CAR_Public/100531.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, May 31, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 105

                            Headlines

AMBASSADORS GROUP: Wants Securities Suit in Washington Dismissed
AON CORP: Plaintiffs' Appeal on RICO Claims Dismissal Pending
AON CORP: Court Okays $30 Million Securities Suit Settlement
AON CORP: Settles ERISA-Violations Related Suit for $1.8 Million
AON CORP: Resource Life Continues to Defend "Buckner" Suit

ASSOCIATED ESTATES: Ohio Appeals Court Affirms Ruling
BMW OF NORTH: Sued for Concealing Defect in Design of Fuel Pumps
BP PLC: Courts Divided on Staying Gulf Oil Spill Lawsuits
CHARLES SCHWAB: Settlement Will Pay Hagens Berman $20 Million
CNX GAS: Named as Defendant in 4 Suits Over CONSOL Tender Offer

CONSOL ENERGY: Faces Suits Over Proposed CNX Gas Tender Offer
DOW CHEMICAL: Court Gives Final Approval to Settlement Agreement
DYNAMICS RESEARCH: Continues to Defend FLSA Violations Suit
E*TRADE FINANCIAL: Motion to Dismiss "Freudenberg" Suit Pending
E*TRADE FINANCIAL: Faces Amended Securities Suit in New York

E*TRADE FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend "Roling" Suit in Calif.
E*TRADE FINANCIAL: Pays Settlement Amount in "Greenberg" Suit
EMERGENCY MEDICAL: Suit v. AMR Over Incorrect Billings Pending
EMERGENCY MEDICAL: AMR Faces Four Wage & Hour Violations Suits
EXPERIAN INFO: Sued for Deceptive Marketing of Credit Reports

FACEBOOK INC: Accused in R.I. of Violating Computer Privacy Law
FARMERS MUTUAL: Ark. Sup. Ct. Allows Homeowners' Suit to Proceed
FBL FINANCIAL: EquiTrust Defends "Eller" Suit in Arizona
FBL FINANCIAL: EquiTrust Continues to Defend "Tabares" Suit
FEDERAL HOME: Bid to Junk OPERS Securities Suit Still Pending

FEDERAL HOME: "Jacoby" Suit Over False Statements Still Pending
FEDERAL HOME: Motion to Dismiss Amended "Kuriakose" Suit Pending
FEDERAL HOME: Amended Consolidated Complaint in "Kreysar" Filed
GOOGLE INC: Third WiFi Snooping Lawsuit Filed in D. Mass.
JAN'S TOWING: Sued for Not Paying Overtime Wages

SEDGWICK CLAIMS: Sued for Failing to Pay Overtime Wages
SKILLED HEALTHCARE: Wants Amended Complaint in Calif. Dismissed
SKILLED HEALTHCARE: Continues to Defend "Bates" Suit in Calif.
STATE FARM GENERAL: Removes "Ruby" Labor Complaint to N.D. Calif.
UNITED AGRI-PRODUCTS: Argues for Dismissal of Ill. Atrazine Suit

UNITED STATES: D.C. Suit Complains About Parole Guidelines
VULCAN MATERIALS: Certification Hearing in Addair Set for August
VULCAN MATERIALS: Subsidiary Defends Two Consolidated Complaints
WELLS FARGO: Sued for Collecting Improper Mortgage Fees

                            *********

AMBASSADORS GROUP: Wants Securities Suit in Washington Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ambassadors Group, Inc., has filed a motion to dismiss a
securities class action alleging violations of federal securities
laws, 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 July 14, 2009, a securities class action was filed against the
company and certain of its executive officers on behalf of all
persons or entities who purchased the company's Common Stock
between Feb. 8, 2007 and Oct. 23, 2007.

The class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Washington by plaintiff Plumbers Union Local
No. 12 Pension Fund.

On Oct. 22, 2009, the Court appointed International Brotherhood
of Electrical Workers Local 351 as lead plaintiff.

On Nov. 23, 2009, lead plaintiff IBEW 351 filed a motion to
withdraw as lead plaintiff and sought appointment of Plumbers
Union as substitute lead plaintiff.  On Jan. 7, 2010, a hearing
was held and the Court appointed Plumbers Union as lead
plaintiff.

The Plumbers Union filed an amended complaint on Jan. 11, 2010.  
The amended complaint alleges that the defendants violated
federal securities laws by making untrue statements of material
fact and/or omitting to state material facts, thereby
artificially inflating the price of the company's Common Stock.

On March 11, 2010, the company, and certain of its executive
officers, filed a motion to dismiss the Plumbers Union's amended
complaint.  The company anticipates the Court will issue a ruling
on the motion to dismiss after May 20, 2010.

Ambassadors Group, Inc. -- http://ambassadorsgroup.com-- is a  
socially conscious, education company located in Spokane,
Washington.  Ambassadors Group is the parent company of
Ambassador Programs, Inc., World Adventures Unlimited, Inc. and
Book Rags, Inc., an educational research website.  The company
also oversees the Washington School of World Studies, an
accredited travel study and distance learning school.


AON CORP: Plaintiffs' Appeal on RICO Claims Dismissal Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
The appeal of the plaintiffs on the dismissal of Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act claims against Aon
Corporation remains pending.

At the time of the 2004-05 investigation of the insurance
industry by the Attorney General of New York and other
regulators, purported classes of clients filed civil litigation
against Aon and other companies under a variety of legal
theories, including state tort, contract, fiduciary duty,
antitrust and statutory theories and federal antitrust and
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act theories.

The federal actions were consolidated in the U.S. District Court
for the District of New Jersey, and a state court collective
action was filed in California.
In the New Jersey actions, the Court dismissed plaintiffs'
federal antitrust and RICO claims in separate orders in August
and October 2007, respectively.  

Plaintiffs have appealed these dismissals.

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.

Aon Corporation -- http://www.aon.com/-- is the leading global  
provider of risk management services, insurance and reinsurance
brokerage, and human capital consulting.  Through its more than
36,000 colleagues worldwide, Aon readily delivers distinctive
client value via innovative and effective risk management and
workforce productivity solutions.  Aon's industry-leading global
resources and technical expertise are delivered locally through
more than 500 offices in more than 120 countries.


AON CORP: Court Okays $30 Million Securities Suit Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
gave its final approval to the $30 million settlement resolving a
securities suit against Aon Corporation, 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.

At the time of the 2004-05 investigation of the insurance
industry by the Attorney General of New York, putative classes
filed actions against Aon in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois under the federal securities laws.

Plaintiffs in the federal securities class action originally
submitted purported expert reports estimating a range of alleged
damages of $353 million to $490 million.  To protect against the
uncertain outcome of litigation and to contain exposure to the
company, Aon settled the securities suit for $30 million in 2009.

On Nov. 24, 2009, the Court entered a final order approving the
securities settlement and dismissing the securities suit.

Aon Corporation -- http://www.aon.com/-- is the leading global  
provider of risk management services, insurance and reinsurance
brokerage, and human capital consulting.  Through its more than
36,000 colleagues worldwide, Aon readily delivers distinctive
client value via innovative and effective risk management and
workforce productivity solutions.  Aon's industry-leading global
resources and technical expertise are delivered locally through
more than 500 offices in more than 120 countries.


AON CORP: Settles ERISA-Violations Related Suit for $1.8 Million
----------------------------------------------------------------
Aon Corporation is awaiting approval from the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois of a settlement resolving a
suit alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act for $1.8 million, 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.

At the time of the 2004-05 investigation of the insurance
industry by the Attorney General of New York, putative classes
filed actions against Aon in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois under ERISA.

Plaintiffs in the ERISA class actions originally submitted
revised purported expert reports estimating a range of alleged
damages of $74 million to $349 million.  To protect against the
uncertain outcome of litigation and to contain exposure to the
company, Aon reached an agreement in principle to settle the
ERISA suit for $1.8 million.

The proposed ERISA settlement is subject to notice and court
approval.

Aon Corporation -- http://www.aon.com/-- is the leading global  
provider of risk management services, insurance and reinsurance
brokerage, and human capital consulting.  Through its more than
36,000 colleagues worldwide, Aon readily delivers distinctive
client value via innovative and effective risk management and
workforce productivity solutions.  Aon's industry-leading global
resources and technical expertise are delivered locally through
more than 500 offices in more than 120 countries.


AON CORP: Resource Life Continues to Defend "Buckner" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
A putative class action captioned Buckner v. Resource Life
remains pending in state court in Columbus, Georgia, against
Resource Life Insurance Company, according to Aon Corporation's
May 4, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

Resource Life is a former subsidiary of Aon Corp.

The complaint alleges that Resource Life, which wrote policies
insuring repayment of auto loans, was obligated to identify and
return unearned premiums to policyholders whose loans terminated
before the end of their scheduled terms.  In connection with the
sale of Resource Life in 2006, Aon agreed to indemnify Resource
Life's buyer in certain respects relating to this action.  

In October 2009, the court certified a nationwide class of
policyholders whose loans terminated before the end of their
scheduled terms and who Resource Life cannot prove received a
refund of unearned premium.  Resource Life has taken an appeal
from that decision, which is set for argument on June 30, 2010.

Also in October 2009, Aon filed a lawsuit in Illinois state court
seeking a declaratory judgment with respect to the rights and
obligations of Aon and Resource Life under the indemnity
agreement.

Aon Corporation -- http://www.aon.com/-- is the leading global  
provider of risk management services, insurance and reinsurance
brokerage, and human capital consulting.  Through its more than
36,000 colleagues worldwide, Aon readily delivers distinctive
client value via innovative and effective risk management and
workforce productivity solutions.  Aon's industry-leading global
resources and technical expertise are delivered locally through
more than 500 offices in more than 120 countries.


ASSOCIATED ESTATES: Ohio Appeals Court Affirms Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------
The Ohio Court of Appeals for the 10th District has affirmed the
ruling of the Franklin County, Ohio Court of Common Pleas
granting summary judgment in favor of Associated Estates Realty
Corporation, 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 or about April 14, 2002, Melanie and Kyle Kopp commenced an
action against the company in the Franklin County, Ohio Court of
Common Pleas seeking undetermined damages, injunctive relief and
class action certification.  This case arose out of the company's
Suredeposit program.  This program allowed cash short prospective
residents to purchase a bond in lieu of paying a security
deposit.  The bond serves as a fund to pay those resident
obligations that would otherwise have been funded by the security
deposit.

Plaintiffs allege that the nonrefundable premium paid for the
bond is a disguised form of security deposit, which is otherwise
required to be refundable in accordance with Ohio's Landlord-
Tenant Act.  Plaintiffs further allege that certain pet deposits
and other nonrefundable deposits required by the company are
similarly security deposits that must be refundable in accordance
with Ohio's Landlord-Tenant Act.

On or about Jan. 15, 2004, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for
class certification.  The company subsequently filed a motion for
summary judgment.

On or about Sept. 3, 2008, the court granted the company's motion
for summary judgment thereby dismissing all Plaintiff claims
against the company.

Plaintiff subsequently appealed the court's ruling to the Ohio
Court of Appeals for the 10th District, which recently affirmed
the trial court's decision granting summary judgment in the
company's favor.

Associated Estates Realty Corporation --
http://www.AssociatedEstates.com/-- is a real estate investment  
trust and is a member of the Russell 2000.  The company is
headquartered in Richmond Heights, Ohio. Associated Estates'
portfolio consists of 49 properties containing 12,366 units
located in eight states.


BMW OF NORTH: Sued for Concealing Defect in Design of Fuel Pumps
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Nguyen, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v.
BMW of North America, LLC, et al., Case No. 10-cv-02257 (N.D.
Calif. May 25, 2010), asserts breach of express warranty,
violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and unfair business
practices in violation of the Calif. Bus. & Professions Code.  
Mr. Nguyen accuses the BMW automobile distributor of concealing a
defect in the design of its fuel pumps installed in all its BMW
vehicles, while continuing to sell these vehicles to California
residents, despite the potential risk that these vehicles pose to
the public's safety.  Mr. Nguyen says he brought his BMW for
repair or replacement of the defective fuel pump, but the
distributor refused to make the necessary repairs or replacement
to his vehicle while still under warranty.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stuart C. Talley, Esq.
          KERSHAW, CUTTER & RATINOFF, LLP
          401 Watt Avenue
          Sacramento, CA 95864
          Telephone: (916) 448-9800
          E-mail: stalley@krclegal.com


BP PLC: Courts Divided on Staying Gulf Oil Spill Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------
Tresa Baldas at The National Law Journal reports that two federal
courts came down on opposite sides of the "to stay or not to
stay" question last week in cases over the Gulf of Mexico oil
spill.

On Tuesday, a federal judge in Mobile, Ala., denied a request by
BP PLC, one of the defendants, to stay a lawsuit brought by a
seafood processor, holding that a stay would be premature and
that BP should answer the complaint now because it will have to
at some point. BP is seeking to have federal lawsuits stayed in
five of the Gulf states until a judicial panel decides whether to
combine the more than 130 federal cases into a multidistrict
proceeding.

The same day, a federal judge in New Orleans granted BP's motion
to stay a lawsuit filed by a fishing charter company, concluding
that BP and the other defendants could face undue hardships if
the scores of lawsuits filed so far are allowed to proceed prior
to a decision from the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation.

"[T]he defendants face the burden of litigation in multiple
jurisdictions. More importantly, between the various lawyers and
judges on the cases, there is a grave potential for conflicting
discovery orders. This poses not only a hardship for the
defendants, but mocks an efficient and orderly judicial system,"
wrote U.S. District Judge Martin Feldman in Cajun Offshore
Charters LLC v. BP PLC, et al.

The ruling frustrated Joe Dunn of Wigington Rumley Dunn in San
Antonio, one of the lawyers representing Cajun Offshore Charters.
He learned about the ruling on Tuesday night, as he was about to
board a plane for Louisiana to attend a Wednesday hearing on the
matter. He received an e-mail from a colleague telling him the
court had already granted BP's motion.

"I'm very disappointed that we didn't get to make our argument to
the judge, and we're going to urge the court to reconsider," said
Dunn, who felt the ruling contained "very strong language against
the plaintiffs."

Dunn found the ruling by Chief U.S. District Judge William Steele
of the Southern District of Alabama much more to his liking.

In Billy's Seafood Inc. v. Transocean Holdings Inc., et al.,
Steele found no reason why the case could not move forward "with
preliminary steps."

"Entering a stay at this juncture and under these circumstances
would not rescue defendants from material hardship or the risk of
inconsistent adjudications; after all, they must answer the
complaint anyway," wrote Steele. "By all appearances, the only
tangible effect of entering a stay at this time would be to allow
defendants a three-month reprieve ... before being required to
answer the allegations brought by plaintiff in the complaint.
Such a protected delay appears both unnecessary and unwarranted."


CHARLES SCHWAB: Settlement Will Pay Hagens Berman $20 Million
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Levine at The Recorder reports that having forced Charles
Schwab to the settlement table in an investor fraud suit,
plaintiffs firm Hagens Berman will be compensated nicely.

U.S. District Judge William Alsup has given preliminary approval
to two deals that would furnish $235 million to class members.  
Of that, Hagens Berman will reap about $20 million: 8 percent of
the $200 million set aside for federal claims, and 11 percent of
$35 million to resolve the state law claims.

Led by partners Steven Berman and Reed Kathrein, the plaintiffs
successfully battled Schwab's outside counsel Morrison & Foerster
over the investment company's so-called YieldPlus plan.
Plaintiffs say Schwab violated securities laws by telling
investors it would only put up to 25 percent of the assets in its
YieldPlus fund in any one industry. But Schwab allegedly changed
the rules midstream and concentrated more than 45 percent in
mortgage-backed securities.

The Securities and Exchange Commission filed briefs supporting
the plaintiffs, and the company quickly agreed to settle after
Alsup recently issued a series of summary judgment rulings that
went against them.

In court Tuesday, Berman said the settlements were the product of
six sessions with various current and retired judicial officers.
For the state claims, the plaintiffs estimated damages between
$33 million to $52 million, while defendants put it between $5
million to $12 million.

Thus the $35 million figure is "at the very high end of possible
recovery," Berman said. He declined to comment after the hearing
about attorney fees.

For his part, Alsup was concerned with potential objectors, who
could try to use the opt-out process in an attempt to delay the
settlement and extract a premium. Alsup said he would be leery of
such requests.

"I don't like hold-up artists. I will be very reluctant to give
hold-up artists more money," he said.

Berman acknowledged the threat from outside objectors. Asked for
his thoughts, Morrison & Foerster partner Darryl Rains said it
was the plaintiffs' problem.

A hearing for final settlement approval is scheduled for
September.


CNX GAS: Named as Defendant in 4 Suits Over CONSOL Tender Offer
---------------------------------------------------------------
CNX Gas Corporation has been named as a defendant in four
putative class actions in connection with CONSOL Energy Inc.'s
proposed tender offer to acquire all of the shares of the
company's common stock that CONSOL Energy does not already own,
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.

CNX Gas is an 83.3% owned subsidiary of CONSOL Energy.

The cases are:

     (1) Schurr v. CNX Gas and others (No. 2010-2333), filed in
         the Court of Common Pleas of Washington County,
         Pennsylvania on March 29, 2010;

     (2) Gaines v. CNX Gas and others (No. 5378), filed
         March 30, 2010 in the Delaware Court of Chancery;

     (3) Polen v. CNX Gas and others (No. 2010-2626), filed in
         the Court of Common Pleas of Washington County,
         Pennsylvania on April 12, 2010; and

     (4) Hurwitz v. CNX Gas and others (No. 5405), filed in the
         Delaware Court of Chancery on April 13, 2010.

The suits are brought by alleged shareholders of CNX Gas
challenging the proposed tender offer by CONSOL Energy.  The
suits also name CONSOL Energy and certain officers and directors
of CONSOL Energy and CNX Gas as defendants.

All four actions generally allege that CNX Gas has breached
and/or has aided and abetted in the breach of fiduciary duties
purportedly owed to CNX Gas's public shareholders.

Among other things, the actions seek a permanent injunction
against or rescission of the proposed tender offer, damages, and
attorneys' fees and expenses.

CNX Gas Corporation -- http://www.cnxgas.com/-- is the leading  
gas producer in the Appalachian Basin, when measured by revenue,
net income, and safety.


CONSOL ENERGY: Faces Suits Over Proposed CNX Gas Tender Offer
-------------------------------------------------------------
CONSOL Energy Inc. has been named as a defendant in five putative
class actions brought by alleged shareholders of CNX Gas
challenging the proposed tender offer by the company to acquire
all of the shares of CNX Gas common stock that CONSOL Energy does
not already own, 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.

The cases are:

     (1) Schurr v. CONSOL Energy and others (No. 2010-2333),
         filed in the Court of Common Pleas of Washington
         County, Pennsylvania on March 29, 2010;

     (2) Gummel v. CONSOL Energy (No. 5377-VCL), filed March 29,
         2010 in the Delaware Court of Chancery;

     (3) Polen v. CONSOL Energy and others (No. 2010-2626),
         filed in the Court of Common Pleas of Washington
         County, Pennsylvania on April 12, 2010;

     (4) Gaines v. CONSOL Energy and others (No. 5378), filed
         March 30, 2010 in the Delaware Court of Chancery; and

     (5) Hurwitz v. CONSOL Energy and others (NO. 5405), filed
         in the Delaware Court of Chancery on April 13, 2010.

Other than the Gummel case, the suits also name CNX Gas and
certain officers and directors of CONSOL Energy and CNX Gas as
defendants.

All five actions generally allege that CONSOL Energy has breached
and/or has aided and abetted in the breach of fiduciary duties
purportedly owed to CNX Gas public shareholders.  Among other
things, the actions seek a permanent injunction against or
rescission of the proposed tender offer, damages, and attorneys'
fees and expenses.

CONSOL Energy Inc. -- http://www.consolenergy.com/-- a high-Btu  
bituminous coal and natural gas company, is a member of the
Standard & Poor's 500 Equity Index and the Fortune 500.  At year-
end 2009, it had 11 bituminous coal mining complexes in six
states and reports proven and probable coal reserves of 4.5
billion tons.  It also is a majority owner of CNX Gas, a leading
Appalachian gas producer, with proved reserves of more than 1.9
trillion cubic feet.


DOW CHEMICAL: Court Gives Final Approval to Settlement Agreement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana gave
its final approval to the settlement agreement resolving the
litigation with respect to the retirees of Rohm and Haas Company,
according to The Dow Chemical 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 December 2005, a federal judge in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Indiana issued a decision granting a
class of participants in the Rohm and Haas Pension Plan who had
retired from Rohm and Haas Company, now a wholly owned subsidiary
of the company, and who elected to receive a lump sum benefit
from the Rohm and Haas Plan, the right to a cost-of-living
adjustment as part of their retirement benefit.

In August 2007, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the
District Court's decision, and in March 2008, the U.S. Supreme
Court denied the Rohm and Haas Plan's petition to review the
Seventh Circuit's decision.  The case was returned to the
District Court for further proceedings.

In October 2008 and February 2009, the District Court issued
rulings that have the effect of including in the class all Rohm
and Haas retirees who received a lump sum distribution without a
COLA from the Rohm and Haas Plan since January 1976.  These
rulings are subject to appeal, and the District Court has not yet
determined the amount of the COLA benefits that may be due to the
class participants.  The Rohm and Haas Plan and the plaintiffs
entered into a settlement agreement which was preliminarily
approved by the District Court on Nov. 24, 2009.

In addition to settling the litigation with respect to the Rohm
and Haas retirees, the settlement agreement provides for the
amendment of the complaint and amendment to the Rohm and Haas
Plan to include active employees.

Notices of the proposed settlement were provided to class
members, and a hearing was held on March 12, 2010, to determine
whether the settlement will be finally approved by the District
Court.  On April 12, 2010, the District Court issued a final
order approving the settlement.

An appeal of the final order by an objector to the settlement has
been filed and any additional appeals of the final order must be
filed within 30 days of the date of the order.

The Dow Chemical Company's -- http://www.dow.com/-- diversified  
industry-leading portfolio of specialty chemical, advanced
materials, agrosciences and plastics businesses delivers a broad
range of technology-based products and solutions to customers in
approximately 160 countries and in high growth sectors such as
electronics, water, energy, coatings and agriculture.  In 2009,
Dow had annual sales of $45 billion and employed approximately
52,000 people worldwide.  The company's more than 5,000 products
are manufactured at 214 sites in 37 countries across the globe.


DYNAMICS RESEARCH: Continues to Defend FLSA Violations Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dynamics Research Corp. continues to defend a class action
employee suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts.

On June 28, 2005, a class action employee suit was filed alleging
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and certain provisions
of Massachusetts General Laws.  The plaintiff's claim was for $8
million.

On April 10, 2006, the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts entered an order granting in part the company's
motion to dismiss the suit and to compel compliance with the
company's mandatory dispute resolution program, directing that
the parties arbitrate the claims, and striking the class action
waiver which was part of the dispute resolution program.

In the arbitration, the company filed a Motion to Dismiss and/or
for Summary Disposition.  The motion was denied and the parties
exchanged discovery documents.  

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

Dynamics Research Corporation -- http://www.drc.com/-- is a  
provider of engineering, technical, information technology (IT)
and management consulting services and solutions to federal and
state governments.  The company operates in two business
segments: Systems and Services, and Metrigraphics.


E*TRADE FINANCIAL: Motion to Dismiss "Freudenberg" Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
E*Trade Financial Corporation's motion to dismiss a consolidated
amended securities class action complaint captioned Freudenberg
v. E*Trade Financial Corporation et al., remains pending in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York,
according to the company's May 5, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2010.

On Oct. 2, 2007, a class action complaint alleging violations of
the federal securities laws was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York against the company and its
then Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer,
Mitchell H. Caplan and Robert J. Simmons by Larry Freudenberg on
his own behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated
(Freudenberg Action).

On July 17, 2008, the trial court consolidated this action with
four other purported class actions, all of which were filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York and
which were based on the same facts and circumstances.

On Jan. 16, 2009, plaintiffs served their consolidated amended
class action complaint in which they also named Dennis Webb, the
company's former Capital Markets Division President as a
defendant.  

Plaintiffs contend, among other things, that the value of the
company's stock between April 19, 2006 and Nov. 9, 2007 was
artificially inflated because defendants issued materially false
and misleading statements and failed to disclose that the company
was experiencing a rise in delinquency rates in its mortgage and
home equity portfolios; failed to timely record an impairment on
its mortgage and home equity portfolios; materially overvalued
its securities portfolio, which included assets backed by
mortgages; and based on the foregoing, lacked a reasonable basis
for the positive statements made about the Company's earnings and
prospects.  

Plaintiffs seek to recover damages in an amount to be proven at
trial, including interest and attorneys' fees and costs.

Defendants filed their motion to dismiss on April 2, 2009, and
briefing on defendants' motion to dismiss was completed on
Aug. 31, 2009.

No further updates were reported in the company's May 5, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

The suit is Freudenberg v. E*Trade Financial Corporation et al.,
Case No. 1:07-cv-08538-RWS, (S.D.N.Y.) (Sweet, J.).

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          David Avi Rosenfeld, Esq.
          Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP
          58 South Service Road, Suite 200
          Melville, NY 11747
          Phone: 631-367-7100
          Fax: 631-367-1173
          E-mail: drosenfeld@csgrr.com

Representing the defendants is:

          Davis Polk & Wardwell
          Dennis E. Glazer, Esq.
          450 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10017
          Phone: 212-450-4900
          Fax: 212-450-3900
          E-mail: dennis.glazer@dpw.com


E*TRADE FINANCIAL: Faces Amended Securities Suit in New York
------------------------------------------------------------
E*Trade Financial Corporation faces an amended securities class
action complaint by John W. Oughtred, according to the company's
May 5, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

On April 2, 2008, a class action complaint alleging violations of
the federal securities laws was filed by John W. Oughtred on his
own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against
the company.

Plaintiff contends, among other things, that the company
committed various sales practice violations in the sale of
certain auction rate securities to investors between April 2,
2003, and Feb. 13, 2008 by allegedly misrepresenting that these
securities were highly liquid and safe investments for short term
investing.

On Dec. 18, 2008, plaintiffs filed their first amended class
action complaint.

Defendants filed their pending motion to dismiss plaintiffs'
amended complaint on Feb. 5, 2009, and briefing on defendants'
motion to dismiss was completed on April 15, 2009.

Plaintiffs seek to recover damages in an amount to be proven at
trial, or, in the alternative, rescission of auction rate
securities purchases, plus interest and attorney's fees and
costs.

On March 18, 2010, the District Court dismissed the complaint
without prejudice.  Plaintiff has an opportunity to amend the
complaint.

On April 22, 2010, Plaintiff amended their complaint.

E*TRADE Financial Corporation -- http://www.etrade.com-- is a  
financial services company that provides online brokerage and
related products and services primarily to individual retail
investors, under the brand "E*TRADE Financial." The company is
headquartered at New York, New York.


E*TRADE FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend "Roling" Suit in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
E*TRADE Securities LLC continues to defend a class action
complaint filed by Joseph Roling on his own behalf and on behalf
of all others similarly situated.

On Feb. 3, 2010, the class action complaint was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California.

The lead plaintiff alleges that E*TRADE Securities LLC unlawfully
charged and collected certain account activity fees from its
customers.

Claimant, on behalf of himself and the putative class, asserts
breach of contract, unjust enrichment and violation of California
Civil Code Section 1671 and seeks equitable and injunctive relief
for alleged illegal, unfair and fraudulent practices under
California's Unfair Competition Law, California Business and
Professional Code Section 17200 et seq.

The plaintiff seeks, among other things, certification of the
class action on behalf of alleged similarly situated plaintiffs,
unspecified damages and restitution of amounts allegedly
wrongfully collected by E*TRADE Securities LLC, attorneys fees
and expenses and injunctive relief.

No further updates were reported in E*TRADE Financial
Corporation's May 5, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2010.

E*TRADE Financial Corporation -- http://www.etrade.com-- is a  
financial services company that provides online brokerage and
related products and services primarily to individual retail
investors, under the brand "E*TRADE Financial." The company is
headquartered at New York, New York.


E*TRADE FINANCIAL: Pays Settlement Amount in "Greenberg" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
E*Trade Financial Corp. has paid the settlement amount to the
Claims Administrator on March 5, 2010, according to the company's
May 5, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.  The
payment is part of the approved settlement of the class action
filed by Nikki Greenberg, et al.

The class-action suit, challenging the company's practice of
recording customer telephone calls without their knowledge or
consent, was filed on Oct. 11, 2006.  It was brought on behalf of
all customers or consumers who allegedly made or received
telephone calls from E*Trade that were recorded without their
knowledge or consent following a telephone call from the
plaintiff to the company's Beverly Hills branch on Aug. 8, 2006,
that was recorded during a brief period when the company's
automated notice system was out of order.

On Feb. 7, 2008, class certification was granted and the class
defined to consist of:

       -- all persons in California who received telephone calls
          from E*Trade and whose calls were recorded without
          their consent within three years of Oct. 11, 2006, and

       -- all persons who made calls from California to the
          company's Beverly Hills branch office on Aug. 8, 2006.

Plaintiffs sought to recover unspecified monetary damages plus
injunctive relief, including punitive and exemplary damages,
interest, attorneys' fees and costs.

On Oct. 16, 2009, the court granted final approval of the
parties' proposed settlement agreement.  Objectors to the court's
order granting final approval of the parties' settlement
agreement filed notices of appeal, which were subsequently
dismissed on Jan. 26, 2010.

For more details, contact:

          Greenberg Settlement Administrator
          P.O. Box 6659
          Portland, OR 97228-6659
          Phone: (888) 236-1260
          Web site:
          https://www.greenbergclassactionsettlement.com/

The Plaintiff Class is represented by:

          Paul R. Kiesel, Esq.
          Kiesel, Boucher & Larson LLP
          8648 Wilshire Boulevard
          Beverly Hills, California 90211-2910
          Phone: 310-854-4444
          Fax: (310) 854-0812
          E-mail: info@kbla.com
          Web site: http://www.kbla.com  

               - and -

          Neville Johnson, Esq.
          Johnson & Johnson LLP
          439 North Cannon Drive, Suite 200
          Beverly Hills, California 90210
          Phone: 310-975-1080
          E-mail: njohnson@jjllplaw.com
          Web site: http://www.jjllplaw.com/


EMERGENCY MEDICAL: Suit v. AMR Over Incorrect Billings Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Emergency Medical Services Corp.'s subsidiary, American Medical
Response, Inc. (AMR), continues to face a lawsuit purporting to
be a class-action suit in Spokane, Washington.

On Dec. 13, 2005, the class-action lawsuit was commenced against
AMR in Washington State Court, Spokane County.

The complaint alleges that AMR billed patients and third party
payors for transports it conducted between 1998 and 2005 at
higher rates than contractually permitted.

The court has certified a class in this case, but the size and
membership of the class has not been determined.

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.

Emergency Medical Services Corp. -- http://www.emsc.net/-- is a  
provider of emergency medical services in the U.S.  The company
operates its business and markets its services under the AMR and
EmCare brands, which represent American Medical Response, Inc.
and EmCare Holdings Inc., respectively.  AMR is a provider of
ambulance services in the U.S.  EmCare is a provider of
outsourced emergency department staffing and related management
services in the U.S.  The company offers a range of emergency
medical services through its two business segments: AMR and
EmCare.


EMERGENCY MEDICAL: AMR Faces Four Wage & Hour Violations Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Four different lawsuits purporting to be class actions have been
filed against Emergency Medical Services Corp.'s subsidiary,
American Medical Response, Inc. (AMR) and certain subsidiaries in
California alleging violations of California wage and hour laws,
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.

The four lawsuits are:

     (1) commenced by Lori Bartoni in the Superior Court for the
         State of California, County of Alameda, on April 16,
         2008;

     (2) filed by Vaughn Banta in the Superior Court of the
         State of California, County of Los Angeles, on July 8,
         2008;

     (3) filed by Laura Karapetian in the Superior Court of the
         State of California, County of Los Angeles, on Jan. 22,
         2009; and

     (4) filed by Melanie Aguilar in the Superior Court of the
         State of California, County of Los Angeles, on
         March 11, 2010.

The Banta and Karapetian cases have been coordinated with the
Bartoni case in the Superior Court for the State of California,
County of Alameda.  At the present time, the courts have not
certified classes in any of these cases.

Plaintiffs allege principally that the AMR entities failed to pay
overtime charges pursuant to California law, and failed to
provide required meal breaks or pay premium compensation for
missed meal breaks.  Plaintiffs are seeking to certify the
classes and are seeking lost wages, punitive damages, attorneys'
fees and other sanctions permitted under California law for
violations of wage hour laws.

Emergency Medical Services Corp. -- http://www.emsc.net/-- is a  
provider of emergency medical services in the U.S.  The company
operates its business and markets its services under the AMR and
EmCare brands, which represent American Medical Response, Inc.
and EmCare Holdings Inc., respectively.  AMR is a provider of
ambulance services in the U.S.  EmCare is a provider of
outsourced emergency department staffing and related management
services in the U.S.  The company offers a range of emergency
medical services through its two business segments: AMR and
EmCare.


EXPERIAN INFO: Sued for Deceptive Marketing of Credit Reports
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Experian Information
Solutions and Consumerinfo.com dba FreeCreditReport.com
deceptively offer a "free" credit report but make customers buy a
"credit-monitoring service" to get it, a class action claims in
Sussex County Court, N.J.

A copy of the Complaint in Toll v. Experian Information
Solutions, Inc., et al., Docket No. SSX-L-419-10 (N.J. Super.
Ct., Sussex Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/05/26/Experian.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David J. DiSabato, Esq.
          DISABATO & BOUCKENOOGHE LLC
          8 Mansfield Court
          Mendham, NJ 07945
          Telephone: 973-813-2525


FACEBOOK INC: Accused in R.I. of Violating Computer Privacy Law
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alexandria D'Angelo at Courthouse News Service reports that
Facebook violated computer privacy law by using data mining "to
automatically and without notice capture private information of
its members" and post it on unaffiliated websites, a class action
claims in Federal Court.  The class claims Facebook's new
"Instant Personalization" program violated the Stored
Communications Act.

The class describes the Instant Personalization program as a
"social plug-in" that allows third party websites such as
Pandora, Yelp and Microsoft Docs to get Facebook users' personal
information.

"Instant Personalization," loaded onto the nation's most widely
used social networking site on April 10, broadcasts Facebook
users' personal information through the network and posts it to
third party websites when users click into the sites through
their Facebook pages.  When it was released, the tool did not
give users the choice to opt in, but automatically signed them up
for the application.

Facebook profited from it by mining its members' personal
information for advertisers, according to the complaint.

After April 23, Facebook changed its privacy settings "to require
an opt-in setting to activate Instant Personalization, however,
it Facebook discloses personal information to third party
websites through [users'] friends who have not disabled the
service," according to the complaint.

Lead plaintiff Derrick Rose claims that "Facebook knowingly,
willfully, unlawfully and intentionally without authorization
divulged confidential and private information relating to
plaintiff and the class' electronic communications," which
violated the Stored Communications Act and the User Agreement
that he signed when he created his account.

He seeks class damages and an injunction.  

A copy of the Complaint in Rose v. Facebook, Inc., Case No. 10-
cv-00232 (D. R.I.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/05/26/Face.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Peter N. Wasylyk, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF PETER N. WASYLYK
          1307 Chalkstone Ave.
          Providence, RI 02908
          Telephone: 401-831-7730
          E-mail: pnwlaw@aol.com

               - and -

          Andrew S. Kierstead, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF ANDREW KIERSTEAD
          1001 SW 5th Ave., Suite 1100
          Portland, OR 97204
          Telephone: 508-224-6246


FARMERS MUTUAL: Ark. Sup. Ct. Allows Homeowners' Suit to Proceed
----------------------------------------------------------------
The insurance Journal reports that the Arkansas Supreme Court has
affirmed a lower court order certifying class action status in a
case involving an insurer's depreciation practices in property
claims against "actual cash value" homeowners policies.

In Farmers Union Mutual Insurance Company v. Randall and Heather
Robertson, the state high court found no merit in the insurer's
arguments for reversing the order granting class action status.

The case stems from tornado damage to the Robertsons' property in
Atkins, Ark., on Feb. 5, 2008. The Robertsons initially alleged
that Farmers Union improperly "paid their personal-property claim
and had illegally depreciated the labor portion of their real
property claim," according to court documents.

The complaint was later amended without mention of the personal
property claim "and filed a class-action complaint on behalf of
themselves and similarly situated Arkansans, alleging that
Appellant [Farmers Union] had a common practice of depreciating
the cost of labor when adjusting real-property damage."

The suit requested judgment for the insurer's "failure to timely
and properly pay an insurance claim."

Farmers Union asserted that the Robertson's claims do not meet
the requirements of class action status because they are not
"typical of the proposed class or that they are adequate class
representatives." According to the insurer, the Robertsons
"failed to satisfy the typicality requirement because they have a
claim for damage to personal property that the class members do
not."

The Court rejected that argument, explaining that while the
Robertson's initial claim included personal-property damage, the
"amended complaints did not raise a claim for personal-property
damage. This court has stated with approval the 'widely
recognized doctrine that an amended complaint, unless it adopts
and incorporates the original complaint, supersedes the original
complaint.'"

The high court ultimately agreed with the lower court's finding
that "the resolution of the common predominating issues
throughout Appellees' and the class members' claims 'in one
consolidated class action is superior to litigating hundreds or
thousands of individual lawsuits on the same common issues.'"


FBL FINANCIAL: EquiTrust Defends "Eller" Suit in Arizona
--------------------------------------------------------
EquiTrust Life Insurance Company continues to defend a case
seeking class action status captioned Eller, et al. v. EquiTrust
Life Insurance Company, et al, Case No. 4:09-cv-00029 DCB.

The action was filed in U.S. District Court, District of Arizona,
on Jan. 12, 2009.

The Eller action is a purported national class action defined in
the pleadings to include all persons who purchased EquiTrust Life
index annuities.

Plaintiffs allege two sub-classes, one for all persons age 65 and
older that purchased an EquiTrust Life index annuity contract
with a maturity date beyond the annuitant's actuarial life
expectancy; and a 17-state multi-state class under various
consumer protection and unfair insurance practices statutes.

The Eller case seeks rescission and injunctive relief including
restitution and disgorgement of profits on behalf of all class
members, compensatory damages, unjust enrichment and punitive
damages.

No further updates were reported in FBL Financial Group, Inc.'s
May 5, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

FBL Financial Group, Inc. -- http://www.fblfinancial.com/--  
sells individual life and annuity products principally under the
names, Farm Bureau Financial Services and EquiTrust Financial
Services.  These brand identities are represented by the
distribution channels of its subsidiaries, Farm Bureau Life
Insurance Company and EquiTrust Life Insurance Company.  As of
Dec. 31, 2009, the company's Farm Bureau Life distribution
channel consisted of 2,020 agents and agency managers.  These
agents and agency managers sell its products in the Midwestern
and Western sections of the United States.  As of Dec. 31, 2009,
its EquiTrust Life independent distribution channel consisted of
20,195 independent agents.  The company's product segments
include Traditional Annuity - Exclusive Distribution (Exclusive
Annuity), Traditional Annuity - Independent Distribution
(Independent Annuity), Traditional and Universal Life Insurance
and Variable.


FBL FINANCIAL: EquiTrust Continues to Defend "Tabares" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
EquiTrust Life Insurance Company continues to defend a case
seeking class action status captioned Tabares v. EquiTrust Life
Insurance Company, et al, Case No. BC39019.

The suit was filed in Los Angeles Superior Court on May 5, 2008.

The Tabares suit is a purported California class action on behalf
of all persons who purchased these deferred annuities from
EquiTrust Life:

     -- MarketValue Index,
     -- MarketPower Bonus Index,
     -- MarketBooster Index, and
     -- the MarketTen Bonus Index.

The complaint asserts a sub-class of purchasers that were age 60
or older at the time of purchase.

Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief on behalf of all class members
under California Business & Professions Code Section 17200 et
seq.; compensatory damages for breach of contract; and punitive
damages under a common law cause of action for fraud.

No further updates were reported in FBL Financial Group, Inc.'s
May 5, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

FBL Financial Group, Inc. -- http://www.fblfinancial.com/--  
sells individual life and annuity products principally under the
names, Farm Bureau Financial Services and EquiTrust Financial
Services.  These brand identities are represented by the
distribution channels of its subsidiaries, Farm Bureau Life
Insurance Company and EquiTrust Life Insurance Company.  As of
Dec. 31, 2009, the company's Farm Bureau Life distribution
channel consisted of 2,020 agents and agency managers.  These
agents and agency managers sell its products in the Midwestern
and Western sections of the United States.  As of Dec. 31, 2009,
its EquiTrust Life independent distribution channel consisted of
20,195 independent agents.  The company's product segments
include Traditional Annuity - Exclusive Distribution (Exclusive
Annuity), Traditional Annuity - Independent Distribution
(Independent Annuity), Traditional and Universal Life Insurance
and Variable.


FEDERAL HOME: Bid to Junk OPERS Securities Suit Still Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
A motion to dismiss the second amended complaint in the matter
Ohio Public Employees Retirement System vs. Freddie Mac, Syron,
et al, remains pending, according to the company's May 5, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

This putative securities class action lawsuit was filed against
Freddie Mac and certain former officers on Jan. 18, 2008, in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio alleging
that the defendants violated federal securities laws by making
"false and misleading statements concerning our business, risk
management and the procedures we put into place to protect the
company from problems in the mortgage industry."

On April 10, 2008, the court appointed OPERS as lead plaintiff
and approved its choice of counsel.

On Sept. 2, 2008, defendants filed a motion to dismiss
plaintiff's amended complaint, which purportedly asserted claims
on behalf of a class of purchasers of Freddie Mac stock between
Aug. 1, 2006 and Nov. 20, 2007.

On Nov. 7, 2008, the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint,
which removed certain allegations against Richard Syron, Anthony
Piszel, and Eugene McQuade, thereby leaving insider-trading
allegations against only Patricia Cook.

The second amended complaint also extends the damages period, but
not the class period.

The complaint seeks unspecified damages and interest, and
reasonable costs and expenses, including attorney and expert
fees.

On Nov. 19, 2008, the Court granted FHFA's motion to intervene in
its capacity as Conservator.

On April 6, 2009, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the second
amended complaint.

Freddie Mac -- http://www.freddiemac.com/-- is a stockholder-
owned corporation established to support homeownership and rental
housing.  Freddie Mac purchases residential mortgages and
mortgage-related securities in the secondary mortgage market, and
securitizes them into mortgage-related securities that can be
sold to investors.  The company purchases single-family and
multi-family residential mortgages and mortgage-related
securities, which it finances primarily by issuing mortgage-
related securities and debt instruments in the capital markets.  
Freddie Mac finances its purchases primarily by issuing a range
of debt instruments in the capital markets.  The company operates
in three segments: Investments, Single-family Guarantee and
Multifamily.


FEDERAL HOME: "Jacoby" Suit Over False Statements Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
A putative class action lawsuit styled Jacoby v. Syron, Cook,
Piszel, Banc of America Securities LLC, JP Morgan Chase & Co.,
and FTN Financial Markets, remains pending.

On Dec. 15, 2008, a plaintiff filed a putative class action
lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York against certain former Freddie Mac officers and others.

The complaint, as amended on Dec. 17, 2008, contends that the
defendants made material false and misleading statements in
connection with Freddie Mac's Sept. 29, 2007 offering of non-
cumulative, non-convertible, perpetual fixed-rate preferred
stock, and that such statements "grossly overstated Freddie Mac's
capitalization" and "failed to disclose Freddie Mac's exposure to
mortgage-related losses, poor underwriting standards and risk
management procedures."

The complaint further alleges that Syron, Cook and Piszel made
additional false statements following the offering.

Freddie Mac is not named as a defendant in this lawsuit.

No further updates were reported in Freddie Mac's May 5, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

Freddie Mac -- http://www.freddiemac.com/-- is a stockholder-
owned corporation established to support homeownership and rental
housing.  Freddie Mac purchases residential mortgages and
mortgage-related securities in the secondary mortgage market, and
securitizes them into mortgage-related securities that can be
sold to investors.  The company purchases single-family and
multi-family residential mortgages and mortgage-related
securities, which it finances primarily by issuing mortgage-
related securities and debt instruments in the capital markets.  
Freddie Mac finances its purchases primarily by issuing a range
of debt instruments in the capital markets.  The company operates
in three segments: Investments, Single-family Guarantee and
Multifamily.


FEDERAL HOME: Motion to Dismiss Amended "Kuriakose" Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Freddie Mac's motion to dismiss the amended consolidated
complaint in a putative class action lawsuit styled Kuriakose vs.
Freddie Mac, Syron, Piszel and Cook, remains pending, according
to Freddie Mac's May 5, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March
31, 2010.

A putative class-action lawsuit was filed against Freddie Mac and
certain former officers on Aug. 15, 2008, in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York for alleged
violations of federal securities laws purportedly on behalf of a
class of purchasers of Freddie Mac stock from Nov. 21, 2007,
through Aug. 5, 2008.

The plaintiff claims that defendants made false and misleading
statements about Freddie Mac's business that artificially
inflated the price of Freddie Mac's common stock, and seeks
unspecified damages, costs, and attorneys' fees.

On Jan. 20, 2009, FHFA, the company's Conservator, filed a motion
to intervene and stay the proceedings.

On Feb. 6, 2009, the court granted FHFA's motion to intervene.

On May 19, 2009, plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated
complaint.

On May 19, 2009, plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated
complaint, purportedly on behalf of a class of purchasers of
Freddie Mac stock from Nov. 30, 2007, through Sept. 7, 2008.  
Freddie Mac filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on Feb. 24,
2010, which motion remains pending.

Freddie Mac -- http://www.freddiemac.com/-- is a stockholder-
owned corporation established to support homeownership and rental
housing.  Freddie Mac purchases residential mortgages and
mortgage-related securities in the secondary mortgage market, and
securitizes them into mortgage-related securities that can be
sold to investors.  The company purchases single-family and
multi-family residential mortgages and mortgage-related
securities, which it finances primarily by issuing mortgage-
related securities and debt instruments in the capital markets.  
Freddie Mac finances its purchases primarily by issuing a range
of debt instruments in the capital markets.  The company operates
in three segments: Investments, Single-family Guarantee and
Multifamily.


FEDERAL HOME: Amended Consolidated Complaint in "Kreysar" Filed
---------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in a dismissed consolidated putative class action
lawsuit against certain former Freddie Mac officers and others
have filed an amended consolidated complaint.

By letter dated Oct. 17, 2008, Freddie Mac received formal
notification of a putative class action securities lawsuit, Mark
v. Goldman, Sachs & Co., J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., and Citigroup
Global Markets Inc., filed on September 23, 2008, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, regarding
the company's Nov. 29, 2007 public offering of 8.375% Fixed to
Floating Rate Non-Cumulative Perpetual Preferred Stock.

On Jan. 29, 2009, a plaintiff filed a putative class action
lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York styled Kreysar v. Syron, et al.

On April 30, 2009, the Court consolidated the Mark case with the
Kreysar case.  The plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action
complaint on July 2, 2009.

The consolidated complaint alleges that former Freddie Mac
officers Syron, Piszel, and Cook, certain underwriters and
Freddie Mac's auditor, PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, violated
federal securities laws by making material false and misleading
statements in connection with an offering by Freddie Mac of $6
billion of 8.375% Fixed to Floating Rate Non-Cumulative Perpetual
Preferred Stock Series Z that commenced on November 29, 2007.

The complaint further alleges that certain defendants and others
made additional false statements following the offering.

The complaint names as defendants Syron, Piszel, Cook, Goldman,
Sachs & Co., JPMorgan Chase & Co., Banc of America Securities
LLC, Citigroup Global Markets Inc., Credit Suisse Securities
(USA) LLC, Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., Morgan Stanley & Co.
Incorporated, UBS Securities LLC and PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated class
action complaint on Sept. 30, 2009.

On Jan. 14, 2010, the Court granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss the consolidated action with leave to file an amended
complaint on or before March 15, 2010.

On March 15, 2010, plaintiffs filed their amended consolidated
complaint against these same defendants with more detailed
allegations of federal securities law violations.

Freddie Mac is not named as a defendant in the consolidated
lawsuit, but the underwriters previously gave notice to Freddie
Mac of their intention to seek full indemnity and contribution
under the Underwriting Agreement in this case, including
reimbursement of fees and disbursements of their legal counsel.

According to Freddie Mac's May 5, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2010, Freddie Mac is not named as a defendant in the
consolidated lawsuit, but the underwriters previously gave notice
to Freddie Mac of their intention to seek full indemnity
and contribution under the Underwriting Agreement in this case,
including reimbursement of fees and disbursements of their legal
counsel.

Freddie Mac -- http://www.freddiemac.com/-- is a stockholder-
owned corporation established to support homeownership and rental
housing.  Freddie Mac purchases residential mortgages and
mortgage-related securities in the secondary mortgage market, and
securitizes them into mortgage-related securities that can be
sold to investors.  The company purchases single-family and
multi-family residential mortgages and mortgage-related
securities, which it finances primarily by issuing mortgage-
related securities and debt instruments in the capital markets.  
Freddie Mac finances its purchases primarily by issuing a range
of debt instruments in the capital markets.  The company operates
in three segments: Investments, Single-family Guarantee and
Multifamily.


GOOGLE INC: Third WiFi Snooping Lawsuit Filed in D. Mass.
---------------------------------------------------------
Kara Reeder at IT Business Edge reports that Google is facing yet
another class-action lawsuit over its admission of Wi-Fi
snooping.

Computerworld reports that Galaxy Internet Services, an ISP for
homes and businesses in Massachusetts, has filed a class-action
lawsuit alleging that Google violated U.S. federal and
Massachusetts privacy laws. Galaxy wants Google to be forbidden
from destroying the Wi-Fi data it collected and that it be forced
to pay damages as determined by a jury.

Earlier this month, an Oregon woman and a Washington man filed a
class-action lawsuit against Google over its secret Wi-Fi
sniffing. In addition, three men have filed suit against the
search giant, alleging that its Street View data gathering
violated the Federal Wiretapping Act.


JAN'S TOWING: Sued for Not Paying Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------
Jose Arturo Alarcon, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. Jan's Towing, Inc., et al., Case No. 2010-00374627
(Calif. Super. Ct., Orange Cty. May 21, 2010), accuses the tow
truck company of failing to pay overtime compensation, failing to
provide meal and rest breaks, failing to furnish accurate
itemized wage statements, failing to timely pay wages upon
termination, and unfair business practices in violation of the
Bus. & Prof. Code.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ira Spiro, Esq.
          H. Scott Leviant, Esq.
          Linh Hua, Esq.
          SPIRO MOSS LLP
          1137 W. Olympic Blvd., 5th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90064-1683
          Telephone: (310) 235-2468
          E-mail: ira@spiromoss.com
                  scott@spiromoss.com
                  linh@spiromoss.com

               - and -

          Sahag Majarian, II, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF SAHAG MAJARIAN, II
          18250 Ventura Boulevard
          Tarzana, CA 91356
          Telephone: (818) 609-0807
          E-mail: sahagii@aol.com


SEDGWICK CLAIMS: Sued for Failing to Pay Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------
Uzmah Multani, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated
v. Sedwick Claims Management Services, Inc., Case No. 2010-
00374111 (Calif. Super Ct., Orange Cty. May 20, 2010), accuses
the insurance claims administration services provider of failing
to pay hourly wages and overtime wages, failing to pay wages upon
separation, failing to provide itemized employee wage statements,
and violations of the unfair competition law.  In addition, Ms.
Multani seeks penalties recovery of civil penalties as prescribed
by the Labor Code Private Attorney General Act of 2007.  Ms.
Multani was employed by the Sedgwick CMS as a claims examiner in
its Pasadena office from January 2006 until December 2006.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James R. Hawkins, Esq.
          Gregory Mauro, Esq.
          Isandra Fernandez, Esq.
          JAMES HAWKINS APLC
          9880 Research Drive, Suite 200
          Irvine, CA 92618
          Telephone: (949) 387-7200


SKILLED HEALTHCARE: Wants Amended Complaint in Calif. Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Skilled Healthcare Group, Inc., seeks the dismissal of an amended
class action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, 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 July 24, 2009, a purported class action complaint captioned
Shepardson v. Skilled Healthcare Group, Inc., et al. was filed
against the company, its Chairman and Chief Executive Officer,
its current Chief Financial Officer, its former Chief Financial
Officer, and investment banks that underwrote the company's
initial public offering, on behalf of two classes of purchasers
of its securities.

On Nov. 10, 2009, the District Court appointed lead plaintiffs
and co-lead counsel, re-captioned the action In re Skilled
Healthcare Group, Inc. Securities Litigation, and ordered that
lead plaintiffs file an amended class action complaint.

On Jan. 12, 2010, lead plaintiffs filed an amended class action
complaint against the company, its Chairman and Chief Executive
Officer, its Chief Operating Officer and President, its current
Chief Financial Officer, its former Chief Financial Officer, its
largest stockholder and related entities, and a director
affiliated with that stockholder.

One purported class consists of all persons other than defendants
who purchased the company's Class A common stock pursuant or
traceable to its Initial Public Offering.  The second purported
class consists of all persons other than defendants who purchased
the company's Class A common stock from May 14, 2007, through
June 9, 2009.

The complaint, which seeks an unspecified amount of damages,
including rescissory damages, asserts claims under the federal
securities laws relating to its June 9, 2009 announcement that
the company would restate its financial statements for the period
from Jan. 1, 2006, to March 31, 2009, and that the restatement
was likely to require cumulative charges against after-tax
earnings in the aggregate amount of between $8.0 million and $9.0
million over the affected periods.

The complaint also alleges that the company's registration
statement and prospectus, financial statements, and public
statements about its results of operations contained material
false and misleading statements.

Defendants moved to dismiss the amended class action complaint on
March 15, 2010.

The motion to dismiss is scheduled to be heard by the District
Court on June 21, 2010.

Based in Foothill Ranch, California, Skilled Healthcare Group,
Inc. -- http://www.skilledhealthcaregroup.com/-- is a holding  
company with subsidiary healthcare services companies, which in
the aggregate had consolidated annual revenues of nearly $760
million and approximately 14,000 employees as of March 31, 2010.  
Skilled Healthcare Group and its wholly-owned companies operate
long-term care facilities and provide a wide range of post-acute
care services, with a strategic emphasis on sub-acute specialty
health care.  The company operates long-term care facilities in
California, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nevada, New Mexico and Texas,
including 78 skilled nursing facilities that offer sub-acute care
and rehabilitative and specialty health skilled nursing care, and
22 assisted living facilities that provide room and board and
social services.  In addition, the company provides physical,
occupational and speech therapy in Company-operated facilities
and unaffiliated facilities.  Furthermore, the Company provides
hospice and home health care in Arizona, California, Idaho,
Nevada, Montana and New Mexico.


SKILLED HEALTHCARE: Continues to Defend "Bates" Suit in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Skilled Healthcare Group, Inc. continues to defend the matter
captioned Lavender (Bates) v. Skilled Healthcare Group, Inc. and
twenty-three of its companies, 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 May 4, 2006, three plaintiffs filed a complaint against the
company in the Superior Court of California, Humboldt County,
entitled Lavender (Bates) v. Skilled Healthcare Group, Inc. and
twenty-three of its companies.

In the complaint, the plaintiffs allege, among other things, that
certain California-based facilities operated by the company's
wholly owned operating companies failed to provide an adequate
number of qualified personnel to care for their residents and
misrepresented the quality of care provided in their facilities.

Plaintiffs allege these failures violated, among other things,
the residents' rights, the California Health and Safety Code, the
California Business and Professions Code and the Consumer Legal
Remedies Act.

Plaintiffs seek, among other things, restitution of money paid
for services allegedly promised to, but not received by, facility
residents during the period from Sept. 1, 2003 to the present.

The complaint further sought class certification of in excess of
32,000 plaintiffs as well as injunctive relief, punitive damages
and attorneys' fees.

In response to the complaint, the company filed a demurrer.  On
Nov. 28, 2006, the Humboldt Court denied the demurrer.

On Jan. 31, 2008, the Humboldt Court denied the company's motion
for a protective order as to the names and addresses of residents
within the facility and on April 7, 2008, the Humboldt Court
granted plaintiffs' motion to compel electronic discovery by the
company.

On May 27, 2008, plaintiffs' motion for class certification was
heard, and the Humboldt Court entered its order granting
plaintiffs' motion for class certification on June 19, 2008.

The company subsequently petitioned the California Court of
Appeal, First Appellate District, for a writ and reversal of the
order granting class certification.  The Court of Appeal denied
the Company's writ on Nov. 6, 2008 and the company accordingly
filed a petition for review with the California Supreme Court.

On Jan. 21, 2009, the California Supreme Court denied the
company's petition for review.

The order granting class certification accordingly remains in
place, and the action is proceeding as a class action.

Primary professional liability insurance coverage has been
exhausted for the policy year applicable to this case.  The
excess insurance carrier issuing the policy applicable to this
case has issued its reservation of rights to preserve an
assertion of non-coverage for this case due to the lack of any
allegation of injury or harm to the plaintiffs.

Trial in this matter commenced Nov. 30, 2009 and is ongoing.

The Company filed several distinct motions for summary judgment
and summary adjudication all of which were denied by the trial
court.  The company subsequently petitioned the California Court
of Appeal, First Appellate District, for a writ and reversal of
the order denying one of the motions for summary adjudication
addressing the purported duty to provide 3.2 nursing hours per
patient day and all causes of action in Plaintiffs' complaint
premised on Health and Safety Code Section 1276.5.

The Court of Appeal denied the company's writ on Feb. 23, 2010,
and the company accordingly filed a petition for review with the
California Supreme Court.

On April 14, 2010, the California Supreme Court denied the
company's petition for review.

Plaintiffs have now completed their case in chief for the first
phase of the trial and the company has invited its excess carrier
to reconsider its coverage position in light of some of the
plaintiffs' representations made during the trial.

At the conclusion of Plaintiffs' case in chief for the first
phase of the trial, the company believed that Plaintiffs failed
to establish sufficient facts to support their claims.

As a result, the company filed motions for judgment of nonsuit on
Plaintiffs' causes of action pursuant to Health & Safety Code
Section 1430(b); Business & Professions Code Sections 17200 et
seq., 17500 et. seq., and violation of the Consumers Legal
Remedies Act (Civ. Code Section 1750 et seq.,).

On April 16, 2010 the trial court denied the Company's motions
for nonsuit.

The company has begun to present evidence in support of its
defense and continues to zealously defend against plaintiffs'
claims, but cannot predict the outcome of the claims nor estimate
the amount of damages that could be assessed in the event of an
adverse outcome, which damages could have a material negative
effect on the company's financial position, results of
operations, or cash flows.

Based in Foothill Ranch, California, Skilled Healthcare Group,
Inc. -- http://www.skilledhealthcaregroup.com/-- is a holding  
company with subsidiary healthcare services companies, which in
the aggregate had consolidated annual revenues of nearly $760
million and approximately 14,000 employees as of March 31, 2010.  
Skilled Healthcare Group and its wholly-owned companies operate
long-term care facilities and provide a wide range of post-acute
care services, with a strategic emphasis on sub-acute specialty
health care.  The company operates long-term care facilities in
California, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nevada, New Mexico and Texas,
including 78 skilled nursing facilities that offer sub-acute care
and rehabilitative and specialty health skilled nursing care, and
22 assisted living facilities that provide room and board and
social services.  In addition, the company provides physical,
occupational and speech therapy in Company-operated facilities
and unaffiliated facilities.  Furthermore, the Company provides
hospice and home health care in Arizona, California, Idaho,
Nevada, Montana and New Mexico.


STATE FARM GENERAL: Removes "Ruby" Labor Complaint to N.D. Calif.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tiffany Ruby, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. State Farm General Insurance Company, et al., Case
No. 10-498412 (Calif. Super. Ct. San Francisco Cty.), was filed
on April 7, 2010.  The plaintiff accuses the insurance company of
failing to pay employees for all hours worked, failing to provide
meal and rest periods, failing to pay minimum wages, failing to
pay wages upon termination, failing to timely pay wages during
employment, failing to provide accurate itemized wage statements,
and unfair business practices in violation of the Calif. Bus. &
Prof. Code.

On the basis of diversity jurisdiction, State Farm Mutual
Automobile Insurance Company [incorrectly identified as "State
Farm General Insurance Company"], on May 25 2010, removed the
lawsuit to the Northern District of California, and the Clerk
assigned Case No. 10-cv-02252 to the proceeding.   

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          R. Rex Parris, Esq.
          Alexander R. Wheeler, Esq.
          Jason P. Fowler, Esq.
          Douglas Han, Esq.
          Kitty K. Szeto, Esq.
          R. REX PARRIS LAW FIRM
          42220 10th Street West, Suite 109
          Lancaster, CA 93534
          Telephone: (661) 874-4238
          E-mail: rparris@rrexparris.com
                  awheeler@rrexparris.com
                  jfowler@rrexparris.com
                  dhan@rrexparris.com
                  kszeto@rrexparris.com
          
               - and -

          Edwin Aiwazian, Esq.
          Ghazaleh Hekmatjah, Esq.
          THE AIWAZIAN LAW FIRM
          410 West Arden Ave., Suite 203
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (818) 265-1020
          E-mail: edwin@aiwazian.com
                  gh@aiwazian.com

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company [incorrectly  
identified as "State Farm General Insurance Company"] is
represented by:

          Douglas R. Hart, Esq.
          Jennifer B. Zargarof, Esq.
          Julie Wong, Esq.
          SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
          333 South Hope St., 48th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-1448
          Telephone: (213) 620-1780
          E-mail: dhart@sheppardmullin.com
                  jzargarof@sheppardmullin.com


UNITED AGRI-PRODUCTS: Argues for Dismissal of Ill. Atrazine Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Amelia Flood at The Madison County Record reports that a
defendant in one of a series of proposed class actions over
atrazine's alleged water contamination argued that it has nothing
to do with selling the herbicide in Illinois and wants the case
against it thrown out.

But plaintiffs, led by Holiday Shores Sanitary District, argued
that defendant United Agri-Products Inc. (UAP) can't get around
the Illinois case just by claiming its subsidiaries are the ones
to sue.

Madison County Circuit Judge Barbara Crowder heard the arguments
Wednesday on a 2005 motion to dismiss.

UAP and other makers and distributors of weed killers containing
atrazine are fighting six class actions in Madison County as well
as a federal class action filed by attorneys Stephen Tillery and
Christine Moody.

At the hearing, UAP attorney Kurtis Reeg told Crowder his client
should not have been sued at all.

"Holiday Shores' problem here is they sued the wrong defendant,"
Reeg said.

Reeg argued that his client is merely an administrative company
that handles payroll, human resources and other daily management
duties for its subsidiaries.

He pointed out that UAP does not do business in Illinois, doesn't
have employees in the state and that it does not make or sell
atrazine products directly.

He told Crowder the case against UAP should be dismissed for a
lack of personal jurisdiction.

Tillery countered that UAP's own corporate representative, Mark
Tostle, testified in a Feb. 26, 2010 deposition that he worked
for UAP and its two subsidiaries, one of which directly deals
with atrazine.

Tillery stressed the functions UAP handles for the subsidiaries,
arguing they constituted 100 percent control needed for an
Illinois court to have jurisdiction.

He told Crowder the courts generally "see right through"
arguments like UAP's.

Tillery cited Tostle's deposition statements that although
atrazine sales may have been the province of UAP subsidiaries
that do sell in Illinois, the decision about the sales
arrangements were made by UAP staff based in Colorado where the
company is headquartered.

Crowder took the motion under advisement.

In the Madison County suits, Holiday Shores and seven other
Illinois municipalities propose to lead a class of water
providers alleging atrazine runs off farm fields and contaminates
their water supplies.

Tillery's federal suit has nearly identical claims and is led by
several water providers in neighboring states including Missouri
and Kansas.

Although the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has ruled
atrazine is safe in drinking water up to 3 parts per billion, the
plaintiffs contend that smaller amounts can cause medical
problems in human beings.

In the Madison County suits' first amended complaints, the
plaintiffs dropped property damage claims.

The defendants had argued that property-related claims for co-
plaintiffs Hillsboro, Mattoon, Fairfield, Litchfield, Flora,
Carlinville and Mount Olive, should be spun off from the Holiday
Shores suits and returned to their home counties for proceedings.

Crowder denied that move after hearing arguments in late
February.


UNITED STATES: D.C. Suit Complains About Parole Guidelines
----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that federal prisoners locked up
for crimes committed under the District of Columbia Code before
March 3, 1985 want the U.S. Parole Commission enjoined from
applying parole guidelines that were not in force when they
committed their offenses, in a class action in DC Federal Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Daniel, et al. v. Fulwood, et al.,
Case No. 10-cv-00862 (D. D.C.) (Huvelle, J.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/05/26/Prisoners.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Kenneth J. Pfaehler, Esq.
          SONNENSCHEIN NATH & ROSENTHAL LLP
          1301 K St., N.W.
          Suite 600, East Tower
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: 202-408-6868
          E-mail: kpfaehler@sonnenschein.com

               - and -

          Philip Fornaci, Esq.
          Ivy Finkenstadt, Esq.
          WASHINGTON LAWYER'S COMMITTEE
          FOR CIVIL RIGHTS AND URBAN AFFAIRS
          11 Dupont Circle, N.W., Suite 400
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: 202-319-1000
          E-mail: philip_fornaci@washlaw.org
                  ivy_finkenstadt@washlaw.org


VULCAN MATERIALS: Certification Hearing in Addair Set for August
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class certification hearing in the matter Addair et al. v.
Processing Company, LLC, et al., were Vulcan Materials Company is
a defendant, has been scheduled for August 2010, 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.

The company is a defendant in several cases involving
perchloroethylene (perc), which was a product manufactured by the
company's former Chemicals business.  Perc is a cleaning solvent
used in dry cleaning and other industrial applications.
The cases involve various allegations of groundwater
contamination, or exposure to perc allegedly resulting in
personal injury.

One such case is a purported class action case for medical
monitoring and personal injury damages pending in the Circuit
Court of Wyoming County, West Virginia.

The plaintiffs allege various personal injuries from exposure to
perc used in coal sink labs.

Discovery is now complete.  The class certification hearing is
scheduled for August 2010.

Vulcan Materials Company is the nation's largest producer of
construction aggregates, a major producer of asphalt mix and
concrete and a leading producer of cement in Florida.


VULCAN MATERIALS: Subsidiary Defends Two Consolidated Complaints
----------------------------------------------------------------
Vulcan Materials Company's subsidiary, Florida Rock Industries,
Inc., remains a defendant in two consolidated complaints pending
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

A number of class action lawsuits were filed by several ready-
mixed concrete producers and construction companies against a
number of concrete and cement producers and importers in Florida.

There are now two consolidated complaints:

     (1) on behalf of direct independent ready-mixed concrete
         producers, and

     (2) on behalf of indirect users of ready-mixed concrete.

The defendants include Cemex Corp., Holcim (US) Inc., Lafarge
North America, Inc., Lehigh Cement Company, Oldcastle Materials,
Suwannee American Cement LLC, Titan America LLC, and Votorantim
Cimentos North America, Inc.

The complaints allege various violations under the federal
antitrust laws, including price fixing and market allocations.

No additional details 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.

Vulcan Materials Company is the nation's largest producer of
construction aggregates, a major producer of asphalt mix and
concrete and a leading producer of cement in Florida.


WELLS FARGO: Sued for Collecting Improper Mortgage Fees
-------------------------------------------------------
Adam Goodman, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc., Case No. 2010-CH-22362 (Ill.
Cir. Ct., Cook Cty. May 25, 2010), accuses the retail mortgage
lender of wrongfully charging his escrow account a fee for
obtaining a copy of his tax bills on his mortgage property, in
breach of its contractual and fiduciary obligations.  Mr. Goodman
says these charges are not allowed by the escrow agreement or by
any contract governing his escrow account, constitute wrongful
conversion, and also violate Illinois consumer protection laws.  
Wells Fargo has refused to reimburse Mr. Goodman for the charges.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Arthur Loevy, Esq.
          Mike Kanovitz, Esq.
          Jon Loevy, Esq.
          LOEVY & LOEVY
          312 North May St., Suite 100
          Telephone: (312) 243-5900

                            *********

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  * * *