CAR_Public/100527.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Thursday, May 27, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 103

                            Headlines

ARGENTINA: Bondholders Win Key Ruling from Judge Griesa
AT&T WIRELESS: Settles Unblocking Class Action Lawsuit
BJ'S RESTAURANTS: Settlement of Calif. Minimum Wage Suit Pending
BJ'S RESTAURANTS: Settles Wage & Overtime Pay Violations Suit
BJ'S RESTAURANTS: Defends Wage Violation Suit in Fresno County

BJ'S RESTAURANTS: Settles Gift Card Holders Suit in California
BJ'S RESTAURANTS: Motion to File 2nd Amended Complaint Pending
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: ERISA Suit Settlement Hearing Set for Aug. 5
BP PLC: JPMDL Will Consider Consolidation of Suits in July
CAMERON INT'L: Faces Class Suit Over Deep Horizon Incident

CELLCOM ISRAEL: Subscriber Complains About Unwanted Text Messages
CHICAGO: High Court Lets Firefighter Race Bias Case Move Forward
COTTONWOOD FINANCIAL: Payday Lender Class Action Waiver Invalid
FIRSTENERGY CORP: Appeal in Suit vs. Jersey Central Pending
FIRSTENERGY CORP: June 3 Hearing Set in Motion to Dismiss

FIRSTENERGY CORP: Motion to Stay Pennsylvania Suit Pending
FIRSTENERGY CORP: Continues to Defend Suit Over Allegheny Merger
FIRSTENERGY CORP: Wants Suit in Geauga County Dismissed
FORCE PROTECTION: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in S.C.
GENEREX BIOTECHNOLOGY: Sued in Calif. for Misleading Advertising

GOOGLE INC: WiFi Data Capture Lawsuit Filed by Oregon Residents
METLIFE AUTO: Use of Decision Point Software Draws Fire in Ill.
NEW YORK: 2nd Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Phony Police Gear Suit
NOVAGOLD INC: Aug. & Sept. Shareholder Settlement Hearings Set
PROTECTION ONE: Del. & Kan. Lawsuits Settled for $3.25 Million

QUINNIPIAC UNIVERSITY: Class Status Granted to Volleyball Suit
RELIANCE STANDARD: High Court Sets Fee Standard in ERISA Cases
RIGEL PHARMA: Awaiting Ruling on Motion to Dismiss Suit
SOUTHERN COPPER: Del. Suit Over Minera Mexico Merger Continues
UNISOURCE ENERGY: Court Dismissed "Right of Way" Suit vs. Unit

VERIZON WIRELESS: Suit Complains About Extended Warranty Program

                            *********

ARGENTINA: Bondholders Win Key Ruling from Judge Griesa
-------------------------------------------------------
Eight plaintiff class-action groups holding defaulted Argentine
bonds obtained a key ruling from U.S. District Court Judge Thomas
P. Griesa in the long-running $2.43 billion case.  On May 20,
Judge Griesa accepted Argentina's declaration that, contrary to
the terms it presented to the Securities and Exchange Commission
(SEC) for its planned bond exchange, it will not change the terms
of the exchange once the bondholders tender their bonds.

"Now, any class member who wishes to enter into the bond exchange
can do so with the certainty that Argentina gave up the right to
reduce the terms of the offering," said plaintiffs' attorney
Guillermo Gleizer of Diaz Reus, an international law firm with
offices in Miami and New York.

In early 2004, the bondholders took legal action against the
Republic of Argentina seeking payment on eight separate series of
defaulted global bonds and accumulated interest, and in 2009 won
a series of judgments that cumulatively total $2.43 billion plus
interest.

"Our goal in court was to ensure that the Republic of Argentina
treated all bondholders equally -- not to halt the bond
exchange," said:

          Michael Diaz, Jr.
          DIAZ REUS
          Miami Tower at International Place
          100 S.E. Second Street, Suite 2600
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: 305-375-9220
          E-mail: mdiaz@diazreus.com

"With this ruling, the bond exchange can now go forward in a fair
and impartial manner.  Judge Griesa has successfully balanced the
rights of property holders to accept the exchange offer with the
rights of class members to be protected from changes in those
terms."

Miami-based Diaz Reus -- http://www.diazreus.com/-- is a full-
service international law firm focusing on trade and business
transactions, complex commercial, civil, and criminal litigation
and arbitration matters. The firm operates offices in Miami,
Florida; Shanghai, China; Frankfurt, Germany; Caracas, Venezuela,
and Mexico City, Mexico; as well as affiliate offices in Colombia
and Brazil.


AT&T WIRELESS: Settles Unblocking Class Action Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------
AT&T has settled a long-running class action lawsuit filed
against it for failing to provide unlock codes for its handset
lineup between March 12, 1999 and April 2, 2010 which covers all
handsets offered by the carrier with the lone exception being the
iPhone.  While the settlement will not provide for financial
compensation, it is supposed to provide unlock codes for
customers that meet the following criteria:

Customers with postpaid accounts who have completed a minimum of
90 days of active service and are in good standing and those with
prepaid accounts who have a receipt or other proof of purchase of
the handset. Those who own handsets for which AT&T has an
exclusive period of less than 10 months (which would exclude the
iPhone) will have to wait until the 10-month period expires
before an unlock code can be received.

In order to opt out of the settlement or object to it, June 4,
2010 is the postmark date for filing. The final approval hearing
will be held on July 2, 2010.  More details about (1) Meoli, et
al. v. AT&T Wireless PCS, LLC, et al., (2) Mendoza, et al. v.
Cingular Wireless LLC, et al., No. JCCP 4332, pending in Alameda
County (California) Superior Court; (3) Pickering v. Cingular
Wireless, LLC, Case No. 2004 CA 005060, and (4) Graber v. AT&T
Wireless PCS, LLC, et al. Case No. 2004 CA 004650, pending in
Palm Beach County (Florida) Circuit Court, are available at:

     http://www.attlockinglawsuits.com/index.htm

The settlement pact also he settlement also provides that AT&T
will pay $5.7 million in legal fees.  

Class Counsel is:

          Law Offices of Scott A. Bursor
          369 Lexington Avenue, 10th Floor
          New York, NY 10017

Defense Counsel is:

          Seamus C. Duffy, Esq.
          Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP
          One Logan Square, Ste. 2000
          Philadelphia, PA 19103-6996


BJ'S RESTAURANTS: Settlement of Calif. Minimum Wage Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed settlement of a class action complaint against BJ's
Restaurants, Inc., is pending approval.

On Feb. 5, 2004, a former employee of the company, on behalf of
herself, and allegedly other employees, filed a class action
complaint in Los Angeles County, California Superior Court, Case
Number BC310146, and on March 16, 2004, filed an amended
complaint, alleging causes of action for:

     (1) failure to pay reporting time minimum pay;
     (2) failure to allow meal breaks;
     (3) failure to allow rest breaks;
     (4) waiting time penalties;
     (5) civil penalties;
     (6) reimbursement for fraud and deceit;
     (7) punitive damages for fraud and deceit; and,
     (8) disgorgement of illicit profits.

On June 28, 2004, the plaintiff stipulated to dismiss her second,
third, fourth and fifth causes of action.

During September 2004, the plaintiff stipulated to binding
arbitration of the action.

On March 2, 2008, and on March 19, 2008, one of Plaintiff's
attorneys filed a notice with the California Labor and Workforce
Development Agency, alleging failure to keep adequate pay records
and to pay Plaintiff minimum wage.

To the company's knowledge, the Agency has not responded to
either of these notices.

The parties met for mediation on a non-binding basis.

In November 2008, the parties agreed to settle this matter
subject to approval from the arbitrator and/or the court.

No further updates were reported in the company's May 4, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 30, 2010.

BJ's Restaurants, Inc. -- http://www.bjsbrewhouse.com/-- owned  
and operated 55 restaurants located in California, Oregon,
Colorado, Arizona, Texas and Nevada, as of Jan. 2, 2007.  A
licensee also operates one restaurant in Lahaina, Maui.  Each of
the Company's restaurants is operated either as a BJ's Restaurant
& Brewery that includes a brewery within the restaurant, a BJ's
Restaurant & Brewhouse that receives the beer BJ's sells from one
of its breweries or an approved third-party craft brewer of its
recipe beers (contract brewer), or a BJ's Pizza & Grill, which is
a smaller format, full-service restaurant. The Company's menu
features the BJ's signature deep-dish pizza, its own handcrafted
beers, as well as a selection of appetizers, entrees, pastas,
sandwiches, specialty salads and desserts, including the Pizookie
cookie.  The company's 12 BJ's Restaurant & Brewery restaurants
feature in-house brewing facilities, where BJ's handcrafted beers
are produced and sold.


BJ'S RESTAURANTS: Settles Wage & Overtime Pay Violations Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
BJ's Restaurants, Inc., has entered into a settle to resolve a
class action complaint filed by an employee on behalf of himself
and allegedly other employees, according to the company's May 4,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 30, 2010.

On April 6, 2009, an employee filed a class action complaint in
Orange County, California, Superior Court, Case Number 30-2009,
00259460, on behalf of himself and allegedly other employees.

The complaint alleges causes of action for failure to pay
plaintiff and other alleged class members regular wages and
overtime pay, failure to maintain the designated wage scale and
secret payment of lower wages, the greater of actual damages or
penalties for failure to provide accurate wage statements, and
restitution of wages and injunction for violation of California
Business and Professions Code Section 17200.

The complaint also seeks interest, attorneys' fees and costs.

In February 2010, the parties agreed in principle to settle this
case, subject to approval of the court.

BJ's Restaurants, Inc. -- http://www.bjsbrewhouse.com/-- owned  
and operated 55 restaurants located in California, Oregon,
Colorado, Arizona, Texas and Nevada, as of Jan. 2, 2007.  A
licensee also operates one restaurant in Lahaina, Maui.  Each of
the Company's restaurants is operated either as a BJ's Restaurant
& Brewery that includes a brewery within the restaurant, a BJ's
Restaurant & Brewhouse that receives the beer BJ's sells from one
of its breweries or an approved third-party craft brewer of its
recipe beers (contract brewer), or a BJ's Pizza & Grill, which is
a smaller format, full-service restaurant. The Company's menu
features the BJ's signature deep-dish pizza, its own handcrafted
beers, as well as a selection of appetizers, entrees, pastas,
sandwiches, specialty salads and desserts, including the Pizookie
cookie.  The company's 12 BJ's Restaurant & Brewery restaurants
feature in-house brewing facilities, where BJ's handcrafted beers
are produced and sold.


BJ'S RESTAURANTS: Defends Wage Violation Suit in Fresno County
--------------------------------------------------------------
BJ's Restaurants, Inc., continues to defend a class action
complaint alleging failure to pay wages for on-call time.

The complaint was filed on Feb. 4, 2009, in the Fresno County,
California, Superior Court, by an employee, on behalf of himself
and allegedly other employees, Case Number 09 CE CG 00374DRF.  
The class action complaint was served on the company in the
second quarter of 2009.

The complaint alleges causes of action for failure to pay wages
for on-call time, for violation of California Business and
Professional Code section 17200, and for penalties for unpaid
wages.

The complaint also seeks a constructive trust on money found
unlawfully acquired, an injunction against failure to pay wages,
restitution, interest, attorney's fees and costs.

On Aug. 14, 2009, a first amended complaint was filed, in which
two other employees joined the action as plaintiffs.

The parties have begun discovery, the company has filed an answer
to the amended complaint.

No further updates were reported in the company's May 4, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 30, 2010.

BJ's Restaurants, Inc. -- http://www.bjsbrewhouse.com/-- owned  
and operated 55 restaurants located in California, Oregon,
Colorado, Arizona, Texas and Nevada, as of Jan. 2, 2007.  A
licensee also operates one restaurant in Lahaina, Maui.  Each of
the Company's restaurants is operated either as a BJ's Restaurant
& Brewery that includes a brewery within the restaurant, a BJ's
Restaurant & Brewhouse that receives the beer BJ's sells from one
of its breweries or an approved third-party craft brewer of its
recipe beers (contract brewer), or a BJ's Pizza & Grill, which is
a smaller format, full-service restaurant. The Company's menu
features the BJ's signature deep-dish pizza, its own handcrafted
beers, as well as a selection of appetizers, entrees, pastas,
sandwiches, specialty salads and desserts, including the Pizookie
cookie.  The company's 12 BJ's Restaurant & Brewery restaurants
feature in-house brewing facilities, where BJ's handcrafted beers
are produced and sold.


BJ'S RESTAURANTS: Settles Gift Card Holders Suit in California
--------------------------------------------------------------
BJ's Restaurants, Inc., has settled a class action complaint
filed in the Los Angeles County, California, Superior Court,
relating to the company's gift cards, according to the company's
May 4, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 30, 2010.

On July 16, 2009, an individual, on behalf of himself and
allegedly other recipients or holders in California of the
company's gift cards, filed a class action complaint in Los
Angeles County, California, Superior Court, alleging causes of
action for unlawful and deceptive trade practices and violation
of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, for failing to redeem or
replace a gift card and deducting a dormancy fee, for violation
of California Business and Professions Code and for declaratory
relief.

The complaint seeks restitution, an injunction against the
alleged unfair practices, and attorneys' fees.  Discovery has
begun.

In November 2009, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint for
the causes of action alleged in the original complaint but
without the allegation of violation of California Business and
Professions Code.  The company answered the amended complaint,
denying the allegations and raising affirmative defenses.

In March 2010, the parties settled this case for a nominal
amount.

BJ's Restaurants, Inc. -- http://www.bjsbrewhouse.com/-- owned  
and operated 55 restaurants located in California, Oregon,
Colorado, Arizona, Texas and Nevada, as of Jan. 2, 2007.  A
licensee also operates one restaurant in Lahaina, Maui.  Each of
the Company's restaurants is operated either as a BJ's Restaurant
& Brewery that includes a brewery within the restaurant, a BJ's
Restaurant & Brewhouse that receives the beer BJ's sells from one
of its breweries or an approved third-party craft brewer of its
recipe beers (contract brewer), or a BJ's Pizza & Grill, which is
a smaller format, full-service restaurant. The Company's menu
features the BJ's signature deep-dish pizza, its own handcrafted
beers, as well as a selection of appetizers, entrees, pastas,
sandwiches, specialty salads and desserts, including the Pizookie
cookie.  The company's 12 BJ's Restaurant & Brewery restaurants
feature in-house brewing facilities, where BJ's handcrafted beers
are produced and sold.


BJ'S RESTAURANTS: Motion to File 2nd Amended Complaint Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
The motion of the plaintiffs in a wage violations suit against
BJ's Restaurants, Inc., to file a second amended complaint
remains pending, according to the company's May 4, 2010, Form 10-
Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 30, 2010.

On Aug. 25, 2009, a former employee of the company filed a
lawsuit in Los Angeles County, California, Superior Court, Case
Number BC420459, on behalf of himself and allegedly other
employees, namely the company's California restaurant assistant
managers, kitchen managers and managers.

The complaint alleges the company's California restaurant
assistant managers are not exempt for compensation purposes and
alleges causes of action for failure to pay overtime wages,
failure to provide meal breaks and rest periods, failure to pay
wages timely, penalties for unpaid wages, failure to provide
accurate wage statements, failure to keep accurate payroll
records and for violation of California Business and Professions
Code Section 17200. The complaint also seeks unspecified damages,
restitution, an injunction against unfair practices, interest,
attorneys' fees and costs.

In October 2009, plaintiff filed an amended complaint, alleging
the class to be all California assistant kitchen managers,
kitchen managers, and managers and adding to plaintiff's claims
for penalties alleged to be due under the California Labor Code
Private Attorneys General Act.

On Oct. 8, 2009, plaintiff's attorneys filed a notice with the
California Labor and Workforce Development Agency, alleging
failure by the company to pay overtime wages, failure to provide
meal breaks and rest periods, failure to pay wages due on
plaintiff's and other employees' termination, failure to pay
wages timely, failure to provide accurate wage statements and
failure to keep accurate payroll records.

On Dec. 8, 2009, the Agency responded that it does not intend to
investigate the allegations.

Discovery has begun.

In January 2010, the plaintiff filed a motion seeking permission
to file a second amended complaint; however, as of March 30,
2010, this motion has not been heard.

In January 2010, on the company's motion, the Court ordered the
venue of the case moved to Orange County.

BJ's Restaurants, Inc. -- http://www.bjsbrewhouse.com/-- owned  
and operated 55 restaurants located in California, Oregon,
Colorado, Arizona, Texas and Nevada, as of Jan. 2, 2007.  A
licensee also operates one restaurant in Lahaina, Maui.  Each of
the Company's restaurants is operated either as a BJ's Restaurant
& Brewery that includes a brewery within the restaurant, a BJ's
Restaurant & Brewhouse that receives the beer BJ's sells from one
of its breweries or an approved third-party craft brewer of its
recipe beers (contract brewer), or a BJ's Pizza & Grill, which is
a smaller format, full-service restaurant. The Company's menu
features the BJ's signature deep-dish pizza, its own handcrafted
beers, as well as a selection of appetizers, entrees, pastas,
sandwiches, specialty salads and desserts, including the Pizookie
cookie.  The company's 12 BJ's Restaurant & Brewery restaurants
feature in-house brewing facilities, where BJ's handcrafted beers
are produced and sold.


BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: ERISA Suit Settlement Hearing Set for Aug. 5
---------------------------------------------------------------
                   UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                    District of Massachusetts

Hochstadt, et al.,                )
                                  )
     v.                           )  Case No. 08-12139-DPW
                                  )
Boston Scientific Corp., et al.   )

            Summary Notice of Pendency of Class Action,
            Proposed Settlement and Settlement Hearing

To: All persons who were participants, beneficiaries or alternate
    payees ("Participants") of the Boston Scientific Corporation
    ("Boston Scientific") 401(k) Retirement Savings Plan (the
    "Plan") at any time between May 7, 2004 and January 26, 2006,
    inclusive (the "Class Period") and on whose behalf the Plan
    held Boston Scientific stock during the Class Period (the
    "Proposed Class").

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the Court, that the above-
captioned action has been certified as a class action for
purposes of settlement and that a settlement for $8.2 million in
cash has been proposed. A hearing will be held before the
Honorable Douglas P. Woodlock in the John Joseph Moakley United
States Courthouse, Courtroom 1, 1 Courthouse Way, Boston,
Massachusetts 02210, at 2:30 p.m., on August 5, 2010, to
determine whether the proposed settlement should be approved by
the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate, and to consider the
proposed Plan of Allocation, the application of Plaintiffs' Co-
Lead Counsel for attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses
and the application for a case contribution award for the Named
Plaintiff.

IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE PROPOSED CLASS DESCRIBED ABOVE, YOUR
RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO SHARE IN THE
SETTLEMENT FUND. If you have not yet received the full printed
Notice of Proposed Settlement, Motion For Attorneys' Fees,
Reimbursement of Expenses and Named Plaintiff's Case Contribution
Award, and Scheduling of Final Fairness Hearing, you may obtain a
copy of this document by contacting the Administrator:

          Boston Scientific ERISA Litigation Settlement
          c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC
          Administrator
          Post Office Box 808061
          Petaluma, CA 94975-8061
          (877) 571-8670
          http://www.gilardi.com/BostonScientificERISA

Inquiries, other than requests for the form of Notice, may be
made to Plaintiffs' Co-Lead Counsel:

          Robert I. Harwood, Esq.
          Harwood Feffer LLP
          488 Madison Avenue, 8th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 935-7400

               - and -  

          Lori Feldman, Esq.
          Milberg LLP
          One Penn Plaza
          New York, NY 10119
          Telephone: (212) 594-5300

Any objections must be filed by July 8, 2010.

Further information may be obtained by contacting the
Administrator.

                     By Order of the United States District Court
                     for the District of Massachusetts


BP PLC: JPMDL Will Consider Consolidation of Suits in July
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that there will be no quick decision
from a federal judicial panel on whether to consolidate more than
130 lawsuits filed over the Gulf oil spill.

The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation rejected
requests from attorneys to issue a ruling this month. The panel
said in an order released Monday it will consider the oil spill
cases in July.

Potential class-action lawsuits claiming economic damages began
appearing in Gulf Coast states soon after the Deepwater Horizon
drilling rig sank a month ago. Plaintiffs include fishermen, the
seafood industry, property owners, restaurants, tourism
businesses and others.

Many plaintiffs attorneys want the cases consolidated before a
New Orleans federal judge.  BP favors Houston.


CAMERON INT'L: Faces Class Suit Over Deep Horizon Incident
----------------------------------------------------------
Cameron International Corporation is facing a suit seeking class
action status in relation to the Deepwater Horizon incident,
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 blowout preventer originally manufactured by the company was
deployed by the drilling rig Deepwater Horizon when it
experienced an explosion and fire on April 20, 2010, resulting in
loss of life, a discharge of hydrocarbons in the Gulf of Mexico
and the ultimate loss of the rig.  This event and its causes are
being jointly investigated by the U.S. Department of Homeland
Security and Department of the Interior.

The company has been named as one of a number of defendants in a
number of suits seeking damages for personal injury and damages
suffered as a result of the discharge of hydrocarbons into the
Gulf of Mexico.  The legal actions involving claims against the
company arising out of this incident of which the company is
aware at the time of preparation of this quarterly report on Form
10-Q are:

     -- Acy J. Cooper and Ronnie Lewis Anderson vs. BP p.l.c.,
        et. al., including Cameron International Corporation
        (U.S. District Court, Eastern Dist. of Louisiana), filed
        on April 28, 2010, requesting class action status on
        behalf of all Louisiana residents who suffer legally
        recognizable damages;

     -- Stephen Stone and Sara Stone vs. Transocean Offshore
        Deepwater Drilling, Inc., et. al., including Cameron
        International Corporation (Harris Cty. Dist. Ct., 234th
        Jud. Dist.), filing date unknown, seeking damages for
        personal injury; and

     -- James F. Mason, individually and on behalf of K&J Inc.
        vs. Transocean Ltd., et. al., including Cameron
        International Corporation (U.S. Dist. Ct., Southern
        Dist. of Alabama), filed April 29, 2010, seeking damages
        for business interruption and diminution of property
        values.

Cameron International Corporation -- http://www.c-a-m.com/-- is  
a leading provider of flow equipment products, systems and
services to worldwide oil, gas and process industries.


CELLCOM ISRAEL: Subscriber Complains About Unwanted Text Messages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Cellcom Israel Ltd. (NYSE: CEL) (TASE: CEL) disclosed this week
that a purported class action lawsuit against the Company and two
other defendants was filed in the District Court of Central
Region, by a plaintiff alleging to be a subscriber of the
Company, in connection with allegations that the defendants
unlawfully sent commercial messages to certain recipients.
The plaintiff did not estimate the total amount claimed if the
lawsuit is certified as a class action.

At this preliminary stage, the Company is unable to assess the
lawsuit's chances of success.

                      About Cellcom Israel

Established in 1994, Cellcom Israel Ltd. --
http://www.cellcom.co.il/-- is the leading Israeli cellular  
provider; Cellcom Israel provides its approximately 3.313 million
subscribers (as at March 31, 2010) with a broad range of value
added services including cellular and landline telephony, roaming
services for tourists in Israel and for its subscribers abroad
and additional services in the areas of music, video, mobile
office etc., based on Cellcom Israel's technologically advanced
infrastructure. The Company operates an HSPA 3.5 Generation
network enabling advanced high speed broadband multimedia
services, in addition to GSM/GPRS/EDGE and TDMA networks. Cellcom
Israel offers Israel's broadest and largest customer service
infrastructure including telephone customer service centers,
retail stores, and service and sale centers, distributed
nationwide. Through its broad customer service network Cellcom
Israel offers its customers technical support, account
information, direct to the door parcel services, internet and fax
services, dedicated centers for the hearing impaired, etc. As of
2006, Cellcom Israel, through its wholly owned subsidiary Cellcom
Fixed Line Communications L.P., provides landline telephone
communication services in Israel, in addition to data
communication services. Cellcom Israel's shares are traded both
on the New York Stock Exchange (CEL) and the Tel Aviv Stock
Exchange (CEL).


CHICAGO: High Court Lets Firefighter Race Bias Case Move Forward
----------------------------------------------------------------
Marcia Coyle at The National Law Journal reports that a class of
6,000 African-Americans who sued the city of Chicago for race
bias in its hiring of firefighters did not bring untimely
discrimination charges, the U.S. Supreme Court held on Monday.

In Lewis v. City of Chicago, No. 08-974 (U.S.) -- see
http://www.scotuswiki.com/index.php?title=Lewis_et_al._v._City_of_Chicago
-- the justices unanimously held that when an employer institutes
a practice having an illegal discriminatory -- disparate --
impact, it may be challenged each time the employer uses it.

"Today, the Supreme Court affirmed that job-seekers should not be
denied justice based on a technicality," said John Payton,
president and director-counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense and
Educational Fund, in a statement. Payton, who argued the case,
added, "This victory goes well beyond the immediate results in
Chicago. It should ensure that no other fire department or
employer uses a discriminatory test."

The Court's decision reverses a ruling by the 7th U.S. Circuit
Court of Appeals that held the claims were time-barred.

The Supreme Court case goes back to 1995 when Chicago gave a
written test to about 26,000 applicants for firefighter
positions. In January 1996, the city announced it would begin
filling those jobs by drawing from the top tier of scorers --
those who scored at least 89 of a possible 100 points -- whom the
city called "well qualified." Those who scored below 65 were told
they had failed the exam. Those who scored from 65 to 88 were
called "qualified" and were told they were unlikely to be hired
but their names would be kept on a list of eligible applicants.

The city selected its first class in May 1996 and filled nine
more classes during the next several years. The well-qualified
group was 76 percent white and 11.5 percent black. In March 2007,
a group of "qualified" black applicants filed discrimination
charges, claiming that the city's practice of selecting only
those who scored 89 or above caused a disparate impact on
African-Americans. The district court certified a class of 6,000
"qualified" African-Americans.

The city conceded that its practice was unlawful, but it argued
that the class claims were time-barred because they were not
filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission within 300
days of when the claims accrued -- which the city said was
January 1996, when the tests were scored and the results
announced. The court rejected that argument and, after a bench
trial, the judge ruled for the class, awarding back pay and
ordering the city to hire 132 class members. That ruling was
reversed by the 7th Circuit.

In reversing the circuit court, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote,
"The City is correct that if the adoption of the cutoff score in
1996 gave rise to a freestanding claim, petitioners waited too
long to bring such a claim. But it does not follow that no new
violation could occur when the City implemented that decision
down the road."

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, he wrote, requires a
complaining party to show that the employer "uses" a particular
practice that causes a disparate impact on the basis of race,
color, religion, sex or national origin.

Reacting to the decision, some lawyers for employers said it
would create practical problems for employers in assessing their
potential liability for certain job practices.

For example, employers first face risk exposure in adopting an
employment practice that could have an unlawful disparate impact,
noted Debra Friedman, a partner at Philadelphia's Cozen O'Connor.
And second, whether or not the adoption of that practice is
challenged, they face exposure because its subsequent use can be
challenged.

However, Scalia said it was not the Court's task to assess the
consequences of the approaches urged by the firefighters or the
city.

"Our charge is to give effect to the law Congress enacted," he
wrote. In enacting the disparate-impact provisions in Title VII,
Scalia added, "Congress allowed claims to be brought against an
employer who uses a practice that causes disparate impact,
whatever the employer's motives and whether or not he has
employed the same practice in the past. If that effect was
unintended, it is a problem for Congress, not one that federal
courts can fix."

Deputy Corporation Counsel Benna Ruth Solomon represented Chicago
in the Supreme Court.

The Chicago case was being closely followed by civil rights and
employment groups because of recent decisions that they viewed as
hostile to minorities or employees. Last term in Ricci v.
DeStefano, a 5-4 Court ruled in favor of white firefighters who
sued New Haven, Conn., for discarding the results of a promotion
exam because it had a disparate impact on minority firefighters.
And in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., a 5-4 Court ruled
in 2007 that Lilly Ledbetter's pay discrimination charges were
time-barred. Congress responded with the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay
Act of 2008.


COTTONWOOD FINANCIAL: Payday Lender Class Action Waiver Invalid
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a court says payday lenders
cannot require customers to waive their ability to join class
action lawsuits in order to receive loans.

The Wisconsin District 3 Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday that such
requirements, typically in fine print, violate the Wisconsin
Consumer Act.

The court says the ability to file or join class action lawsuits
is often the only effective way to protect consumers from unfair
practices.

The case involves Cottonwood Financial, which runs a payday
lender called The Cash Store.

Borrower Darcie Estes received $1,400 cash at high interest rates
and ended up paying back $4,500. Estes defaulted still owing
$1,000.

Because of the provision in the loan agreement, Estes was
prevented from filing a lawsuit alleging violations of the
consumer act.


FIRSTENERGY CORP: Appeal in Suit vs. Jersey Central Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
The appeal of the plaintiffs on the decertification of the class
in a consolidated suit against Jersey Central Power & Light
Company remains pending, according to the company's May 4, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

In July 1999, the Mid-Atlantic States experienced a severe heat
wave, which resulted in power outages throughout the service
territories of many electric utilities, including Jersey Central
Power & Light Company's (JCP&L) territory.

Two class action lawsuits (subsequently consolidated into a
single proceeding) were filed in New Jersey Superior Court in
July 1999 against JCP&L, GPU, Inc., and other GPU companies,
seeking compensatory and punitive damages due to the outages.

After various motions, rulings and appeals, the Plaintiffs'
claims for consumer fraud, common law fraud, negligent
misrepresentation, strict product liability, and punitive damages
were dismissed, leaving only the negligence and breach of
contract causes of actions.

The class was decertified twice by the trial court, and appealed
both times by the Plaintiffs, with the results being that:

     (1) the Appellate Division limited the class only to those
         customers directly impacted by the outages of JCP&L
         transformers in Red Bank, NJ, based on a common
         incident involving the failure of the bushings of two
         large transformers in the Red Bank substation which
         resulted in planned and unplanned outages in the area
         during a 2-3 day period, and

     (2) in March 2007, the Appellate Division remanded this
         matter back to the Trial Court to allow plaintiffs
         sufficient time to establish a damage model or
         individual proof of damages.

On March 31, 2009, the trial court again granted JCP&L's motion
to decertify the class.  On April 20, 2009, the Plaintiffs filed
a motion for leave to take an interlocutory appeal to the trial
court's decision to decertify the class, which was granted by the
Appellate Division on June 15, 2009.

Plaintiffs filed their appellate brief on August 25, 2009, and
JCP&L filed an opposition brief on Sept. 25, 2009.

On or about Oct. 13, 2009, Plaintiffs filed their reply brief in
further support of their appeal of the trial court's decision
decertifying the class.  The Appellate Division heard oral
argument on Jan. 5, 2010, before a three-judge panel.
JCP&L is awaiting the Court's decision.

FirstEnergy Corp. -- http://www.firstenergycorp.com/-- is a  
diversified energy company headquartered in Akron, Ohio.  Its
subsidiaries and affiliates are involved in the generation,
transmission and distribution of electricity, as well as energy
management and other energy-related services.  Its seven electric
utility operating companies comprise the nation's fifth largest
investor-owned electric system, based on 4.5 million customers
served within a 36,100-square-mile area of Ohio, Pennsylvania and
New Jersey; and its generation subsidiaries control more than
14,000 megawatts of capacity.


FIRSTENERGY CORP: June 3 Hearing Set in Motion to Dismiss
---------------------------------------------------------
A June 3, 2010, hearing has been set for the argument on the
motion of FirstEnergy Corp. to dismiss a putative shareholder
class action in Maryland over its proposed merger with Allegheny
Energy Inc., according to the company's May 4, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2010.

In connection with the proposed merger, purported shareholders of
Allegheny Energy have filed putative shareholder class action
and/or derivative lawsuits in Pennsylvania and Maryland state
courts, as well as in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania, against Allegheny Energy and its
directors and certain officers, FirstEnergy and Merger Sub.

The lawsuits allege, among other things, that the Allegheny
Energy directors breached their fiduciary duties by approving the
merger agreement, and that Allegheny Energy, FirstEnergy and
Merger Sub aided and abetted in these alleged breaches of
fiduciary duty.  The plaintiffs allege that the merger
consideration is unfair, that other terms in the merger agreement
including the termination fee and the non-solicitation provisions
are unfair, that certain individual defendants are financially
interested in the merger, and that Allegheny Energy has failed to
disclose material information about the merger to its
shareholders.

Among other remedies, the plaintiffs seek to enjoin the merger
and they have demanded jury trials.

The Allegheny Energy defendants moved to consolidate the Maryland
lawsuits and filed motions to dismiss and answers to each of the
Maryland complaints.  The court consolidated the Maryland
lawsuits and an amended complaint has been filed.

The Allegheny Energy defendants, FirstEnergy, and Merger Sub
filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint on April 21, 2010.  
The Maryland court has set a hearing for argument on the motions
to dismiss for June 3, 2010.

By order dated April 26, 2010, the Maryland court certified a
plaintiff class that consists of all holders of Allegheny Energy
shares at any time from Feb. 11, 2010, to the consummation of the
proposed merger.

FirstEnergy Corp. -- http://www.firstenergycorp.com/-- is a  
diversified energy company headquartered in Akron, Ohio.  Its
subsidiaries and affiliates are involved in the generation,
transmission and distribution of electricity, as well as energy
management and other energy-related services.  Its seven electric
utility operating companies comprise the nation's fifth largest
investor-owned electric system, based on 4.5 million customers
served within a 36,100-square-mile area of Ohio, Pennsylvania and
New Jersey; and its generation subsidiaries control more than
14,000 megawatts of capacity.


FIRSTENERGY CORP: Motion to Stay Pennsylvania Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
FirstEnergy Corp.'s motion to stay the consolidated lawsuit filed
in Pennsylvania state court in relation to its proposed merger
with Allegheny Energy Inc., remains pending, according to the
company's May 4, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

In connection with the proposed merger, purported shareholders of
Allegheny Energy have filed putative shareholder class action
and/or derivative lawsuits in Pennsylvania and Maryland state
courts, as well as in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania, against Allegheny Energy and its
directors and certain officers, FirstEnergy and Merger Sub.

The lawsuits allege, among other things, that the Allegheny
Energy directors breached their fiduciary duties by approving the
merger agreement, and that Allegheny Energy, FirstEnergy and
Merger Sub aided and abetted in these alleged breaches of
fiduciary duty.  The plaintiffs allege that the merger
consideration is unfair, that other terms in the merger agreement
including the termination fee and the non-solicitation provisions
are unfair, that certain individual defendants are financially
interested in the merger, and that Allegheny Energy has failed to
disclose material information about the merger to its
shareholders.

Among other remedies, the plaintiffs seek to enjoin the merger
and they have demanded jury trials.

The Pennsylvania state court has consolidated the lawsuits filed
in that court.

The Allegheny Energy defendants and FirstEnergy have moved to
stay the Pennsylvania lawsuits and the plaintiff has moved for
leave to take expedited discovery.  The Pennsylvania state court
will hear argument on both motions on May 27, 2010.

FirstEnergy Corp. -- http://www.firstenergycorp.com/-- is a  
diversified energy company headquartered in Akron, Ohio.  Its
subsidiaries and affiliates are involved in the generation,
transmission and distribution of electricity, as well as energy
management and other energy-related services.  Its seven electric
utility operating companies comprise the nation's fifth largest
investor-owned electric system, based on 4.5 million customers
served within a 36,100-square-mile area of Ohio, Pennsylvania and
New Jersey; and its generation subsidiaries control more than
14,000 megawatts of capacity.


FIRSTENERGY CORP: Continues to Defend Suit Over Allegheny Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
FirstEnergy Corp. continues to defend a putative shareholder
class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania in relation to its proposed merger with
Allegheny Energy Inc., according to the company's May 4, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

In connection with the proposed merger, purported shareholders of
Allegheny Energy have filed putative shareholder class action
and/or derivative lawsuits in Pennsylvania and Maryland state
courts, as well as in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania, against Allegheny Energy and its
directors and certain officers, FirstEnergy and Merger Sub.

The lawsuits allege, among other things, that the Allegheny
Energy directors breached their fiduciary duties by approving the
merger agreement, and that Allegheny Energy, FirstEnergy and
Merger Sub aided and abetted in these alleged breaches of
fiduciary duty.  The plaintiffs allege that the merger
consideration is unfair, that other terms in the merger agreement
including the termination fee and the non-solicitation provisions
are unfair, that certain individual defendants are financially
interested in the merger, and that Allegheny Energy has failed to
disclose material information about the merger to its
shareholders.

Among other remedies, the plaintiffs seek to enjoin the merger
and they have demanded jury trials.

By stipulation dated April 14, 2010, no response is due to the
complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania until June 10, 2010.

FirstEnergy Corp. -- http://www.firstenergycorp.com/-- is a  
diversified energy company headquartered in Akron, Ohio.  Its
subsidiaries and affiliates are involved in the generation,
transmission and distribution of electricity, as well as energy
management and other energy-related services.  Its seven electric
utility operating companies comprise the nation's fifth largest
investor-owned electric system, based on 4.5 million customers
served within a 36,100-square-mile area of Ohio, Pennsylvania and
New Jersey; and its generation subsidiaries control more than
14,000 megawatts of capacity.


FIRSTENERGY CORP: Wants Suit in Geauga County Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------
FirstEnergy Corp. seeks the dismissal of a class action lawsuit
in connection with the reduction of a discount, according to the
company's May 4, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.


On Feb. 16, 2010, a class action lawsuit was filed in Geauga
County Court of Common Pleas against FirstEnergy, The Cleveland
Electric Illuminating Company, and Ohio Edison Company seeking
declaratory judgment and injunctive relief, as well as
compensatory, incidental and consequential damages, on behalf of
a class of customers related to the reduction of a discount that
had previously been in place for residential customers with
electric heating, electric water heating, or load management
systems.

The reduction in the discount was approved by the Public
Utilities Commission of Ohio.

On March 18, 2010, the named-defendant companies filed a motion
to dismiss the case due to the lack of jurisdiction of the court
of common pleas.  The court has not yet ruled on that motion to
dismiss.

FirstEnergy Corp. -- http://www.firstenergycorp.com/-- is a  
diversified energy company headquartered in Akron, Ohio.  Its
subsidiaries and affiliates are involved in the generation,
transmission and distribution of electricity, as well as energy
management and other energy-related services.  Its seven electric
utility operating companies comprise the nation's fifth largest
investor-owned electric system, based on 4.5 million customers
served within a 36,100-square-mile area of Ohio, Pennsylvania and
New Jersey; and its generation subsidiaries control more than
14,000 megawatts of capacity.


FORCE PROTECTION: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in S.C.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Force Protection, Inc., continues to defend a consolidated suit
captioned In Re Force Protection, Inc. Securities Litigation,
Action No. 2:08-cv-845-CWH, pending in the U.S. District Court
for the District of South Carolina, Charleston Division.

On March 10, 2008, the first of ten related class action lawsuits
was filed against the company and certain of its former and
current directors or officers, on behalf of a proposed class of
investors who purchased or otherwise acquired the company's stock
during the period between Aug. 14, 2006, and Feb. 29, 2008.

The complaints seek class certification, and the allegations
include, but are not limited to, allegations that the defendants
violated the Exchange Act and made false or misleading public
statements and/or omissions concerning our business, internal
controls, and financial results.

The individual class action lawsuits were consolidated on
June 10, 2008.

On Sept. 29, 2009, the court denied the defendants' motion to
dismiss the plaintiffs' consolidated complaint, and the parties
are engaging in discovery.

No updates were reported in the company's May 4, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2010.

Force Protection, Inc. -- http://www.forceprotection.net/-- is a  
leading designer, developer and manufacturer of survivability
solutions, including blast- and ballistic-protected wheeled
vehicles currently deployed by the U.S. military and its allies
to support armed forces and security personnel in conflict zones.  
The company's specialty vehicles, including the Buffalo, Cougar
and related variants, are designed specifically for
reconnaissance and urban operations and to protect their
occupants from landmines, hostile fire, and improvised explosive
devices (IEDs, commonly referred to as roadside bombs).  The
company also develops, manufactures, tests, delivers and supports
products and services aimed at further enhancing the
survivability of users against additional threats.  In addition,
the company provides long-term life cycle support services of its
vehicles that involve development of technical data packages,
supply of spares, field and depot maintenance activities,
assignment of highly-skilled field service representatives, and
advanced on and off-road driver and maintenance training
programs.


GENEREX BIOTECHNOLOGY: Sued in Calif. for Misleading Advertising
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Generex Biotechnology Corp.
claims people who take its CraveNX "diet aid spray" will lose up
to 2 lbs. a week without exercising or changing their diet, but
that's nonsense, according to a class action in Riverside County
Court, Calif.  

A copy of the Complaint in Solis v. Generex Biotechnology
Corporation, et al., Case No. 10009068 (Calif. Super. Ct.,
Riverside Cty.), is available at:
     
     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/05/24/CCA.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott J. Ferrell, Esq.
          Robert E. Borg, Esq.
          Michael E. Velarde, Esq.
          NEWPORT TRIAL GROUP
          Newport Center Dr., Suite 700
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Telephone: 949-706-6464


GOOGLE INC: WiFi Data Capture Lawsuit Filed by Oregon Residents
---------------------------------------------------------------
FindLaw.com reports that Google has been sued in a class action
case by two Oregon citizens for collecting their Wi-Fi data. The
named members of the class, Vicki Van Valin and Neil Mertz,
allege that when Google's Street View vehicles roamed their
neighborhood, they captured data using a packet sniffer.
Plaintiffs have requested that Google refrain from destroying any
data that has been collected.

The data decking lawsuit alleges that the vehicles were equipped
with a packet sniffer, which captured users' MAC addresses and
various data including but not limited to emails, video, audio
and documents. The lawsuit alleges that Google has violated
federal wiretap laws, which would entitle class members to $100
per day for each day their data was captured, or $10,000 per
violation for each plaintiff, if the plaintiffs were to succeed.

It seems that by way of its blog, Google may have admitted to
behavior relating to some of the allegations:

     . . . we have been mistakenly collecting samples of payload
     data from open (i.e., non-password-protected) Wi-Fi
     networks, even though we never used that data in any Google
     products . . . we will typically have collected only      
     fragments of payload data . . .  In addition, we did not
     collect information traveling over secure, password-
     protected Wi-Fi networks.

However, as the New York Times blog reports, this controversy is
bigger than the admission:

     Google is now saying . . . that its previous claims were
     wrong . . . the company has indeed been mistakenly
     collecting samples of payload data from non-password
     protected Wi-Fi networks in Europe, in the United States and
     other major regions around the world.

Time will tell whether Google's actions are held to have violated
wire tap laws. The company may also face claims of violating
privacy laws here and abroad. However, it must be remembered that
in the US, violation privacy rights generally requires that the
victim have a reasonable expectation of privacy. How reasonable
it is to expect privacy in unencrypted Wi-Fi transmissions may be
less clear than one would imagine.

Google wrapped up the blog post with an apology: "We are
profoundly sorry for this error and are determined to learn all
the lessons we can from our mistake."


METLIFE AUTO: Use of Decision Point Software Draws Fire in Ill.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Holleran at The St. Clair Record reports that a Swansea,
Ill., medical provider says an insurance company has wrongly
taken an unknown amount of money from it and others after
unfairly refusing to pay portions of medical charges.

Back Doctors filed a putative class action lawsuit May 13 in St.
Clair County Circuit Court against MetLife Auto and Home.

Kevin T. Hoerner and Brian T. Kreisler of Belleville, Paul M.
Weiss and Jeffrey A. Leon of Freed and Weiss in Chicago and
Richard J. Burke of Freed ad Weiss in St. Louis will be
representing them.

Back Doctors claims MetLife consistently uses a biased computer
software called Decision Point to limit and exclude coverage on
parts of medical expenses incurred after a covered occurrence.
For example, if a person sustains injuries in an automobile
collision, MetLife will sometimes use the software to exclude or
deny portions of coverage without first determining whether the
denied charges are unreasonable, according to the complaint.

"Rather, Decision Point software, such as that used on
Plaintiff's claims, simply compares the line-item charge billed
for a medical procedure to internal fee schedules imbedded (sic)
within the software," the suit states. "Insurers such as Met
select a particular 'percentile' payment benchmark (e.g. the 85th
percentile), and any amount of the charge that exceeds that
payment benchmark is capped and excluded from coverage."

Met does not disclose which percentile benchmark it uses and does
not take into account what could be considered a reasonable
charge for medical services, the complaint says.

Therefore, when Met uses a code 41/x41 to reduce its insured's
claims, it simply reduces the claim without explaining to its
clients what it considers to be a reasonable charge, Back Doctors
claims.

By using such a code and software to reduce its insured's claims,
Met fails to follow its own policy language, according to the
complaint. For example, in its policies, Met promises to
determine whether a medical charge could be considered reasonable
before it refuses payment to its insured, the suit states.

"In spite of this representation, Decision Point simply compares
the amount charged for a procedure to fee schedules embedded
within the program; the fee schedules are purchased from third
party Ingenix - who disclaims any and all warranties behind the
data being used to determine payment amounts and who concede that
such software does not make 'reasonable' or 'unreasonable'
determinations," the complaint says.

Any amount that exceeds the percentile benchmark Met set will not
be covered, Back Doctors claims. For example, if Met has set
coverage at the 85th percentile, and if the 85th percentile
charge is $24 for a particular procedure, but Met is billed $25,
it will only pay $24, according to the complaint.

"Met is simply disinterested in whether a medical charge
submitted to it is reasonable or not," the suit says. "Met simply
wants to employ a systematic means to control Policy payments,
which assure profitability of its decisions."

From year to year, Met's insureds are not sure how much money
would constitute a reasonable charge because Met may change its
percentile benchmarks annually, the complaint says.

"This is not because what constitutes a 'reasonable' or
'unreasonable' charge has changed, nor has what is 'usual' or
'customary' changed, but rather Met's financial circumstance (or
'bottom line'), or litigation 'climate' in which it operates,"
the suit states. "Met saved untold dollars on claims that it
should have paid under the express terms of its policy."

In its two-count complaint, Back Doctors alleges breach of
contract and violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act.

It seeks a certification of its class action suit, plus
unspecified damages, pre-judgment interest, attorneys' fees,
costs and other relief the court deems just.

A copy of the Complaint in Back Doctors Ltd. v. Metlife
Auto & Home, Case No. 10-L-241 (Ill. Cir. Ct., St. Clair
Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/05/25/MetLife.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kevin T. Hoerner, Esq.
          Brian T. Kreisler, Esq.
          BECKER, PAULSON, HOERNER & THOMPSON, P.C.
          5111 West Main St.
          Belleville, IL 62226
          Telephone: 618-235-0020

               - and -

          Paul M. Weiss, Esq.
          Jeffrey A. Leon, Esq.
          FREED & WEISS LLC
          111 West Washington St., Suite 1331
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: 312-220-0000

               - and -

          Richard J. Burke, Esq.
          FREED & WEISS LLC
          1010 Market St., Suite 660
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: 314-880-7000


NEW YORK: 2nd Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Phony Police Gear Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit refused
to reinstate a class action over "Operation Stinking Badges," a
joint federal-New York City policing policy that criminalizes the
possession of phony police gear.

The policy makes it a crime to possess "any uniform, shield,
buttons, wreaths, numbers or other insignia of emblem in any way
resembling that worn by members of the police force."

Lead plaintiffs Lateif Dickerson, Clyde Davison, Jr. and Jimmy
Hogans claimed their arrests, incarcerations and prosecutions
under the policy violated their constitutional rights.  They
filed a class action on behalf of those nabbed under "Operation
Stinking Badges," which was inspired by the 1948 movie "The
Treasure of Sierra Madre."

There was no evidence that the men used the phony NYPD badges to
gain entry to 26 Federal Plaza, and the charges against them were
later dropped or dismissed.

The men sued Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, New
York City and officers Chris Pappas, Thomas Mahoney, Karlene
Torres and Raymond Brockmann for allegedly violating their First,
Fourth and 14th Amendment rights.

A federal judge in Manhattan ruled that the claims lacked merit,
and the federal appeals court agreed.

"One of the plain purposes of the statute is to prohibit persons
from bringing into secure facilities unauthorized badges that may
later be used to impersonate a police officer and gain further
unimpeded access to restricted areas," Judge Robert Sack wrote
for the three-judge panel.  "It was this initial prohibited act
that the plaintiffs were arrested for engaging in here."

A copy of the decision in Dickerson, et al. v. Napolitano, et
al., Docket No. 09-2167-cv (2nd Cir.), is available at:

     http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?6326

The Plaintiffs-Appellants are represented by:

          Jason J. Rozger, Esq.
          BERANBAUM MENKEN BEN-ASHER & BIERMAN LLP
          80 Pine St.
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: 212-509-1616

Defendants-Appellees Ms. Napolitano, Mr. Pappas, and Mr. Mahoney
are represented by:

          Sarah E. Light, Esq.
          Benjamin H. Torrance, Esq.
          Preet Bharara, Esq.
          THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
          1 St. Andrews Plaza
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: 212-637-2200

Defendants-Appellees City of New York, Ms. Torres and Mr.
Brockmann are represented by:

          Ellen Ravitch, Esq.
          Stephen J. McGrath, Esq.
          Jennifer Rossan, Esq.
          Michael A. Cardozo, Esq.
          CORPORATION COUNSEL OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK
          NEW YORK CITY LAW DEPARTMENT
          Room 6-140
          100 Church St.
          New York, NY 10007-2601
          Telephone: 212-788-0303


NOVAGOLD INC: Aug. & Sept. Shareholder Settlement Hearings Set
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hearings in Canada and the United States will be held in August
and September to consider approval of a C$28 million (US$26.6
million) settlement for the benefit of NovaGold shareholders.  

The settlement will resolve three lawsuits:

   (A) In re NovaGold Resources Inc. Securities Litigation,
       Master File 1:08-CV-7041 (DLC) (JCF) in the United States
       District Court for the Southern District of New York;

   (B) Philip Elliott and William Kormos v. NovaGold Resources
       Inc., et al., Court File No. CV-09-13833 in the Ontario
       Superior Court of Justice; and

   (C) Linda M. Elliott v. NovaGold Resources Inc., et al., Court
       File No. VLC-S-S-097866 in the Supreme Court of British
       Columbia.

If you purchased NovaGold Resources Inc. common stock on the
American Stock Exchange, the Toronto Stock Exchange, or by any
other means during the period from October 25, 2005 to and
including January 16, 2008, your rights may be affected by class
action lawsuit(s) and you may be entitled to a payment from a
proposed class action settlement.

The U.S. Court will consider the Settlement at a hearing to be
held on September 10, 2010. The British Columbia Court will
consider the Settlement at a hearing on August 6, 2010. The
Ontario Court will consider the Settlement at a hearing on
August 4, 2010.

The Garden City Group, Inc., maintains a Web site at
http://www.novagoldclassaction.com/to provide additional  
information about this matter.  

The Plaintiffs' lawyers are:

     U.S. Lead Counsel:

          Joseph A. Fonti, Esq.
          LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
          140 Broadway
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: 888-753-2796
          E-mail: info@labaton.com

     Ontario Class Counsel:

          Jay Strosberg, Esq.
          SUTTS, STROSBERG LLP
          600 - 251 Goyeau Street
          Windsor, Ontario N9A 6V4
          CANADA
          Telephone: 877-214-4517
          E-mail: novagold@strosbergco.com

     British Columbia Class Counsel:
     
          Reidar Mogerman, Esq.
          CAMP FIORANTE MATTHEWS
          #400 - 856 Homer Street
          Vancouver, BC V6B 2W5
          CANADA
          Telephone: 604-689-7555
          E-mail: info@cfmlawyers.ca


PROTECTION ONE: Del. & Kan. Lawsuits Settled for $3.25 Million
--------------------------------------------------------------
GTCR, one of the country's leading private equity firms, has
extended the expiration date of the tender offer by its affiliate
Protection Acquisition Sub, Inc. for all outstanding common
shares of Protection One, Inc., a national provider of electronic
security alarm monitoring services. The offer and withdrawal
rights described in the Offer to Purchase have been extended and
will now expire at 9:00 a.m., New York City time, on June 4,
2010, unless the offer is further extended or earlier terminated.
The offer had been previously scheduled to expire at 9:00 a.m.,
New York City time, on June 2, 2010.

GTCR has also settled the purported class action lawsuits filed
in the Court of Chancery in the State of Delaware and in the
District Court of Douglas County in the State of Kansas related
to the proposed acquisition of Protection One. Under the terms of
the settlement, among other things, GTCR and Protection One have
agreed to make certain additional information available to
Protection One stockholders and, subject to completion of the
transaction and final approval of the settlement, Protection One
has agreed to make a settlement payment of $3,250,000 to be
distributed pro rata to the public stockholders of Protection One
who hold Protection One stock as of the close of business on the
day before the expiration of the offer. The settlement payment
will be made following receipt of court approvals of the
settlement, which will be after the completion of the tender
offer and the merger. The payment is separate from the
consideration to be paid in the tender offer and the merger and
will be paid only to the plaintiff class of stockholders, which
excludes the defendants and their affiliates. GTCR and the other
defendants specifically deny all the allegations made in the
lawsuits and the memorandum of understanding entered into for the
settlement contains no admission of wrongdoing. The settlement is
conditioned upon, among other things, confirmatory discovery by
the plaintiffs, negotiation of a final stipulation of settlement
and receipt of final required court approvals. The complete terms
and conditions of the settlement are set forth in the memorandum
of understanding, a copy of which has been filed by GTCR and
Protection One with the SEC.

                           About GTCR

Founded in 1980, GTCR -- http://www.gtcr.com/-- is a leading  
private equity firm focused on investing in growth companies in
the Financial Services & Technology, Healthcare and Information
Services & Technology industries. The Chicago-based firm
pioneered the "Leaders Strategy" -- finding and partnering with
world-class leaders as the critical first step in identifying,
acquiring and building market-leading companies through
acquisitions and organic growth. Since its inception, GTCR has
invested more than $8 billion in over 200 companies.

                       About Protection One

Protection One -- http://www.ProtectionOne.com/-- is one of the  
largest vertically integrated national providers of sales,
installation, monitoring, and maintenance of electronic security
systems to homes and businesses and has been recognized as one of
"America's Most Trustworthy Companies" by Forbes.com. Network
Multifamily, Protection One's wholly owned subsidiary, is the
largest security provider to the multifamily housing market.
Protection One also owns the nation's largest provider of
wholesale monitoring services, the combined operations of CMS and
Criticom International.


QUINNIPIAC UNIVERSITY: Class Status Granted to Volleyball Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pat Eaton-Robb at The Associated Press reports from Hartford,
Conn., that a federal judge has granted class action status to a
lawsuit filed by members of Quinnipiac (KWIHN'-uh-pee-ak)
University's volleyball team alleging gender discrimination in
the school's athletic programs.

The ruling means if the judge finds Title IX violations he could
order remedies for all current and future female athletes at the
Connecticut school, not just the five who sued.
Title IX is the federal law mandating equal opportunities for
female athletes.

Quinnipiac last year sought to drop volleyball and add women's
cheerleading as a sport, prompting the lawsuit from several
players and volleyball coach Robin Sparks.
The volleyball team was reinstated after Judge Stephen Underhill
issued a temporary injunction, but settlement talks were
unsuccessful.

A message seeking comment was left with the school's attorney on
Monday.


RELIANCE STANDARD: High Court Sets Fee Standard in ERISA Cases
--------------------------------------------------------------
Marcia Coyle at The National Law Journal reports that workers
suing over disability and other benefits under the federal law
known as ERISA may win attorney fees and costs if they achieve
"some degree of success on the merits," a unanimous U.S. Supreme
Court ruled on Monday.  In Hardt v. Reliance Standard Life
Insurance Co., No. 09-448, slip op. http://is.gd/copvv(U.S.),  
the justices rejected a tougher standard on fee claimants under
the Employee Retirement and Income Security Act described in
Hardt v. Reliance Standard Life Insurance Company, No. 08-1896,
slip op. http://is.gd/copBf(4th Cir.).  The lower appellate  
court had ruled that a claimant must be a "prevailing party"
before seeking a fee award.

The justices' ruling came in a case brought by Bridget Hardt, who
sought long-term disability benefits as a result of job-related
carpal tunnel syndrome. Hardt was awarded the benefits, but in
March 2006, Reliance informed her that she was ineligible for
continued long-term benefits. She sued the insurance company,
claiming ERISA violations.

The district court ordered Reliance to reconsider its decision
based on evidence that the court had found. The order said that,
if Reliance did not adequately consider all of the evidence
within 30 days, judgment would be entered in favor of Hardt.

On reconsideration, Reliance reinstated full benefits to Hardt.
When Hardt moved for attorney fees and costs, Reliance objected,
arguing she was not a "prevailing party" because the insurance
company had agreed to pay the benefits. Hardt incurred $58,920 in
attorney fees to recover $55,250 in disability benefits,
according to briefs in the case. The district court awarded fees,
but the 4th Circuit reversed.

In the Supreme Court, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote that the
words "prevailing party" do not appear in ERISA's fee-award
provision. That provision, he said, "expressly grants district
courts 'discretion' to award attorney fees 'to either party.'"

Because the Court's "prevailing party" precedents did not apply
here, Thomas said a line of fee precedents that do not rely on
prevailing-party status should apply, with 1983's Ruckelshaus v.
Sierra Club being the principal case. Under Ruckelshaus, a fees
claimant must show some degree of success on the merits before a
court may award attorney fees, Thomas said. That success must be
more than "trivial" or a "purely procedural victory."

Hardt met the standard, according to the Court, by persuading the
district court that the insurance company had failed to comply
with ERISA guidelines nor had it given the type of review
required by the law. She also had obtained a judicial order
requiring Reliance to reconsider the evidence adequately or face
judgment in Hardt's favor.

Hardt's counsel, John Ates of the Law Firm of John Ates in
Arlington, Va., had argued that the 4th Circuit's rule encouraged
ERISA plan administrators to engage in scorched earth "you sue,
you lose" tactics, then give in when they realize a court will
force them to abide by the law.

The solicitor general of the United States had filed an amicus
brief urging the Court to interpret the ERISA fee provision
broadly so that claimants who obtain benefits on remand may be
awarded fees and costs.

Nicholas Rosenkranz of Georgetown University Law Center argued
the case for Reliance.

Roughly 10,000 ERISA benefit lawsuits are filed annually.


RIGEL PHARMA: Awaiting Ruling on Motion to Dismiss Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Rigel Pharmaceuticals, Inc., continues to await the ruling on its
motion to dismiss a consolidated amended complaint in connection
with allegedly false and misleading statements made by the
company related to the results of the Phase 2a clinical trial of
its product candidate R788, according to the company's May 4,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

On Feb. 6, 2009, a purported securities class action lawsuit was
commenced in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, naming as defendants the company and certain of its
officers, directors and underwriters for the company's February
2008 stock offering.

An additional purported securities class action lawsuit
containing similar allegations was subsequently filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California on Feb.
20, 2009.

By order of the Court dated March 19, 2009, the two lawsuits were
consolidated into a single action.

On June 9, 2009, the Court issued an order naming the Inter-Local
Pension Fund GCC/IBT as lead plaintiff and Coughlin Stoia as lead
counsel.  The lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint on
July 24, 2009.

The company filed a motion to dismiss on Sept. 8, 2009.  On Dec.
21, 2009, the Court granted the company's motion and dismissed
the consolidated complaint with leave to amend.

Plaintiff filed its consolidated amended complaint on Jan. 27,
2010.

The lawsuit alleges violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with allegedly
false and misleading statements made by the company related to
the results of the Phase 2a clinical trial of its product
candidate R788.  The plaintiffs seek damages, including
rescission or rescissory damages for purchasers in the stock
offering, an award of their costs and injunctive and/or equitable
relief for purchasers of its common stock during the period
between Dec. 13, 2007 and Feb. 9, 2009, including purchasers in
the stock offering.

The company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended
complaint on Feb. 16, 2010.

Briefing on the motion to dismiss is complete and the company is
awaiting a ruling on that motion from the Court.

Rigel Pharmaceuticals, Inc. -- http://www.rigel.com-- is a  
clinical-stage drug development company that discovers and
develops small molecule drugs for the treatment of inflammatory
and autoimmune diseases, cancer and viral diseases.  The
company's research focuses on intracellular signaling pathways
and related targets that are critical to disease mechanisms.  
Rigel has collaborations with pharmaceutical partners to develop
and market its product candidates.  The company has internal
product development programs in inflammatory and autoimmune
diseases, such as rheumatoid arthritis and thrombocytopenia, and
cancer, as well as partnered product development programs
relating to asthma and cancer.


SOUTHERN COPPER: Del. Suit Over Minera Mexico Merger Continues
--------------------------------------------------------------
Southern Copper Corp. continues to defend a consolidated class
action derivative lawsuit filed before the Delaware Court of
Chancery, New Castle County, over the company's acquisition of
Minera Mexico S.A. de C.V.

Late in December 2004 and early January 2005, several actions
were filed against the company.  On Jan. 31, 2005, three suits
were consolidated into one action, In Re Southern Copper
Corporation Shareholder Derivative Litigation, Consol. C.A. No.
961-N.

These three suits were:

     (1) Lemon Bay, LLP v. Americas Mining Corp., et al.,
         Civil Action No. 961-N,

     (2) Therault Trust v. Luis Palomino Bonilla, et al., and
         Southern Copper Corp., et al., Civil Action No. 969-N,
         and

     (3) James Sousa v. Southern Copper Corp., et al.,
         Civil Action No. 978-N.

The complaint filed in "Lemon Bay" was designated as the
operative complaint in the consolidated lawsuit.  The
consolidated action purports to be brought on behalf of the
company's common stockholders.

The consolidated complaint alleges that the transaction is the
result of breaches of fiduciary duties by the Company's
directors and is not entirely fair to the company and its
minority stockholders.

The suit seeks, among other things, a preliminary and permanent
injunction to enjoin the acquisition, the award of damages to the
class, the award of damages to the Company and such other relief
that the court deems equitable, including interest,
attorneys' and experts' fees and costs.

No further updates were reported in the company's May 4, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

Southern Copper Corp. -- http://www.southernperu.com/-- is an  
integrated copper producer. The Company produces copper,
molybdenum, zinc and silver. All of its mining, smelting and
refining facilities are located in Peru and in Mexico, and it
conducts exploration activities in those countries and Chile.


UNISOURCE ENERGY: Court Dismissed "Right of Way" Suit vs. Unit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court in Albuquerque, New Mexico, has dismissed
a putative class action against Tucson Electric Power Co. over
right of way matters, according to Unisource Energy Corp.'s May
4, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

Tucson Electric is the principal subsidiary of UniSource Energy.

Tucson Electric is a defendant in a putative class action filed
on Feb. 11, 2009, in the U.S. District Court in Albuquerque, New
Mexico by members of the Navajo Nation.

The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the rights of
ways for defendants' transmission lines on Navajo lands were
improperly granted and that the compensation paid for such rights
of way was inadequate.

The plaintiffs are requesting, among other things, that the
transmission lines on these lands be removed.

In June 2009, TEP and the other defendants filed motions to
dismiss the lawsuit on procedural grounds and in September 2009,
the plaintiffs filed responses.

On March 31, 2010, the Court granted several of the defendants'
motions to dismiss, and, as a result, dismissed the entirety of
the plaintiffs' case against all defendants.  The Court entered a
final judgment dismissing the case on April 16, 2010.

UniSource Energy Corporation -- http://www.uns.com/-- is a  
holding company that conducts its operations through its
subsidiaries.  UniSource Energy owns Tucson Electric Power
Company (TEP), UniSource Energy Services, Inc. (UES), Millennium
Energy Holdings, Inc. (Millennium) and UniSource Energy
Development Company (UED).  The company conducts its business
through three segments: TEP, UNS Gas and UNS Electric.  TEP is an
electric utility that provides electric service to the community
of Tucson, Arizona.  UES, through its two operating subsidiaries,
UNS Gas, Inc. (UNS Gas) and UNS Electric, Inc. (UNS Electric),
provides gas and electric service to 30 communities in Northern
and Southern Arizona.  UED developed and owns the Black Mountain
Generating Station (BMGS), a natural gas-fired combustion turbine
in Northern Arizona that, through a power sales agreement
provides energy to UNS Electric.


VERIZON WIRELESS: Suit Complains About Extended Warranty Program
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Verizon Wireless sold
"extended warranties" for $1.99 a month without disclosing that
they ran concurrently with the phone manufacturer's warranties
for the first year, a class action claims in Trenton, N.J.,
Federal Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Powers, et al. v. Verizon Wireless,
Services, LLC, Case No. 10-cv-02619 (D. N.J.) (Cooper, J.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/05/24/Verizon.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David M. Wacksman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF DAVID M. WACKSMAN
          20 Court St., 4th Floor
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: 201-906-0275

               - and -

          Melissa M. Harnett, Esq.
          Gregory Scarlett, Esq.
          Jordan S. Esensten, ESq.
          WASSERMAN, COMDEN, CASSELMAN & ESENSTEN, L.L.P.
          5567 Reseda Blvd., Suite 330
          Post Office Box 7033
          Tarzana, CA 91357-7033
          Telephone: 818-705-6800

               - and -

          J. Paul Gignac, Esq.
          Mike Arias, Esq.
          ARIAS, OZELLO & GIGNAC LLP
          4050 Calle Real, Suite 130
          Santa Barbara, CA 93110
          Telephone: 805-683-7400

                            *********

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  * * *