox closed on Feb. 5, 2010.

Xerox Corporation -- http://www.xerox.com/-- is engaged in  
developing, manufacturing, marketing, servicing and financing a
range of document equipments, software, solutions and services.  
Digital systems include printing and publishing systems; digital
presses, advanced and basic multifunctional devices (MFD's),
which can print, copy, scan and fax; digital copiers; laser and
solid ink printers, and fax machines.  The company provides
software and workflow solutions with which businesses can print
books, create personalized documents for their customers, and
scan and route digital information. Xerox also offers software,
support and supplies, such as toner, paper and ink.

                            *********

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  * * *