CAR_Public/100603.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Thursday, June 3, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 108

                            Headlines

ALLIANT ENERGY: Trial in Pension Plan Suit Set for June 2010
BP PLC: Lawyers Trying to Figure Out How to Let Animals Sue
CALIFORNIA: Deaf Worker Says Reasonable Accommodations Inadequate
CANADA: Hepatitis C Victim Settlement Fund Runs Dry
CIRCUIT CITY: Employees Can't Pursue Class Claim in Bankruptcy

CLECO CORP: Cleco Power Removes Suit to Louisiana Federal Court
DFG RESTAURANTS: Sued for Failing to Provide Rest and Meal Breaks
DUROLITE INT'L: Third Circuit Remands for Class Recertification
GAP INC: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Data Breach Lawsuit
GOOGLE INC: Buzz Service Privacy Breach Suit filed in D. Colo.

JEROME KRAUSE: Accused of Not Honoring Rebate & Discount Offers
L.A. FITNESS: Sued for Requiring Employees to Work Off-the-Clock
METLIFE INC: Settlement in "Fiala" Gets Court's Final Approval
METLIFE INC: Settlement in Consolidated Suit Gets Court Approval
METLIFE INC: Contract Breach Suits v. Medical Providers Pending

METLIFE INC: Plaintiffs' Appeal on Dismissed ADA Suit Pending
METLIFE INC: Motion to Remand Brokerage Antitrust Suit Pending
METLIFE INC: Seeks to Dismiss "Market Rate" Tenants Lawsuit
METLIFE INC: Appeal on Dismissal of "Thomas" Suit Still Pending
METLIFE INC: Continues to Defend Sales Practices Litigation

PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL: Certification Denied in Suit vs. PLIC
PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL: Court Denies Certification in "Walsh" Suit
PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL: New Jersey Suit Dismissed
PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL: Consolidated Suit Moved to Southern Iowa
SEQUENOM INC: Settlement Agreement Gets Court's Final Approval

THOMSON REUTERS: Distribution of Filed Court Documents Challenged
TORONTO-DOMINION: Kaw Foundation Sees $14.6 Mil. Cy Press Award
TOYOTA MOTOR: One MDL Complaint & Document Turnover Ordered

                            *********

ALLIANT ENERGY: Trial in Pension Plan Suit Set for June 2010
------------------------------------------------------------
The trial in a putative-class action lawsuit filed against
Alliant Energy Corp.'s Energy Cash Balance Pension Plan (Plan)
has been set for June 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.

In February 2008, a class action lawsuit was filed against the
Plan.

The complaint alleges that Plan participants who received a lump
sum distribution prior to their normal retirement age did not
receive the full benefit to which they were entitled in violation
of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 because
the Plan applied an improper interest crediting rate to project
the cash balance account to their normal retirement age.

These Plan participants are limited to individuals who, prior to
normal retirement age, received a lump sum distribution and/or
received any form of distribution calculated under the Plan's
prior formula after that benefit was determined to be more
valuable than their benefit calculated under the Plan's cash
balance formula.

The court has certified two subclasses of plaintiffs that in
aggregate include all persons vested or partially vested in the
Plan who received a lump sum distribution of the cash balance
formula benefit from Jan. 1, 1998 through Aug. 17, 2006
including:

     1) persons who received a lump sum distribution from
        Jan. 1, 1998 through Feb. 28, 2002; and

     2) persons who received a lump sum distribution from
        Feb. 29, 2002 through Aug. 17, 2006.  

Alliant Energy is contesting the case and trial is scheduled for
June 2010.

In September 2009, the plaintiffs submitted reports by their
expert witnesses that quantified the alleged underpayments owed
to plaintiffs between $24 million and $54 million, including
interest.  Alliant Energy disputes these amounts.

Alliant Energy Corp. -- http://www.alliantenergy.com-- is a  
public utility holding company.  The Company has four primary
first tier subsidiaries of Alliant Energy are: Interstate Power
and Light Company (IPL), Wisconsin Power and Light Company
(WPL), Alliant Energy Resources, Inc. (Resources) and Alliant
Energy Corporate Services, Inc. (Corporate Services).


BP PLC: Lawyers Trying to Figure Out How to Let Animals Sue
------------------------------------------------------------
Dionne Searcey at The Wall Street Journal's Law Blog reports that
a story in The Seattle Times this week about an Exxon Valdez
survivor, an otter that had been sickly for years after being
rescued from the slick in Prince William Sound (spoiler alert:
it's a sad ending), got us thinking. Do the wildlife victims of
the current oil spill in the Gulf have any legal rights?

The short answer, Mr. Searcey says: not really.

There are no laws that exist simply to protect animal interests.
U.S. law protects animals as property. That means laws designed
to protect animals exist only to protect the interests of their
owners or the public, say animal activists who specialize in
animal law. And some animals are entirely exempt from the laws.

"Most of the wild animals affected by the BP spill do not have
any legal protections at all, and there is no penalty that can be
imposed for suffocating them with oil, destroying their habitats
and otherwise harming them," said Justin Goodman, a
representative of PETA.

The Endangered Species Act and the Marine Mammal Protection Act
have protections in place for the dolphins, whales and sea
turtles that live in the Gulf. But the Minerals Management
Service has approved oil exploration without the permits required
by the two acts. The Obama administration is the target of
lawsuits over this.

The Department of Interior says on its website the BP oil spill
has prompted the agency to improve and strengthen reviews of
drilling procedures required under the two acts.

Plaintiffs' attorneys aren't exactly holding back when it comes
to trying to reel in new oil spill clients. And we've written
about the creativity of animal rights attorneys when it comes to
finding ways to protect our furry brethren. It's not a stretch to
think that these lawyers will sift through local animal cruelty
statutes to examine whether they can pin spill-related animal
deaths and injuries on what they may say is BP's negligence.

This week the Defenders of Wildlife and the Southern
Environmental Law Center sued BP, noting the Endangered Species
Act prohibits the "take" of endangered species. The ESA defines
"take" as meaning "to harass, harm, pursue.or to attempt to
engage in any such conduct."

The Defenders note government wildlife agencies have interpreted
"harm" as meaning "an act which actually kills or injures fish or
wildlife" and may include "significant habitat modification or
degradation."

BP did not respond to a request for comment. Mr. Searcey relates.


CALIFORNIA: Deaf Worker Says Reasonable Accommodations Inadequate
-----------------------------------------------------------------
David Fazio at Examiner.com reports that on May 21, 2010,
employees for the State of California filed a class action
lawsuit in the San Francisco Superior Court against Governor
Arnold Schwarzenegger and the State of California alleging a
systemic failure in reasonably accommodating deaf employees. The
plaintiffs claim this failure violates the Americans with
Disabilities Act and state law.

According to statistics maintained by the State Personnel Board,
California employs more than 230,000 workers, and is the State's
largest employer. More than 1,500 of these employees are deaf or
hearing impaired.

The plaintiffs are not seeking monetary compensation in remedy of
the lawsuit, instead they are asking for improvement in the
State's policies and procedures for handling accommodations for
its deaf employees. According to the plaintiffs, the State
regularly fails to fulfill interpreter requests for meetings,
training, performance reviews and meetings with consumers and the
public. The lawsuit also asserts that the State does not have
adequate emergency evacuation procedures. Among the State
Agencies accused are the Department of Rehabilitation, Department
of Justice, California Public Employees Retirement System and the
Department of Social Services.

Plaintiffs attest that requests for sign language interpreters
are repeatedly ignored or denied. The "Class" says that they are
frequently pressured to try to get by through lip-reading, which
they believe to be ineffective in many circumstances, or with the
help of co-workers (not certified interpreters), or rely on
passing notes.

The Office of Deaf Access for the Department of Social Services,
whose purpose is to address the communication needs of the deaf
community, is particularly under fire by the accusations in this
lawsuit. A deaf employee there says that she has difficulty
obtaining accommodations needed for her to communicate in the
workplace.

Plaintiffs claim they are heavily burdened, as they must often
recite their legal rights when pursuing accommodations.

The State recognizes the need for sign language interpreters and
other forms of reasonable accommodations, but the policies,
procedures, and practice in facilitating these accommodations are
under critical scrutiny by this class action.

This lawsuit also raises a serious question about the efficiency
of reasonable accommodation within the State Agencies of
California with numerous reports of employees being left behind
in buildings during evacuation drills and actual emergencies.

The class action identifies other workplace barriers such as
malfunctioning, or a lack of, effective assistive technology.


CANADA: Hepatitis C Victim Settlement Fund Runs Dry
---------------------------------------------------
Steve Buist at The Hamilton Spectator reports that Health Canada
declined to indicate Monday if the federal government is prepared
to inject additional money if necessary to fully pay claimants in
a $1-billion class action settlement with people who were
infected with hepatitis C-tainted blood either before 1986 or
after 1990.

The family of a Burlington man who died from a hepatitis C-
tainted blood transfusion was told recently that the overwhelming
majority of its approved claim for compensation can't be paid
because the settlement pool of funds has run dry.

Bob Green contracted hepatitis C in 1985, just a month before a
kidney transplant, and he eventually died from the disease in
2002.

The government set aside about $1 billion to pay out victims'
claims, with the money divided into two pools - a general
compensation fund, and a pool of money for those affected most
severely to cover future lost income and relief for their
dependants.

About $250 million remains available in the general compensation
part of the pool, but so far, the government has not indicated if
it will transfer any of the money into the second pool or provide
additional funds if the original $1-billion settlement is
insufficient.

Health Canada issued a statement yesterday suggesting that it's
up to the lawyers representing the class of victims to ask the
court to approve a transfer of funds.

"The federal government has not received notification from the
courts that class counsel is requesting a transfer of funds,"
Health Canada said in a statement to The Spectator.

"We do not respond directly to compensation inquiries because
this money is being paid out through a court ordered process,
which is at arms length from Health Canada," said the statement.

Nancy Killam, senior project manager with Crawford Class Action
Services, said the sufficiency of the funds is "out of our
control."

"We're very compassionate about the situation the claimants are
in, but there really isn't anything we can do until we get
direction," said Killam.

Crawford Class Action Services is the independent administrator
of the claims process.  The agency is given the task of approving
or denying claims, but the funds are provided by the federal
government and individual settlement amounts are pre-determined
based on a number of factors.

"We do everything we possibly can to help a claimant become
successful, because we want them to get paid," said Killam.

"It is hard to be in the middle."


CIRCUIT CITY: Employees Can't Pursue Class Claim in Bankruptcy
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Kevin R. Huennekens held a hearing on April 15,
2010, in In re Circuit City Stories, Inc., et al., Case No.
08-35653 (Bankr. E.D. Va.), to consider the omnibus motion of
Robert Gentry, Jack Hernandez, Jonathan Card, and Joseph Skaf for
an Order Applying Bankruptcy Rule 7023 to Their Class Proofs of
Claim Pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 9014(c), the Debtors' response,
and the Claimants' reply.  At the conclusion of the Hearing, the
Court announced its decision to deny the Motion.  A copy of Judge
Huennekens's Memorandum Opinion is available at:

     http://www.leagle.com/unsecure/page.htm?shortname=inbco20100528817

The Claimants contend that Circuit City violated the California
Labor Code and Business and Professions Code.


CLECO CORP: Cleco Power Removes Suit to Louisiana Federal Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cleco Corporation's wholly owned subsidiary, Cleco Power LLC, has
removed a purported class action lawsuit filed on behalf of
Opelousas electric customers from state to the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Louisiana, 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 March 9, 2010, a complaint was filed in the 27th Judicial
District Court of St. Landry Parish, State of Louisiana, on
behalf of three Cleco Power customers in Opelousas, Louisiana.

The complaint alleges that Cleco Power overcharged the plaintiffs
by applying to customers in Opelousas the same retail rates as
Cleco Power applies to all of its retail customers.  The
plaintiffs allege that Cleco Power should have established,
solely for customers in Opelousas, retail rates that are separate
and distinct from the retail rates that apply to other customers
of Cleco Power and that Cleco Power should not collect from
customers in Opelousas the storm surcharge approved by the LPSC
following Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.

Cleco Power currently operates in Opelousas pursuant to a
franchise granted to Cleco Power by the city of Opelousas in 1986
and an Operating and Franchise Agreement dated May 14, 1991,
pursuant to which Cleco Power operates its own electric
facilities and leases and operates electric facilities owned by
the city of Opelousas.

In April 2010, Cleco Power filed a petition with the LPSC
appealing to its expertise in declaring that the ratepayers of
Opelousas have been properly charged the rates that are
applicable to Cleco Power's retail customers and that no
overcharges have been collected.  In addition, Cleco Power
removed the purported class action lawsuit filed on behalf of
Opelousas electric customers from state to the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Louisiana, so that it could be
properly addressed under the terms of the Class Action Fairness
Act.  

Cleco Corp. -- http://www.cleco.com/-- is a regional energy  
company headquartered in Pineville, La.  It operates a regulated
electric utility company, Cleco Power LLC, which serves about
277,000 retail customers across Louisiana.  Cleco also operates a
wholesale energy business, Cleco Midstream Resources LLC, which
includes the pending sale of Acadia Power Station Unit 2.


DFG RESTAURANTS: Sued for Failing to Provide Rest and Meal Breaks
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lorena Pastelin, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated v. DFG Restaurants, Inc., et al., Case No. BC438345
(Calif. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty. May 24, 2010), accuses the
restaurant operator of failing to provide rest and meal periods;
unlawful collection of wages previously paid and failing to
indemnify employees for expenditures incurred in the discharge of
their duties; failing to pay overtime wages; failing to furnish
accurate wage statements; forcing employees to work off the
clock; failing to pay termination wages; and unlawful business
practices in violation of the Bus. & Prof. Code.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew J. Matern, Esq.
          RASTEGAR & MATERN, ATTORNEYS AT LAW
          1010 Crenshaw Blvd., Suite 100
          Torrance, CA 90501
          Telephone: (31) 218-5500


DUROLITE INT'L: Third Circuit Remands for Class Recertification
---------------------------------------------------------------
Eight years ago, Sheinberg, et al. v. Sorensen, et al., Case No.
00-cv-06041 (D. N.J.) (Cecchi, J.), was certified as a class
action.  Three years ago, the District Court decertified the
class in an opinion stressing the inadequacies of then-class
counsel.  After plaintiffs-appellants obtained new counsel, they
moved to recertify the class.  The District Court denied that
motion, and plaintiffs brought an interlocutory appeal to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.  Because
the District Court failed to apply the correct standards in
ruling on the motion for recertification, the Third Circuit
vacated the District Court's opinion and remanded the case.  
Sheinberg, et al. v. Sorensen, et al., No. 08-4148, slip op.
http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/084148p.pdf(3d Cir. May 28,  
2010).

In 2000, a light bulb manufacturer known as DuroTest closed.
Thereafter, plaintiffs, former DuroTest employees, filed suit in
New Jersey federal court against companies affiliated with
DuroTest and against Robert Sorensen, the Chief Executive Officer
of those companies. Plaintiffs seek damages for alleged
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C.
Sec. 201 et seq., the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
("ERISA"), 29 U.S.C. Sec. 1001 et seq., the Worker Adjustment and
Retraining Notification Act, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 2101 et seq., and New
Jersey state law. On May 20, 2002, the District Court certified
the case as a class action, and in December 2005, a different
District Judge denied the parties' cross-motions for summary
judgment.

The Plaintiff-Petitioners are represented by:

          Martin P. Schrama, Esq.
          STARK & STARK
          993 Lenox Drive, Building Two
          P.O. Box 5315
          Princeton, NJ 08543
          Telephone: (609) 219-7445
          E-mail: mschrama@stark-stark.com

               - and -  

          Robert B. Bodzin, Esq.
          Melissa Canfield Prince, Esq.
          KLEINBARD, BELL & BRECKER LLP
          1900 Market Street, Suite 700
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 568-2000
          E-mail: mprince@kleinbard.com

The Defendant-Respondents are represented by:

          Kevin R. Krantz, Esq.
          STAHL COWEN CROWLEY ADDIS, LLC
          55 West Monroe Street, Suite 1200
          Chicago, IL 60603

               - and -  

          Gerald Krovatin, Esq.
          KROVATIN KLINGEMAN LLC
          744 Broad Street, Suite 1903
          Newark, NJ 07102
          Telephone: (973) 424-9777
          E-mail: gkrovatin@krovatin.com


GAP INC: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Data Breach Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------
Joel Ruiz, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, sued Gap, Inc. and Vangent, Inc., seeking damages and
injunctive relief based on the theft of a laptop computer that
contained his social security number.  The U.S. District Court
ruled in favor of Gap and Vangent on summary judgment.  Last
week, the U.S. Court of Appeals affirmed the decision to dismiss
the lawsuit.  Ruiz v. Gap, Inc., and Vangent, Inc., No. 09-15971,
slip op. http://www.leagle.com/unsecure/page.htm?shortname=infco20100528188
(9th Cir. May 28, 2010).  


GOOGLE INC: Buzz Service Privacy Breach Suit filed in D. Colo.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rick Carroll at the Glenwood Springs Post Independent reports
that an Aspen, Colo., law firm has filed a class-action complaint
on behalf of millions of Google e-mail users, alleging the
Internet host violated their privacy.

Filed Thursday in the U.S. District Court of Denver, the lawsuit
seeks to attain class-action status on behalf of users of
Google's free e-mail service, Gmail.

Aspen attorneys John Case and Lauren Maytin are the two
plaintiffs who represent the users in the class-action suit,
which was filed by the Aspen firm Thomas Genshaft PC. Neither
Maytin nor Case are members of Thomas Genshaft PC.

The suit accuses California-based Google of violating three
federal communications laws - the Electronic Communications
Privacy Act, the Stored Communications Act and the Computer Fraud
and Abuse Act - after it rolled out its Google Buzz social
networking service Feb. 9. The suit also alleges violation of
privacy under Colorado common law.

According to allegations in the suit, Google Buzz exposed Gmail
users' private information -- on their public profiles -- by
unveiling with whom they e-mailed or chatted the most. The
information, otherwise known as a "following list," was released
without the users' explicit permission, the suit says.

"Users were not warned that their lists would be automatically
visible to the public," the court filing says, adding that the
"activation of Buzz disclosed not only portions of users' contact
lists, but more specifically disclosed the contacts with whom
users communicate most often, and making those lists publicly
searchable on the Internet."

The suit alleges that Google "deceptively portrayed" to Gmail
users that they could bypass the Buzz service, but "in reality,
no matter which button the user selected, Google Buzz was
automatically activated and embedded into the user's Gmail
sidebar."

The Aspen-based lawsuit follows several other legal actions taken
against Google over its Buzz service.

Harvard Law School filed a class-action suit seven days after
Google Buzz debuted, and law firms in San Francisco and
Washington, D.C., have filed a similar case on behalf of a
Florida woman, according to published reports.

Congress also has asked the Federal Trade Commission to
investigate Google amid complaints about Google Buzz's alleged
breach of consumer privacy.

While Google has addressed the situation by allowing users to
shut off its Buzz option, that effort "does not alleviate the
privacy concerns of the general public," claims the Aspen
lawsuit.

The suit adds that "when plaintiffs and other class members
created Gmail accounts, they signed up for e-mail services. Their
expectations did not include social networking."

Along with monetary damages, the suit seeks a court order that
would force Google to make Buzz an "opt-in" service for Gmail
users, and stop Google from creating social networking lists from
its Gmail users' private contacts.

Those involved in the class-action suit could number in the
millions, as there are 37 million subscribers to Gmail, the suit
says. While the suit does not specify how much in total monetary
damages is being sought, at least $5 million is required for
class-action certification in federal court.

Peter Thomas, who filed the complaint, and Case, one of the
plaintiffs, could not be reached for comment Monday. The other
named plaintiff, Maytin, declined to discuss the suit when
contacted by Mr. Carroll.


JEROME KRAUSE: Accused of Not Honoring Rebate & Discount Offers
---------------------------------------------------------------
Deborah S. Fish, on behalf of herself and other similarly
situated v. Jerome Krause Fashion Hair, Inc., Case No.
2010-CH-22745 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty. May 27, 2010), asserts
violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business
Practices Act.  Ms. Fish says that the wig specialist, an in-
network provider for United HealthCare (UH), misrepresented that
purchasers of its medical supplies would only have to pay 60% of
the sales price of the medical supply purchased.  Ms Fish
explains that Krause requested the consumer to pay 100% of the
sales price of the medical supply purchased and to make a claim
for refund from UH, promising to reimburse the consumer for the
difference after the consumer receives payment from UH.  But when
consumers sought the balance from Krause, Krause refused to make
good on its promise.  Ms. Fish is a consumer insured by United
HealthCare who, because of her medical condition (one of the
manifestations of which is loss of hair), purchased a wig from
Krause.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Arthur S. Gold, Esq.
          GOLD & COULSON
          11 S. LaSalle St., Suite 2402
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 372-0777
          E-mail: asg@gcjustice.com


L.A. FITNESS: Sued for Requiring Employees to Work Off-the-Clock
----------------------------------------------------------------
Devon Del Valle, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. L.A. Fitness International LLC, Case No.
2010-00375634 (Calif. Super. Ct., Orange Cty. May 26, 2010),
accuses the fitness club operator of requiring employees to work
"off the clock" without compensation; failing to pay overtime
wages; failing to reimburse for business expenses; failing to
provide itemized wage statements; failing to provide meal and
rest periods; and engaging in unfair and unlawful business
practices in violation of the Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code.  Mr. Devon
Del Valle was employed as a "Membership Counselor" for L.A.
Fitness in the County of Fresno.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David R. Markham, Esq.
          R. Craig Clark, Esq.
          James M. Treglio, Esq.
          Laura M. Cotter, Esq.
          CLARK & MARKHAM LLP
          600 B. Street, Suite 2130
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 239-1321
          

METLIFE INC: Settlement in "Fiala" Gets Court's Final Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of New York County entered final judgment
confirming the approval of the settlement and dismissing the
consolidated state court class action captioned Fiala, et al. v.
Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., et al., according to MetLife, Inc.'s
May 5, 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 a lawsuit challenging the fairness of
the Plan and the adequacy and accuracy of Metropolitan Life
Insurance Company's disclosure to policyholders regarding MLIC's
plan of reorganization, as amended.

The plaintiffs in the consolidated state court class action,
Fiala, et al. v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., et al. (Sup. Ct.,
N.Y. County, filed March 17, 2000), sought compensatory relief
and punitive damages against MLIC, the Holding Company, and
individual directors.  The court certified a litigation class of
present and former policyholders on plaintiffs' claim that
defendants violated section 7312 of the New York Insurance Law.

The parties to the lawsuit entered into a settlement agreement in
November 2009.

The state court approved the settlement in orders issued on March
3, 2010.  On March 23, 2010, the state court entered final
judgment confirming the approval of the settlement and dismissing
the action.

MetLife, Inc. -- http://www.metlife.com/-- is a provider of  
insurance and other financial services with operations throughout
the U.S. and the regions of Latin America, Europe, and Asia
Pacific.  Through its domestic and international
subsidiaries and affiliates, MetLife offers life insurance,
annuities, automobile and homeowners insurance, retail banking
and other financial services to individuals, as well as group
insurance, reinsurance and retirement & savings products, and
services to corporations and other institutions.  The company is
organized into five operating segments: Institutional,
Individual, Auto & Home, International and Reinsurance, as well
as Corporate & Other.


METLIFE INC: Settlement in Consolidated Suit Gets Court Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York
entered final judgment confirming the approval of the settlement
and dismissing the consolidated federal court class action styled
In re MetLife Demutualization Litig., according to MetLife,
Inc.'s May 5, 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 a lawsuit challenging the fairness of
the Plan and the adequacy and accuracy of Metropolitan Life
Insurance Company's disclosure to policyholders regarding MLIC's
plan of reorganization, as amended.

The plaintiffs in the consolidated federal court class action, In
re MetLife Demutualization Litig. (E.D.N.Y., filed April 18,
2000), sought rescission and compensatory damages against MLIC
and the Holding Company.  Plaintiffs asserted violations of the
Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in
connection with the Plan, claiming that the Policyholder
Information Booklets failed to disclose certain material facts
and contained certain material misstatements.
The court certified a litigation class of present and former
policyholders.

The parties to the lawsuit entered into a settlement agreement in
November 2009.

The federal court approved the settlement in orders issued on
Feb. 12, 2010.  On March 2, 2010, the federal court entered final
judgment confirming the approval of the settlement and dismissing
the action.

On March 15, 2010, an objector filed a notice of appeal of the
federal court's order approving the settlement.

MetLife, Inc. -- http://www.metlife.com/-- is a provider of  
insurance and other financial services with operations throughout
the U.S. and the regions of Latin America, Europe, and Asia
Pacific.  Through its domestic and international
subsidiaries and affiliates, MetLife offers life insurance,
annuities, automobile and homeowners insurance, retail banking
and other financial services to individuals, as well as group
insurance, reinsurance and retirement & savings products, and
services to corporations and other institutions.  The company is
organized into five operating segments: Institutional,
Individual, Auto & Home, International and Reinsurance, as well
as Corporate & Other.


METLIFE INC: Contract Breach Suits v. Medical Providers Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Putative nationwide class actions against Metropolitan Property
and Casualty Ins. Co. remain pending.

Two putative nationwide class actions, styled Shipley v. St. Paul
Fire and Marine Ins. Co. and Metropolitan Property and
Casualty Ins. Co. (Ill. Cir. Ct., Madison County, filed Feb. 26
and July 2, 2003), have been filed against Metropolitan Property
and Casualty Ins. Co. in Illinois.

One suit claims breach of contract and fraud due to the alleged
underpayment of medical claims arising from the use of a
purportedly biased provider fee pricing system.  The second suit
currently alleges breach of contract arising from the alleged use
of preferred provider organizations to reduce medical provider
fees covered by the medical claims portion of the insurance
policy.

Motions for class certification have been filed and briefed in
both cases.

Simon v. Metropolitan Property and Casualty Ins. Co. (W.D. Okla.,
filed Sept. 23, 2008), a third putative nationwide class action
lawsuit relating to payment of medical providers, is pending in
federal court in Oklahoma.

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

MetLife, Inc. -- http://www.metlife.com/-- is a provider of  
insurance and other financial services with operations throughout
the U.S. and the regions of Latin America, Europe, and Asia
Pacific.  Through its domestic and international
subsidiaries and affiliates, MetLife offers life insurance,
annuities, automobile and homeowners insurance, retail banking
and other financial services to individuals, as well as group
insurance, reinsurance and retirement & savings products, and
services to corporations and other institutions.  The company is
organized into five operating segments: Institutional,
Individual, Auto & Home, International and Reinsurance, as well
as Corporate & Other.


METLIFE INC: Plaintiffs' Appeal on Dismissed ADA Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
The appeal of the plaintiffs on the dismissal of the putative
class action lawsuit entitled The American Dental Association, et
al. v. MetLife, Inc., et al., remains pending.

The suit was filed May 19, 2003, in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Florida.

The American Dental Association and three individual providers
had sued the company, Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. and other non-
affiliated insurance companies in a putative class action
lawsuit.

The plaintiffs purported to represent a nationwide class of in-
network providers who alleged that their claims were being
wrongfully reduced by downcoding, bundling, and the improper use
and programming of software.

The complaint alleged federal racketeering and various state law
theories of liability.

On Feb. 10, 2009, the district court granted the company's motion
to dismiss plaintiffs' second amended complaint,
dismissing all of plaintiffs' claims except for breach of
contract claims.

Plaintiffs were provided with an opportunity to re-plead the
dismissed claims by Feb. 26, 2009.

Since plaintiffs never amended these claims, they were dismissed
with prejudice on March 2, 2009.  

By order dated March 20, 2009, the district court declined to
retain jurisdiction over the remaining breach of contract claims
and dismissed the lawsuit.  

On April 17, 2009, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal from this
order.

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

MetLife, Inc. -- http://www.metlife.com/-- is a provider of  
insurance and other financial services with operations throughout
the U.S. and the regions of Latin America, Europe, and Asia
Pacific.  Through its domestic and international
subsidiaries and affiliates, MetLife offers life insurance,
annuities, automobile and homeowners insurance, retail banking
and other financial services to individuals, as well as group
insurance, reinsurance and retirement & savings products, and
services to corporations and other institutions.  The company is
organized into five operating segments: Institutional,
Individual, Auto & Home, International and Reinsurance, as well
as Corporate & Other.


METLIFE INC: Motion to Remand Brokerage Antitrust Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs' motion to remand the class action entitled In Re Ins.
Brokerage Antitrust Litigation to state court in Florida is
pending.

The suit was filed Feb. 24, 2005, in the U.S. District Court for
the District Court of New Jersey.

In this multi-district class action proceeding (MDL No. 1663;
Master Docket Nos. 04-5184 and 05-1079), plaintiffs' complaint
alleged that the company, MLIC, several non-affiliated insurance
companies and several insurance brokers violated the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974, and antitrust laws and committed
other misconduct in the context of providing insurance to
employee benefit plans and to persons who participate in such
employee benefit plans.

In August and September 2007 and January 2008, the court issued
orders granting defendants' motions to dismiss with prejudice the
federal antitrust, the RICO, and the ERISA claims.

In February 2008, the court dismissed the remaining state law
claims on jurisdictional grounds.

Plaintiffs' appeal from the orders dismissing their RICO and
federal antitrust claims is pending with the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit.

A putative class action alleging that the company and other non-
affiliated defendants violated state laws was transferred to the
District of New Jersey but was not consolidated with other
related actions.  Plaintiffs' motion to remand this action to
state court in Florida is pending.

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

MetLife, Inc. -- http://www.metlife.com/-- is a provider of  
insurance and other financial services with operations throughout
the U.S. and the regions of Latin America, Europe, and Asia
Pacific.  Through its domestic and international
subsidiaries and affiliates, MetLife offers life insurance,
annuities, automobile and homeowners insurance, retail banking
and other financial services to individuals, as well as group
insurance, reinsurance and retirement & savings products, and
services to corporations and other institutions.  The company is
organized into five operating segments: Institutional,
Individual, Auto & Home, International and Reinsurance, as well
as Corporate & Other.


METLIFE INC: Seeks to Dismiss "Market Rate" Tenants Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
MetLife, Inc., has filed a motion to dismiss an amended complaint
in the matter Roberts, et al. v. Tishman Speyer Properties, et
al., 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 suit was filed in the Superior Court, New York County, on
Jan. 22, 2007

The lawsuit was filed by a putative class of "market rate"
tenants at Stuyvesant Town and Peter Cooper Village against
parties including Metropolitan Tower Life Insurance Company and
Metropolitan Insurance and Annuity Company.  This group of
tenants claim that the Company, and since the sale of the
properties, Tishman Speyer as current owner, improperly charged
market rents when only lower regulated rents were permitted.

The allegations are based on the impact of so-called J-51 tax
abatements.

The lawsuit seeks declaratory relief and damages for rent
overcharges.

In August 2007, the trial court granted the company's motion to
dismiss and dismissed the complaint in its entirety.

In March 2009, New York's intermediate appellate court reversed
the trial court's decision and reinstated the lawsuit.  The
defendants appealed this ruling to the New York State Court of
Appeals, which in October 2009 issued an opinion affirming the
ruling of the intermediate appellate court.

The action has been remanded to the trial court for further
proceedings.  Plaintiffs have filed an amended complaint and the
company has filed a motion to dismiss.  The current owner is
pursuing potential settlement of the claims against it.

MetLife, Inc. -- http://www.metlife.com/-- is a provider of  
insurance and other financial services with operations throughout
the U.S. and the regions of Latin America, Europe, and Asia
Pacific.  Through its domestic and international
subsidiaries and affiliates, MetLife offers life insurance,
annuities, automobile and homeowners insurance, retail banking
and other financial services to individuals, as well as group
insurance, reinsurance and retirement & savings products, and
services to corporations and other institutions.  The company is
organized into five operating segments: Institutional,
Individual, Auto & Home, International and Reinsurance, as well
as Corporate & Other.


METLIFE INC: Appeal on Dismissal of "Thomas" Suit Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
The appeal of the plaintiffs on the order dismissing the class
action lawsuit captioned Thomas, et al. v. Metropolitan Life Ins.
Co., et al., remains pending.

A putative class action complaint was filed against MLIC and
MetLife Securities, Inc.

Plaintiffs assert legal theories of violations of the federal
securities laws and violations of state laws with respect to the
sale of certain proprietary products by the company's agency
distribution group.

Plaintiffs seek rescission, compensatory damages, interest,
punitive damages and attorneys' fees and expenses.

In January and May 2008, the court issued orders granting the
defendants' motion to dismiss in part, dismissing all of
plaintiffs' claims except for claims under the Investment
Advisers Act.   

Defendants' motion to dismiss claims under the Investment
Advisers Act was denied.

In March 2009, the defendants filed a motion for summary
judgment.

In August 2009, the court granted defendants' motion for summary
judgment.

On Sept. 29, 2009, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal from the
court's order dismissing the lawsuit.

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

MetLife, Inc. -- http://www.metlife.com/-- is a provider of  
insurance and other financial services with operations throughout
the U.S. and the regions of Latin America, Europe, and Asia
Pacific.  Through its domestic and international
subsidiaries and affiliates, MetLife offers life insurance,
annuities, automobile and homeowners insurance, retail banking
and other financial services to individuals, as well as group
insurance, reinsurance and retirement & savings products, and
services to corporations and other institutions.  The company is
organized into five operating segments: Institutional,
Individual, Auto & Home, International and Reinsurance, as well
as Corporate & Other.


METLIFE INC: Continues to Defend Sales Practices Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------
MetLife, Inc., continues to defend claims in pending sales
practices litigation matters.

Over the past several years, the company has faced numerous
claims, including class action lawsuits, alleging improper
marketing or sales of individual life insurance policies,
annuities, mutual funds or other products.

Some of the current cases seek substantial damages, including
punitive and treble damages and attorneys' fees.

At Dec. 31, 2009, there were approximately 130 sales practices
litigation matters pending against the company.

No further information was disclosed 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.

MetLife, Inc. -- http://www.metlife.com/-- is a provider of  
insurance and other financial services with operations throughout
the U.S. and the regions of Latin America, Europe, and Asia
Pacific.  Through its domestic and international
subsidiaries and affiliates, MetLife offers life insurance,
annuities, automobile and homeowners insurance, retail banking
and other financial services to individuals, as well as group
insurance, reinsurance and retirement & savings products, and
services to corporations and other institutions.  The company is
organized into five operating segments: Institutional,
Individual, Auto & Home, International and Reinsurance, as well
as Corporate & Other.


PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL: Certification Denied in Suit vs. PLIC
----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa has
denied the plaintiff's motion for class certification in a
putative class action lawsuit against Principal Life Insurance
Company, according to Principal 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.

On Nov. 8, 2006, a trustee of Fairmount Park Inc. Retirement
Savings Plan filed a putative class action lawsuit in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Illinois against
Principal Life.

Principal Life's motion to transfer venue was granted and the
case is now pending in the Southern District of Iowa.

The complaint alleged, among other things, that Principal Life
breached its alleged fiduciary duties while performing services
to 401(k) plans by failing to disclose, or adequately disclose,
to employers or plan participants the fact that Principal Life
receives "revenue sharing fees from mutual funds that are
included in its pre-packaged 401(k) plans" and allegedly failed
to use the revenue to defray the expenses of the services
provided to the plans.  Plaintiff further alleged that these acts
constitute prohibited transactions under ERISA.

Plaintiff sought to certify a class of all retirement plans to
which Principal Life was a service provider and for which
Principal Life received and retained "revenue sharing" fees from
mutual funds.  On Aug. 27, 2008, the plaintiff's motion for class
certification was denied.

The plaintiff's new motion for class certification, filed May 11,
2009, was struck by the court on March 31, 2010.

Principal Financial Group, Inc. -- http://www.principal.com/--  
is a provider of retirement savings, investment and insurance
products and services.  PFG's United States and international
operations concentrate primarily on asset accumulation and asset
management.  In addition, it offers a range of individual and
group life insurance, group health insurance, individual and
group disability insurance and group dental and vision insurance.  
PFG primarily focus on small and medium-sized businesses
providing an array of retirement and employee benefit solutions
to meet the needs of the business, the business owner and their
employees.  PGF has four segments: U.S. Asset Accumulation,
Global Asset Management, International Asset Management and
Accumulation, and Life and Health Insurance.


PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL: Court Denies Certification in "Walsh" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Patricia Walsh's motion for class certification in a putative
class action lawsuit against Principal Life Insurance Company and
Princor Financial Services Corporation has been denied by the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, according
to Principal 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.

On Aug. 28, 2007, a putative class action lawsuit was filed by
Patricia Walsh (and another plaintiff, who subsequently withdrew)
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa
against Principal Life and Princor Financial Services
Corporation.

The lawsuit alleges that the defendants breached alleged
fiduciary duties to participants in employer-sponsored 401(k)
plans who were retiring or leaving their respective plans,
including providing misleading information and failing to act
solely in the interests of the participants, resulting in alleged
violations of ERISA.

The plaintiff's motion for class certification was denied on
March 24, 2010.

Principal Financial Group, Inc. -- http://www.principal.com/--  
is a provider of retirement savings, investment and insurance
products and services.  PFG's United States and international
operations concentrate primarily on asset accumulation and asset
management.  In addition, it offers a range of individual and
group life insurance, group health insurance, individual and
group disability insurance and group dental and vision insurance.  
PFG primarily focus on small and medium-sized businesses
providing an array of retirement and employee benefit solutions
to meet the needs of the business, the business owner and their
employees.  PGF has four segments: U.S. Asset Accumulation,
Global Asset Management, International Asset Management and
Accumulation, and Life and Health Insurance.


PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL: New Jersey Suit Dismissed
----------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court of New Jersey has granted Integrative
Chiropractic Center, P.C.'s motion to dismiss without prejudice,
a putative class action lawsuit against Principal Financial
Group, Inc., and Principal Life Insurance Company, 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 suit was filed July 15, 2009.

The complaint alleged the defendants systematically underpaid out
of network health claims through use of a national database used
to calculate the usual and customary rate.  The plaintiff was
also suing on behalf of a subset of purported class members who
submitted claims under a group health plan subject to ERISA that
was insured or administered by us, and were paid less than the
amount submitted on the claim.  The complaint alleged violations
of ERISA, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act
and the Sherman Act.

On Jan. 7, 2010, the plaintiff's motion to dismiss without
prejudice was granted by the court.

Principal Financial Group, Inc. -- http://www.principal.com/--  
is a provider of retirement savings, investment and insurance
products and services.  PFG's United States and international
operations concentrate primarily on asset accumulation and asset
management.  In addition, it offers a range of individual and
group life insurance, group health insurance, individual and
group disability insurance and group dental and vision insurance.  
PFG primarily focus on small and medium-sized businesses
providing an array of retirement and employee benefit solutions
to meet the needs of the business, the business owner and their
employees.  PGF has four segments: U.S. Asset Accumulation,
Global Asset Management, International Asset Management and
Accumulation, and Life and Health Insurance.


PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL: Consolidated Suit Moved to Southern Iowa
-------------------------------------------------------------
The matter In re Principal U.S. Property Account Litigation has
been moved from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Iowa, according to Principal 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.

On Dec. 2, 2009 and Dec. 4, 2009, two plaintiffs, Cruise and
Mullaney, each filed putative class action lawsuits in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York against the
company, Principal Life Insurance Company, Principal Global
Investors, LLC, and Principal Real Estate Investors, LLC.

The lawsuits alleged the defendants failed to manage the
Principal U.S. Property Separate Account (PUSPSA) in the best
interests of investors, improperly imposed a withdrawal freeze on
Sept. 26, 2008, and instituted a withdrawal queue to honor
withdrawal requests as sufficient liquidity became available.  
Plaintiffs allege these actions constitute a breach of fiduciary
duties under ERISA.

Plaintiffs seek to certify a class including all qualified ERISA
plans and the participants of those plans that invested in PUSPSA
between Sept. 26, 2008, and the present that have suffered losses
caused by the queue.

The two lawsuits, as well as two subsequently filed complaints
asserting similar claims, have been consolidated and are now
known as In re Principal U.S. Property Account Litigation.

On April 22, 2010, an order was entered granting the motion made
by the defendants for change of venue to the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Iowa.

Principal Financial Group, Inc. -- http://www.principal.com/--  
is a provider of retirement savings, investment and insurance
products and services.  PFG's United States and international
operations concentrate primarily on asset accumulation and asset
management.  In addition, it offers a range of individual and
group life insurance, group health insurance, individual and
group disability insurance and group dental and vision insurance.  
PFG primarily focus on small and medium-sized businesses
providing an array of retirement and employee benefit solutions
to meet the needs of the business, the business owner and their
employees.  PGF has four segments: U.S. Asset Accumulation,
Global Asset Management, International Asset Management and
Accumulation, and Life and Health Insurance.


SEQUENOM INC: Settlement Agreement Gets Court's Final Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California,
on May 3, 2010, entered an order approving the stipulation of
settlement reached in the class action securities lawsuits
consolidated under the caption In re Sequenom, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Master File No. 3:09-cv-00921 LAB-WMC, according to
the company's May 5, 2010, Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

Under the settlement agreement, in exchange for a release of all
claims by the class members and a dismissal of the consolidated
lawsuits, the company has agreed:

     (i) to pay the class members and their attorneys a total of
         $14 million which will be funded from insurance
         proceeds,

    (ii) to issue to the class members and their attorneys
         shares of the company's common stock, and

   (iii) to adopt certain corporate governance measures,
         including an amendment to the company's Bylaws to
         provide that at all times a majority of the company's
         directors must be independent.

The number of shares of the company's common stock to be issued
will be determined on a date to be established after final
approval of the settlement by the U.S. District Court and will
constitute 9.95% of the shares of the company's common stock
outstanding post-issuance, provided that certain shares issued
after entry into the stipulation of settlement, including any
shares issued in a bona fide financing, in connection with a
licensing, collaboration or acquisition transaction or pursuant
to our currently existing equity incentive plans, will be
excluded from the shares outstanding calculation.

As of Dec. 23, 2009, the company had 61,693,241 shares of common
stock outstanding, and if the share number had been determined as
of that date, the company would have been obligated to issue
6,816,743 shares of common stock pursuant to the terms of the
settlement.

Sequenom, Inc. -- http://www.sequenom.com/-- is a diagnostic  
testing and genetics analysis company.  The company is focused on
providing products, services, diagnostic testing, applications
and genetic analysis products that translate the results of
genomic science into solutions for biomedical research,
translational research, molecular medicine applications, and
agricultural, livestock and other areas of research.


THOMSON REUTERS: Distribution of Filed Court Documents Challenged
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Law Times reports that lawyer Lorne Waldman is spearheading a
class action against Thomson Reuters Corp. over the alleged
reproduction of filed court documents on the Internet.

The claims, which haven't been proven in court, allege the
company allows subscribers to access the materials on a Web site
without the consent of the lawyers who wrote them, according to
Sack Goldblatt Mitchell LLP, the Canadian law firm acting as
counsel for the plaintiff side.

Waldman is the representative plaintiff in the case, which
alleges Thomson Reuters has infringed the Copyright Act.

A copy of the Statement of Claim is available at:

     http://www.sgmlaw.com/media/PDFs/Thomsonclaim.PDF

The claim alleges that legal documents written by Mr. Waldman, on
behalf of Mr. Arar, (along with more than 50,000 other documents)
have been copied by Thomson Reuters and that verbatim copies of
these documents have been made available for download via its
"Litigator" service. Litigator is a fee and subscription-based
database for lawyer-created court documents that permits users to
copy and edit documents for their own purposes. At no time are
the authors of these documents informed that their documents are
copied, sold, or reproduced. Documents downloaded from this
service are branded "(C) Thomson Reuters Canada Limited or its
Licensors.  All rights reserved."

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Louis Sokolov, Esq.
          Jordan Goldblatt, Esq.
          SACK GOLDBLATT MITCHELL LLP
          20 Dundas St. West, Suite 1100
          Toronto, Ontario M5G 2G8
          CANADA
          Telephone: 416-979-6400

The Plaintiff's law firm has set up a case-specific Web site at
http://www.trcopyright.ca/to provide additional information  
about this litigation.


TORONTO-DOMINION: Kaw Foundation Sees $14.6 Mil. Cy Press Award
---------------------------------------------------------------
Julius Melnitzer at the Financial Post reports that in what it
describes as a "groundbreaking development relating to class-
action settlements, and a significant new funding source for non-
profits across Canada," the Law Foundation of Ontario has
launched a $14.6 million Access to Justice Fund. The Fund results
from the cy-pres aspect of the settlement in a class action suit,
Cassano v. Toronto Dominion Bank. The Fund, which is seeking
applications, will be used for law-related projects relevant to
linguistic minorities and people living in rural and remote
areas, aboriginal people, individuals without legal
representation, family violence and consumer rights.

More information is available online at:

     http://www.canadanewswire.ca/en/releases/archive/May2010/31/c6458.html

or from Project Director Tanya Lee at 416-598-1550, ext. 318.


TOYOTA MOTOR: One MDL Complaint & Document Turnover Ordered
-----------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad at The National Law Journal reports that the
federal judge overseeing the multidistrict litigation against the
Toyota Motor Corp. ordered its lawyers to turn over tens of
thousands of pages of internal documents that the company has
already provided to Congress, which is investigating the
company's vehicle recalls.

U.S. District Judge James Selna acknowledged the challenges
Toyota faces in providing the documents, many of which could end
up being privileged or including trade secrets. Some of them
still need to be translated into English from Japanese.

But he appeared convinced that some of the documents could be
provided within a month, especially since they already are in the
hands of Congress.

Such a schedule, Selna said during a hearing on Friday, would
"advance the ball" in the litigation, which includes some 300
lawsuits against Toyota. Most of the claims seek economic losses
on behalf of consumers; others are personal injury and wrongful
death lawsuits.

Toyota's lawyers argued for more time. Lisa Gilford, a Los
Angeles partner at Atlanta's Alston & Bird, called the judge's
discovery order a "fairly difficult burden" and "aggressive,"
given that Toyota could be forced to turn over 75,000 pages of
documents.

"There are things that need to be worked out before that
information can be produced to the plaintiffs," she said.

Vincent Galvin, a partner in the San Jose office of Bowman and
Brooke who also represents Toyota, upped that estimate to more
than 100,000 pages. Toyota's response to Congress, he said, was
like loading up a truck with one's personal belongings in the
rush to escape an approaching forest fire, with no time to divide
items to be donated to Goodwill from treasured family photos.
It's clear from questions Congressional committee members put to
Toyota that they "don't know what they got," he said.

Selna acknowledged that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
unlike congressional subpoenas, allow Toyota's lawyers to siphon
out documents that could qualify for a protective order or
attorney-client privilege. "I don't think the plaintiffs have
power equal to various branches of government," he said.

Plaintiffs lawyers asked for all the documents. "We need that
material to form an educated complaint," said Steve Berman,
founding partner of Seattle's Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, one of
the lead plaintiffs lawyers.

In the end, Selna gave Toyota's lawyers 30 days to turn over all
documents that are not privileged or subject to a protective
order, which he expected to issue within a month. Japanese-
language documents, he said, did not need to be provided within
that schedule, giving time for Toyota's lawyers to translate
them.

He ordered the plaintiffs lawyers to file their consolidated
class complaint within 60 days, after which Toyota's lawyers
could move to dismiss. Selna hoped that schedule would prove
adequate for the pleading stage of the case, a "critical
milestone in terms of shaping this litigation."

He rejected Toyota's attempts to order that the plaintiffs file
four consolidated class complaints based on the different recalls
and alleged defects: floor mats, accelerator pedals, electronic
throttle control system and claims by entities other than
consumers.

"The plaintiffs are the masters of their case," Selna said. "I
don't think the role of the court is to impose artificial
constraints."

Following the hearing, Berman praised that decision. He also was
pleased with the court's discovery order.

"It's already in the truck," he said of Toyota's documents. "Just
drive it over here."

The next hearing in the case is scheduled for June 23.

                            *********

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  * * *