CAR_Public/100607.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, June 7, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 110

                            Headlines

ALLSTATE LIFE: Continues to Defend ERISA Violations Suit
ALLSTATE LIFE: Continues to Defend ADEA Violations Lawsuit
BOWNE & CO: Inks Memo of Understanding to Settle Sartoretti Suit
BP PLC: Six of Twelve Judges in E.D. La. Say They're Conflicted
BRIGGS & STRATTON: Settlement in Horsepower Suit Approved

BRIGGS & STRATTON: Faces "Foster" Suit in Ontario
CELERA CORP: Court Approval of $11M Settlement Remains Pending
CERTAINTEED CORP: Shingle Settlement Moves Forward
CHURCHILL DOWNS: Inks MOU to Settle Suits over Youbet Buy
CYBERSOURCE CORP: Being Sold for Too Little, Calif. Suit Claims

FACEBOOK INC: Third-Party Advertising Practice Draws Fire
GOOGLE INC: Ordered to Hand Over Hard Drive Data in WiFi Suit
GOOGLE INC: Seattle Locksmith Files Click Fraud Suit
HARLAND CLARKE: Ill. Court Approves Settlement in Kitson's Suit
HEALTHSOUTH CORP: July 22 Hearing on E&Y & UBS Settlement Pact

HUGHES COMMUNICATIONS: Defends Consolidated Complaint in Calif.
HUGHES COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Suit Over Early Termination Fees
IKEA HOME: Recalls 200 Boys' Hooded Jackets
IRWIN NATURALS: Sold Overpriced, Ineffective "Colon Cleansers"
MAYTAG CORP: Recalls 1.7 million Dishwashers

MDL 1840: Judge Vratil Certifies "Hot Fuel" Class
ONE STEP AHEAD: Recalls 2,700 Animal Crackers Giant Stacking Toys
PHI INC: Motion to Dismiss Superior Offshore's Suit Pending
REX ENERGY: Court Gives Final Approval to $1.9 Mil. Settlement
SEI INVESTMENTS: SIDCO Defends Suit Over ProShares Advised ETFs

SEI INVESTMENTS: Defends Suits over Services to Stanford Trust
SPROUT STUFF: Recalls 40 Sprout Stuff Infant Ring Slings
TRANSOCEAN LTD: Defends Suits Over Deepwater Horizon Incident
VOX AMPLIFICATION: Recalls 200 Amplifier Carrying Cases
WESTERN COAL: Shareholder Amends Class Action Lawsuit

* R. Eisler Leads New Antitrust Practice at Grant & Eisenhofer

                            *********

ALLSTATE LIFE: Continues to Defend ERISA Violations Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Allstate Insurance Company continues to defend a putative
nationwide class action filed by former employee agents alleging
various violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act, including a worker classification issue, according to
Allstate Life Insurance Company's May 5, 2010, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2010.

Allstate Insurance is Allstate Life's parent.

These plaintiffs are challenging certain amendments to the Agents
Pension Plan and are seeking to have exclusive agent independent
contractors treated as employees for benefit purposes.  This
matter was dismissed with prejudice by the trial court, was the
subject of further proceedings on appeal, and was reversed and
remanded to the trial court in 2005.

In June 2007, the court granted Allstate Insurance's motion to
dismiss the case.  Following plaintiffs' filing of a notice of
appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued an
order in December 2007 stating that the notice of appeal was not
taken from a final order within the meaning of the federal law
and thus not appealable at this time.

In March 2008, the Third Circuit decided that the appeal should
not summarily be dismissed and that the question of whether the
matter is appealable at this time will be addressed by the Third
Circuit along with the merits of the appeal.

In July 2009, the Third Circuit vacated the decision which
granted Allstate Insurance's motion to dismiss the case, remanded
the case to the trial court for additional discovery, and
directed that the case be reassigned to another trial court
judge.

In January 2010, the case was assigned to a new judge for further
proceedings in the trial court.

Allstate Life Insurance Co. -- http://www.allstate.com/-- is a  
life insurance company.  The company, together with its
subsidiaries, provides life insurance, retirement and investment
products for individual and institutional customers.  Allstate
Life conducts substantially all of its operations directly or
through wholly owned United States subsidiaries.  The company and
its subsidiaries are collectively referred to as the Allstate
Life Group.  The Allstate Life Group's principal individual
products are fixed annuities, including deferred, immediate and
indexed, and interest-sensitive, traditional and
variable life insurance.  It also distributes variable annuities
through its bank distribution partners.  Allstate Life is a
wholly owned subsidiary of Allstate Insurance Co., a stock
property-liability insurance company.  Allstate Insurance Co. is
owned by The Allstate Corp.


ALLSTATE LIFE: Continues to Defend ADEA Violations Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------
Allstate Insurance Company continues to defend a consolidated
suit alleging violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment
Act, according to Allstate Life Insurance Company's May 5, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

Allstate Insurance is Allstate Life's parent.

A lawsuit was filed in 2001 by the U.S. Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission alleging retaliation under federal civil
rights laws (EEOC I suit) and a class action filed in 2001 by
former employee agents alleging retaliation and age
discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act,
breach of contract and ERISA violations (Romero I suit).

In 2004, in the consolidated EEOC I and Romero I litigation, the
trial court issued a memorandum and order that, among other
things, certified classes of agents, including a mandatory class
of agents who had signed a release, for purposes of effecting the
court's declaratory judgment that the release is voidable at the
option of the release signer.  The court also ordered that an
agent who voids the release must return to AIC "any and all
benefits received by the [agent] in exchange for signing the
release."  The court also stated that, "on the undisputed facts
of record, there is no basis for claims of age discrimination."

The EEOC and plaintiffs asked the court to clarify and/or
reconsider its memorandum and order and in January 2007, the
judge denied their request.

In June 2007, the court granted AIC's motions for summary
judgment.

Following plaintiffs' filing of a notice of appeal, the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued an order in
December 2007 stating that the notice of appeal was not taken
from a final order within the meaning of the federal law and thus
not appealable at this time.  In March 2008, the Third Circuit
decided that the appeal should not summarily be dismissed and
that the question of whether the matter is appealable at this
time will be addressed by the Third Circuit along with the merits
of the appeal.  In July 2009, the Third Circuit vacated the
decision which granted AIC's summary judgment motions, remanded
the cases to the trial court for additional discovery, and
directed that the cases be reassigned to another trial court
judge.

In January 2010, the cases were assigned to a new judge for
further proceedings in the trial court.

Allstate Life Insurance Co. -- http://www.allstate.com/-- is a  
life insurance company.  The company, together with its
subsidiaries, provides life insurance, retirement and investment
products for individual and institutional customers.  Allstate
Life conducts substantially all of its operations directly or
through wholly owned United States subsidiaries.  The company and
its subsidiaries are collectively referred to as the Allstate
Life Group.  The Allstate Life Group's principal individual
products are fixed annuities, including deferred, immediate and
indexed, and interest-sensitive, traditional and
variable life insurance.  It also distributes variable annuities
through its bank distribution partners.  Allstate Life is a
wholly owned subsidiary of Allstate Insurance Co., a stock
property-liability insurance company.  Allstate Insurance Co. is
owned by The Allstate Corp.


BOWNE & CO: Inks Memo of Understanding to Settle Sartoretti Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bowne & Co., Inc., has entered into a memorandum of understanding
to settle the matter Sartoretti v. Bowne &  Co., Inc., 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 company, members of its board of directors and management,
R.R. Donnelley and Merger Sub have been named as defendants in
four purported class action lawsuits brought in the Supreme Court
of the State of New York and consolidated under the caption and
index number Sartoretti v. Bowne &  Co., Inc., et al., Index No.
600531/2010.

The consolidated complaint filed on April 12, 2010, alleges
breach of fiduciary duty by the directors and officers in
connection with the acquisition contemplated by the merger
agreement, and asserts aiding and abetting claims against the
Company, R.R. Donnelly and Merger Sub.

On April 21, 2010, the parties entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding, which contemplates, subject to completion of
definitive settlement documents and court approval, a settlement
of the consolidated cases.

The company has accrued $550,000 as of March 31, 2010, related to
the estimated settlement costs.

Bowne & Co., Inc. -- http://www.bowne.com/-- provides  
shareholder and marketing communications services around the
world.  Dealmakers rely on Bowne to handle critical capital
markets communications with speed and accuracy.  Compliance
professionals turn to Bowne to prepare and file regulatory and
shareholder communications online and in print.  Investment
managers and third party fund administrators count on Bowne's
integrated solutions to streamline their document processes and
produce high quality communications for their shareholders.  
Marketers look to Bowne to create and distribute customized, one-
to-one communications on demand.  With 2,700 employees in 50
offices around the globe, Bowne has met the ever-changing demands
of its clients for more than 230 years.


BP PLC: Six of Twelve Judges in E.D. La. Say They're Conflicted
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ashby Jones at The Wall Street Journal's Law Blog reports that
Bloomberg News reports that the bulk of the litigation arising
out of the Gulf Oil Spill might end up in front of a judge who
doesn't sit in New Orleans, which otherwise might be considered
the most natural place to consolidate all the litigation.

The reason: Federal judges in New Orleans are withdrawing from
cases, citing conflicts of interest.

According to Bloomberg, six of the 12 active judges in the
Eastern District of Louisiana have removed themselves from oil
spill cases.  The judges are citing conflicts tied to the energy
sector and personal relationships with lawyers or companies
involved.

Federal judges in southern Alabama also have stepped away from
handling spill-damage cases, according to Bloomberg.

So how's it all likely to play out? At a hearing next month, a
panel of federal judges will appoint one judge to handle the MDL
-- or multi-district litigation.  That judge will then have
considerable discretion on how to handle the cases going forward.

If the case doesn't go forward with a New Orleans or Alabama
judge, one possibility is New York federal judge Shira
Scheindlin.  Plainitiffs' lawyers with Weitz & Luxenberg in New
York asked the panel to assign her to oversee the litigation.
Scheindlin previously handled the consolidation of more than 200
lawsuits over drinking water supplies contaminated by a gasoline
additive.

BP and other defendants in spill cases asked the multidistrict
panel to put the case in Houston, home of each one's U.S.
operational headquarters. The companies asked that the case be
assigned to Judge Lynn Hughes.

Hughes, in an e-mail to Bloomberg, declined to discuss any aspect
of the oil spill case before him or any potential conflict of
interest.


BRIGGS & STRATTON: Settlement in Horsepower Suit Approved
---------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin
gave its preliminary approval to the settlement in the matter In
Re: Lawnmower Engine Horsepower Marketing and Sales Practices
Litigation, Case No. 2:08-md-01999, according to Briggs &
Stratton Corp.'s May 5, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March
28, 2010.

Starting with the first complaint in June 2004, various plaintiff
groups filed complaints in state and federal courts across the
country against the company and other engine and lawnmower
manufacturers alleging that the horsepower labels on the products
they purchased were inaccurate and that the company conspired
with other engine and lawnmower manufacturers to conceal the true
horsepower of these engines.

In May 2008, a putative nationwide class of plaintiffs pursuing
these claims was dismissed without prejudice by Judge Murphy of
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois.  
Since that time plaintiffs filed 66 separate class actions in 49
states across the country seeking to certify 52 separate classes
of all persons in each of the 50 states, Puerto Rico and the
District of Columbia who purchased a lawnmower containing a
gasoline combustion engine up to 30 horsepower from 1994 to the
present (Horsepower Class Actions).  In these Horsepower Class
Actions, plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, compensatory and
punitive damages, and attorneys' fees.  Plaintiffs also filed
state and federal antitrust and RICO claims and seek a nationwide
class based on these claims.

On Sept. 25, 2008, the company, along with all other defendants,
filed a motion with the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation seeking to transfer all pending actions to a single
federal court for coordinated pretrial proceedings.  On Dec. 5,
2008, the Multidistrict Litigation Panel granted the motion and
transferred the cases to Judge Adelman of the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Wisconsin (In Re: Lawnmower Engine
Horsepower Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation, Case No.
2:08-md-01999).  On Jan. 27, 2009, Judge Adelman entered a stay
of all litigation so that the parties could conduct mediation in
an effort to resolve all outstanding litigation.

On Feb. 24, 2010, the company entered into a Stipulation of
Settlement that, if given final court approval, will resolve all
of the Horsepower Class Actions.  Other parties to the Settlement
are Sears, Roebuck and Co., Sears Holdings Corporation, Kmart
Holdings Corporation, Deere & Company, Tecumseh Products Company,
The Toro Company, Electrolux Home Products, Inc. and Husqvarna
Outdoor Products, Inc. (now known as Husqvarna Consumer Outdoor
Products, N.A., Inc.).

All other defendants settled all claims separately.  As part of
the Settlement, the company denies any and all liability and
seeks resolution to avoid further protracted and expensive
litigation.  If finally approved, the Settlement resolves all
horsepower-labeling claims brought by "all persons or entities in
the United States who, beginning January 1, 1994 through the date
notice of the Settlement is first given, purchased, for use and
not for resale, a lawn mower containing a gas combustible engine
up to 30 horsepower provided that either the lawn mower or the
engine of the lawn mower was manufactured or sold by a
Defendant."

As part of the Settlement, the Settling Defendants as a group
agreed to pay an aggregate amount of $51.0 million.  In addition,
the company, along with the other Settling Defendants, agreed to
injunctive relief regarding their future horsepower labeling, as
well as procedures that will allow purchasers of lawnmower
engines to seek a one-year extended warranty free of charge.

On Feb. 26, 2010, Judge Adelman preliminarily approved the
Settlement, certified a settlement class, appointed settlement
class counsel, and stayed all proceedings against all the
Settling Defendants.  On March 11, 2010, Judge Adelman entered an
order approving a notice plan for the Settlement, and set a final
approval hearing for June 22, 2010 to determine the fairness of
the Settlement, and whether final judgment should be entered
thereon.

As a result of the pending Settlement, the company recorded a
total charge of $30.6 million, or $18.7 million after-tax, in the
third quarter of fiscal 2010 representing the total of the
company's monetary portion of the Settlement and the estimated
costs of extending the warranty period for one year.  The amount
has been included as a Litigation Settlement expense reducing
income from operations on the Consolidated Condensed Statements
of Income.

Briggs & Stratton Corporation, headquartered in Milwaukee,
Wisconsin, is the world's largest producer of gasoline engines
for outdoor power equipment.  Its wholly owned subsidiary Briggs
& Stratton Power Products Group LLC is North America's number one
manufacturer of portable generators and pressure washers, and is
a leading designer, manufacturer and marketer of lawn and garden
and turf care through its Simplicity(R), Snapper(R), Ferris(R)
and Murray(R) brands.  Briggs & Stratton products are designed,
manufactured, marketed and serviced in over 100 countries on six
continents.


BRIGGS & STRATTON: Faces "Foster" Suit in Ontario
-------------------------------------------------
Briggs & Stratton Corp. faces a suit captioned Robert Foster et
al. v. Sears Canada, Inc. et al., Docket No. 766-2010, pending in
the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Canada, 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 28, 2010.

On March 19, 2010, new plaintiffs filed a complaint in the
Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Canada containing
allegations and seeking relief under Canadian law that are
similar to the U.S. Horsepower Class Actions.

The company is evaluating the complaint and has not yet filed an
answer or other responsive pleading.

Briggs & Stratton Corporation, headquartered in Milwaukee,
Wisconsin, is the world's largest producer of gasoline engines
for outdoor power equipment.  Its wholly owned subsidiary Briggs
& Stratton Power Products Group LLC is North America's number one
manufacturer of portable generators and pressure washers, and is
a leading designer, manufacturer and marketer of lawn and garden
and turf care through its Simplicity(R), Snapper(R), Ferris(R)
and Murray(R) brands.  Briggs & Stratton products are designed,
manufactured, marketed and serviced in over 100 countries on six
continents.


CELERA CORP: Court Approval of $11M Settlement Remains Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in consolidated class-action complaint against
Applied Biosystems, Inc., nka Life Technologies, captioned In re
PE Corporation Securities Litigation, Master File No. 3:00-CV-
705, awaits approval from the U.S. District Court for the
District of Connecticut of the stipulation and agreement of
settlement entered into which provides for a settlement in the
aggregate amount of $11 million, according to Celera Corp.'s
May 5, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 27, 2010.

Applied Biosystems and some of its officers are defendants in a
lawsuit brought on behalf of purchasers of Celera stock in its
follow-on public offering of Celera stock completed on March 6,
2000.  In the offering, Applied Biosystems sold an aggregate of
approximately 4.4 million shares of Celera stock at a public
offering price of $225 per share.  The lawsuit, which was
commenced with the filing of several complaints in April and May
2000, is pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Connecticut, and an amended consolidated complaint was filed on
Aug. 21, 2001.

The consolidated complaint generally alleges that the prospectus
used in connection with the offering was inaccurate or misleading
because it failed to adequately disclose the alleged opposition
of the Human Genome Project and two of its supporters, the
governments of the U.S. and the U.K., to providing patent
protection to Celera's genomic-based products.

Although neither Celera nor Applied Biosystems ever sought, or
intended to seek, a patent on the basic human genome sequence
data, the complaint also alleges that Applied Biosystems did not
adequately disclose the risk that it would not be able to patent
this data.

The consolidated complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages,
rescission, costs and expenses, and other relief as the court
deems proper.  On March 31, 2005, the court certified the case as
a class action.

In November 2008, the U.S. District Court for the District of
Connecticut issued an order to the parties to show cause why the
case should not be dismissed.  A hearing on this matter was held
in April 2009 at which the Court directed the parties to explore
a potential settlement of the matter.

On March 16, 2010, the parties entered into a Stipulation and
Agreement of Settlement.  The Settlement Agreement provides for a
settlement in the aggregate amount of $11,000,000, which amount
will be funded entirely by Life Technologies Corporation's (as
successor to PE Corporation) insurance carrier.  The settlement
will become effective upon the preliminary approval of the U.S.
District Court for the District of Connecticut and thereafter
remains subject to the final approval of the Court at a fairness
hearing.  The settlement may be terminated at the election of the
defendants in the event that a certain percentage of potential
class members timely and validly request exclusion from the
settlement.  Under the terms of the company's separation
agreement with Life Technologies, the company agreed to indemnify
Life Technologies for liabilities resulting from the class action
lawsuit described above to the extent not covered by Life
Technologies' insurance.

Celera Corp. -- http://www.celera.com/-- is a healthcare  
business focusing on the integration of genetic testing into
routine clinical care through a combination of products and
services incorporating proprietary discoveries.  Berkeley
HeartLab, a subsidiary of Celera, offers services to predict
cardiovascular disease risk and improve patient management.  
Celera also commercializes a wide range of molecular diagnostic
products through Abbott and has licensed other relevant
diagnostic technologies developed to provide personalized disease
management in cancer.


CERTAINTEED CORP: Shingle Settlement Moves Forward
--------------------------------------------------
NBC Channel 15 in Madison, Wis., reports that Wisconsin
homeowners with specific defective roofing shingles are eligible
to join a pending nationwide class action lawsuit against
CertainTeed Corporation. In January of this year, the
Pennsylvania-based company reached an agreement with homeowners
who argued a type of organic asphalt shingle, made by
CertainTeed, "failed prematurely and didn't perform as well as
the shingles should have." On Tuesday, June 8, 2010, a U.S.
District Court hearing is scheduled in Philadelphia concerning
final approval of the settlement.

"We want consumers to understand their rights in a situation like
this one," said Janet Jenkins, Administrator of the Trade and
Consumer Protection Division with the Wisconsin Department of
Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection. "Since 2000, we've
received 190 complaints against CertainTeed, many involving
shingles."

CertainTeed says 94 percent of the shingles in question were sold
in Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, North Dakota,
South Dakota, and Wisconsin from July 1, 1987 through 2005. The
organic shingles were marketed under the brand names:

          * Hallmark Shangle
          * Independence Shangle
          * Horizon Shangle
          * Custom Sealdon
          * Custom Sealdon 30
          * Sealdon 20
          * Sealdon 25
          * Hearthstead
          * Solid Slab
          * Master Slab
          * Custom Saf-T-Lok
          * Saf-T-Lok
          * Custom Lok 25

Fiberglass shingles manufactured by CertainTeed during this time
period are not part of the lawsuit. Consumers with defective
shingles should check their receipts, warranties or other proofs
of purchase to verify the brand of shingles and the date they
were purchased. CertainTeed has agreed to pay up to $50 to have a
roofing professional remove a shingle for identification;
however, reimbursement only applies if the shingles are
determined to have been made by CertainTeed.

This proposed settlement is not for a lump sum; instead, pending
its approval, qualifying homeowners will be compensated based on
a prorated formula.

"For example, if you have a 30 year shingle warranty and your
shingles have held up for 20 years, any money coming your way
will be based on those 10 remaining years," Jenkins explained.
"You are not entitled to a full refund under this settlement."

CertainTeed continues to deny the allegations and maintains the
"vast majority" of the shingles are defect-free. The company said
it agreed to the settlement to avoid the expense and
inconvenience of further legal proceedings.

"Despite the number of complaints filed with Consumer Protection
against CertainTeed, state law prevents a governmental agency
from filing a class action lawsuit on behalf of private
individuals," Jenkins said. "Moreover, state law typically does
not require the seller in this type of case to pay the cost of
replacing the entire roof. We encourage dissatisfied consumers to
familiarize themselves with the private lawsuit since it could be
the quickest, easiest way to recover as much money as possible,"
Jenkins added.

To join the settlement, you must:

     * Own a home or building where CertainTeed Organic Shingles
       were installed as of December 15, 2009.

     * Meet the definition of damage as set forth in the
       settlement agreement; shingles that show blistering,
       cracking, or curling.

     * Prove the damage occurred prior to the end of the
       shingles' warranty period.

     * Prove the damage was caused by product defect, not by
       circumstances beyond CertainTeed's control such as
       improper installation or maintenance.

The deadline for filing claims ranges from 90 days to 25 years,
depending on the individual circumstances of the claim. The
settlement becomes effective 30 days after its court approval.
For additional information about the class action lawsuit against
CertainTeed, or to download an online claim form, visit
http://www.certainteedshinglesettlement.com/

As indicated on the Web site, claims must be filed directly with
the settlement claims administrator, not the Bureau of Consumer
Protection.

Consumers who do not have Internet access can obtain more
information and the necessary forms by contacting:

          CertainTeed Claims Administrator
          1400 Union Meeting Road
          Blue Bell, PA 19422-0761
          Toll Free: 1-888-898-4111


CHURCHILL DOWNS: Inks MOU to Settle Suits over Youbet Buy
---------------------------------------------------------
Churchill Downs Incorporated has entered into a memorandum of
understanding to resolve two suits resulting from its planned
acquisition of Youbet.com, Inc., 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.

During November 2009, the company announced that it had entered
into a merger agreement with Youbet under which it plans to
acquire all of the outstanding common stock of Youbet in a
transaction valued at approximately $137.0 million.

                  Los Angeles Litigation

On Nov. 17, 2009, a putative class action lawsuit, Wayne
Witkowski v. Youbet.com, Inc., et al., was filed in the Superior
Court of Los Angeles, California against Youbet, various of its
directors, the company and the company's wholly-owned
subsidiaries, Tomahawk Merger Corp. (Merger Sub) and Tomahawk
Merger LLC (Merger LLC).

Subsequently, five additional lawsuits were also filed in the Los
Angeles Superior Court, two of which name Youbet and its
directors as defendants and three of which also name the company
as a defendant.  All six lawsuits are putative class actions
brought on behalf of Youbet's stockholders.  Plaintiffs in the
Los Angeles litigation have since moved to consolidate the Los
Angeles litigation, to file a single consolidated complaint and
to appoint lead counsel.  That motion was granted on Jan. 22,
2010.

The complaints in the Los Angeles litigation all allege that
Youbet's directors have breached their fiduciary duties,
including alleged duties of loyalty, due care and candor, in
connection with the proposed merger transaction.  In that regard,
the various complaints include, among other things:

     -- allegations that the proposed transaction is the result
        of an inadequate sales process which has not been
        designed to maximize stockholder value;

     -- that the consideration to be received by Youbet
        shareholders is unfair and inadequate;

     -- that the merger agreement includes inappropriate "no
        solicitation," "matching rights," no standstill waiver,
        and termination fee provisions;

     -- that the combined effect of these provisions, together
        with Youbet's waiver of the Youbet stockholder rights
        agreement with respect to the company and the entry of
        voting agreements by defendants and certain others
        pursuant to which they have agreed to vote in favor of
        the proposed merger, is to "lock up" the proposed merger
        transaction, foreclose potential alternative bidders and
        illegally restrain Youbet's ability to solicit or engage
        in negotiations with a third party;

     -- that various defendants acted for their own benefit in
        approving the proposed merger, including for the purpose
        of obtaining positions or pursuing opportunities at the
        company; and

     -- that material information has not been provided in
        connection with the proposed transaction and was not
        provided at the time that Youbet submitted the Youbet
        stockholder rights agreement to a stockholder vote.

Those lawsuits which name the company or its affiliates as
defendants also allege that the company has aided and abetted the
alleged breaches of fiduciary duty by Youbet's directors.  Youbet
is also alleged to have aided and abetted the alleged breaches of
fiduciary duty by its directors.  Among the relief sought by the
complaints is an enjoining of the proposed merger transaction, or
unspecified damages if the transaction is consummated, together
with payment of attorneys' fees and costs.

                           Balch Action

On Dec. 23, 2009, a putative class action lawsuit, Raymond Balch
v. Youbet.com, Inc., et al., was filed in the Delaware Court of
Chancery against Youbet, various of its directors, the company,
Merger Sub and Merger LLC.

The initial Balch complaint contained allegations similar to
those made in the Los Angeles litigation, including a claim that
the company aided and abetted alleged breaches of fiduciary duty
by Youbet's directors.  On Jan. 8, 2010, an amended complaint was
filed in Balch, adding a claim against Youbet's directors for an
alleged breach of the fiduciary duty of disclosure, and adding
allegations that the draft Registration Statement filed by the
company with the Securities and Exchange Commission in connection
with the proposed merger transaction omits material information
and is materially misleading in various respects.  Among the
relief sought by the Balch amended complaint is an enjoining of
the proposed merger transaction, or unspecified damages if the
transaction is consummated, together with payment of attorneys'
fees and costs.

                    Memorandum of Understanding

On March 2, 2010, Youbet, Youbet's directors, CDI, Merger Sub,
and Merger LLC entered into a memorandum of understanding with
the plaintiffs in the Los Angeles litigation and the plaintiffs
in the Balch litigation reflecting an agreement in principle to
settle the cases based on defendants' agreement to include in
this proxy statement/prospectus certain additional disclosures
relating to the proposed merger transaction.  Youbet, Youbet's
directors, CDI, Merger Sub, and Merger LLC each deny that they
have committed or aided and abetted in the commission of any
violation of law or engaged in any of the wrongful acts alleged
in the complaints, and expressly maintain that they diligently
and scrupulously complied with any and all of their legal duties.

Although Youbet, Youbet's directors, CDI, Merger Sub, and Merger
LLC believe the lawsuits are without merit, they entered into the
memorandum of understanding to eliminate the burden and expense
of further litigation.  The memorandum of understanding provides
that the settlement is subject to customary conditions including
the completion of appropriate settlement documentation completion
of confirmatory discovery, court approval of the settlement,
dismissal of the Los Angeles litigation with prejudice, dismissal
of the Balch litigation with prejudice, and the consummation of
the proposed merger transaction by the Outside Date (as such term
is defined in the merger agreement).  Additionally, plaintiffs'
counsel is entitled to void the memorandum of understanding if
they determine in good faith that, based upon facts learned
subsequent to the execution of the memorandum of understanding,
the proposed settlement is not fair, reasonable and adequate.

If the settlement is consummated, the Los Angeles litigation and
the Balch litigation will each be dismissed with prejudice and
the defendants and other released persons will receive from or on
behalf of all of Youbet's non-affiliated public stockholders who
held Youbet common stock at any time from Nov. 10, 2009, through
the date of the consummation of the merger a release of all
claims relating to the proposed merger transaction, the merger
agreement and the transactions contemplated therein, disclosures
made relating to the proposed merger transaction, and any
compensation or other payments made to the defendants in
connection with the Youbet stockholders to exercise their
appraisal rights under Delaware law.  Likewise, the plaintiffs
will receive a release from the defendants, on the same or
substantially equivalent terms as the release to be provided to
the defendants.  Members of the purported plaintiff class will be
sent notice of the proposed settlement, and a hearing date before
the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles will be
schedule regarding, among other things, approval of the proposed
settlement and any application by plaintiffs' counsel for an
award of attorneys' fees and expenses.

Churchill Downs Incorporated --
http://www.ChurchillDownsIncorporated.com/-- headquartered in  
Louisville, Ky., owns and operates four world renowned
Thoroughbred racing facilities: Arlington Park in Illinois,
Calder Casino and Race Course in Florida, Churchill Downs Race
Track in Kentucky and Fair Grounds Race Course & Slots in
Louisiana.  CDI operates slot and gaming operations in Louisiana
and Florida.  Churchill Downs tracks are host to North America's
most prestigious races, including the Arlington Million, the
Kentucky Derby, the Kentucky Oaks, the Louisiana Derby and the
Princess Rooney, along with hosting the Breeders' Cup World
Championships for a record seventh time on Nov. 5-6, 2010.  
Churchill Downs also owns off-track betting facilities,
TwinSpires.com and other advance-deposit wagering channels,
television production, telecommunications and racing service
companies such as BRIS and a 50-percent interest in the national
cable and satellite network, HorseRacing TV, which supports
Churchill Downs' network of simulcasting and racing operations.  
Churchill Downs' Entertainment Group produces the HullabaLOU
Music Festival at Churchill Downs which premieres on July 23-25,
2010.


CYBERSOURCE CORP: Being Sold for Too Little, Calif. Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that CyberSource Corp. is selling
itself too cheaply to Visa, for $26 a share or $2 billion,
shareholders claim in Santa Clara County Court, Calif.

A copy of the Complaint in Inter-Local Pension Fund of the
Graphic Communications Conference of the International
Brotherhood of Teamsters v. CyberSource Corporation, et al., Case
No. 1-10-CV-173424 (Calif. Super. Ct., Santa Clara Cty.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/06/02/SCA.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
          GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP
          1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: 310-201-9150
          E-mail: info@glancylaw.com

               - and -

          SPECTOR ROSEMAN KODROFF & WILLIS, P.C.
          1818 Market St., Suite 2500
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: 215-496-0300

               - and -

          SPECTOR ROSEMAN KODROFF & WILLIS, P.C.
          1101 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., Suite 600
          Washington, DC 20004
          Telephone: 202-756-3600


FACEBOOK INC: Third-Party Advertising Practice Draws Fire
---------------------------------------------------------
Adam Jensen at the Tahoe Daily Tribune reports that a class
action lawsuit was filed against popular social networking Web
site Facebook.com, claiming the site divulged personal
information to advertisers against its privacy policy.

David Gould filed the lawsuit against Facebook in federal court
in San Jose, Calif.  The suit seeks unspecified damages for Gould
and any Facebook user who clicked on a third-party advertisement
contained on the site between Feb. 4, 2004 and May 21, 2010.

When Facebook users clicked on an advertisement, the social
networking site sent the advertiser a "Referrer Header" including
the user ID of the person clicking the advertisement, according
to the suit.

The "Referrer Header" allowed the advertisers to navigate back to
the page and "gain the ultimate demographic information: users'
true identities, including real name, gender, friends, interests,
and more. All in violation of Facebook's own Privacy Policy,"
according to the suit.

Facebook has come under fire in recent months for changes to its
privacy policy. Critics contend the social networking site has
not been upfront with it's more than 400 million users regarding
how information they post to the site could be used.

Representatives from Facebook did not immediately return a
request for comment on Wednesday.


GOOGLE INC: Ordered to Hand Over Hard Drive Data in WiFi Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Nick McCann at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal
judge has ordered Google to hand over copies of its hard drives
in a class action accusing the search giant of collecting private
wireless data while gathering information for Google Street View.

Google has been hit with privacy lawsuits after it began hiring
drivers to travel the country collecting information for the
Street View feature of its mapping application.

The company recently admitted to collecting wireless data and
announced its intent to work with privacy advocates and local
governments to safely get rid of the data.

But before that could happen, residents in Oregon and Washington
filed a class action against Google, alleging privacy violations.

Lead plaintiff Vicki Van Valin said the Street View vehicles
contain "wireless sniffers" that "secretly capture[d]" her Social
Security number, banking, medical and personal information.

Each vehicle is equipped with nine cameras to record a 360-degree
view.  While the information requires decoding, Ms. Van Valin
said the company stored the data on servers, meaning "hundreds if
not thousands of Google employees" can obtain access to it.

The temporary restraining order forces Google to turn over
mirror-image copies of existing hard drive data to U.S. District
Judge Michael Mosman.

A copy of the Order on Plaintiffs' Motion for Temporary
Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction in Van Valin, et al.
v. Google, Inc., Case No. 10-cv-00557 (D. Ore.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/06/02/Google%20TRO.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Rick Klingbeil, Esq.
          RICK KLINGBEIL, PC
          520 SW Sixth, Suite 950
          Portland, OR 97204
          Telephone: 503-473-8565
          E-mail: rick@klingbeil-law.com

               - and -

          Brady Mertz, Esq.
          BRADY MERTZ LAW OFFICE
          2285 Liberty St. NE
          Salem, OR 97301
          Telephone: 503-385-0121
          E-mail: brady@bradymertz.com

               - and -

          Brooks Cooper, Esq.
          BROOKS COOPER
          520 SW 6th Ave., Suite 914
          Portland, OR 97204
          Telephone: 971-645-4433
          E-mail: brooks@bcooper-law.com


GOOGLE INC: Seattle Locksmith Files Click Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------
TechFreq News reports that five years after Google settled a
class-action lawsuit brought against it for conniving at click
fraud, the online ad heavyweight has been slapped with a similar
lawsuit, this time by a Seattle locksmith that used Google's
AdWords service for online advertising.

123 Lock & Key has alleged that it was made to pay for even those
ad clicks that seemed fraudulent. According to a complaint filed
with the Kings County state court, 123 Lock & Key has accused
Google of breach of contract and violation of Washington state
laws.

123 Lock was awakened to the possibility of it being a victim of
click-fraud when there was a sudden spike in daily clicks, but
the "clicks never converted into phone calls." It says that
earlier 80% of the clicks used to lead to phone inquiries.

123 Lock owner Guy Aloni says that although he tried to draw
Google's attention to the issue - even suggesting that the shady
clicks might be the handiwork of a competitor, he could not
elicit a satisfactory response.

Additional coverage of this matter is available from Wendy Davis
at Online Media Daily at http://is.gd/cByOu


HARLAND CLARKE: Ill. Court Approves Settlement in Kitson's Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois
approved the settlement agreement resolving the suit against
Harland Clarke Holdings Corp., 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 June 2008, Kenneth Kitson, purportedly on behalf of himself
and a class of other alleged similarly situated commercial
borrowers from the Bank of Edwardsville, an Illinois-based
community bank, filed in an Illinois state court an amended
complaint that re-asserted previously filed claims against BOE
and added claims against Harland Financial Solutions, Inc.

The amended complaint alleged, among other things, that HFS's
LaserPro software permitted BOE to generate loan documents that
were deceptive and usurious in that they failed to disclose
properly the effect of the "365/360" method of calculating
interest.  Following the removal of the action to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, the
District Court entered an order granting with prejudice HFS's
motion to dismiss Mr. Kitson's claims.

In August 2009, Mr. Kitson, individually and as class
representative, and BOE agreed to settle and dismiss with
prejudice all remaining claims.  Separately but concurrently,
BOE's warranty claim against HFS was settled, in exchange for,
among other things, payment by HFS of $200,000.  The class
settlement agreement was approved by the District Court in
January 2010.

Harland Clarke Holdings Corp. has three business segments, which
are operated by Harland Clarke, Harland Financial Solutions and
Scantron.  Harland Clarke is a provider of checks and related
products, direct marketing services and customized business and
home office products.  Harland Financial Solutions provides
technology products and related services to financial
institutions.  Scantron is a leading provider of data management
solutions and related services to educational, healthcare,
commercial and governmental entities.


HEALTHSOUTH CORP: July 22 Hearing on E&Y & UBS Settlement Pact
--------------------------------------------------------------
To: All Persons Who Purchased, Exchanged or Otherwise Acquired
    Bonds, Notes or Other Debt Instruments of HealthSouth
    Corporation ("HealthSouth") Beginning July 30, 1999 Through
    and Including March 18, 2003 and Were Damaged Thereby

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama,
Southern Division, of the pendency of a class action litigation
on behalf of all persons noted above (the "Bondholder Class");
and that (i) a proposed settlement has been reached with
defendant Ernst & Young LLP ("E&Y") on behalf of those members of
the Bondholder Class who purchased, exchanged or otherwise
acquired HealthSouth bonds, notes or other debt instruments
beginning March 30, 2000 through and including March 18, 2003
(the "E&Y Bondholder Class"), and (ii) a proposed settlement has
been reached with defendants UBS AG, UBS Warburg, LLC, Howard
Capek, Benjamin D. Lorello and William C. McGahan (the "UBS
Defendants") on behalf of those members of the Bondholder Class
who purchased, exchanged or otherwise acquired HealthSouth bonds,
notes or other debt instruments beginning September 20, 2000
through and including March 18, 2003 (the "UBS Bondholder
Class").

A hearing will be held on July 22, 2010, at 10:00 a.m., before
the Honorable Karon Owen Bowdre, at the Hugo L. Black United
States Courthouse, 1729 Fifth Avenue North, Birmingham, Alabama,
for the purpose of determining: (1) whether the proposed
settlement of the claims against E&Y for the principal amount of
$33,500,000 in cash should be approved by the court as fair,
reasonable and adequate, and whether the Final Judgment and Order
of Dismissal with Prejudice as to Ernst & Young LLP should be
entered by the court; (2) whether the proposed settlement of the
claims against the UBS Defendants for the principal amount of
$100,000,000 in cash should be approved by the court as fair,
reasonable and adequate, and whether the Final Judgment and Order
of Dismissal with Prejudice as to UBS Defendants should be
entered by the court; (3) whether, subject to and conditioned
upon both proposed settlements being approved and becoming final,
a judgment should be entered dismissing the claims against the
last remaining defendant in the action; and (4) whether Bond
Plaintiffs' Lead Counsel's application for an award of attorneys'
fees and reimbursement of litigation expenses should be granted.
The court may change the date of the hearing without providing
additional notice.

If you purchased, exchanged or otherwise acquired bonds, notes or
other debt instruments of HealthSouth between March 30, 2000 and
March 18, 2003 inclusive (the E&Y Class Period), your rights may
be affected by the proposed settlement with E&Y. If you
purchased, exchanged or otherwise acquired bonds, notes or other
debt instruments of HealthSouth between September 20, 2000 and
March 18, 2003 inclusive (the UBS Class Period), your rights may
be affected by the proposed settlement with the UBS Defendants.

If you have not received a detailed Notice of (I) Pendency of
Class Action; (II) Proposed Settlements with Ernst & Young LLP
and the UBS Defendants; and (III) Proposed Dismissal of Claims
("Notice") you may obtain a copy by writing to the Claims
Administrator at:

          HealthSouth Corporation Securities Litigation
          E&Y/UBS Bondholder Settlement
          c/o Rust Consulting, Inc.
          P.O. Box 2332
          Faribault, MN 55021-9032

or on the Internet at:

     http://www.HealthSouthBondholderActionSettlements-EY-UBS.com/

          - or -

     http://www.blbglaw.com/

          - or -

     http://www.cunninghambounds.com/

If you are an E&Y Bondholder Class Member or UBS Bondholder Class
Member and previously submitted a Proof of Claim and Release form
("Claim Form") in connection with the previously announced
partial settlement with HealthSouth (and related defendants), do
not do so again. Your earlier claim will be considered for
participation in these settlements. If you are an E&Y Bondholder
Class Member or UBS Bondholder Class Member and did NOT submit a
Claim Form in connection with the earlier partial settlement with
HealthSouth, in order to share in the distribution of the
applicable Net Settlement Fund(s) from these Settlements, you
must submit a Claim Form postmarked no later than September 29,
2010 establishing that you are entitled to a recovery. If you
require a Claim Form, it may be obtained from the Claims
Administrator or you can download a copy from the websites noted
above.

The court has entered an Order certifying the Bondholder Class
(which includes the E&Y Bondholder Class and UBS Bondholder
Class). If you desire to be excluded from the Bondholder Class
(which means you will also be excluded from the E&Y Bondholder
Class and UBS Bondholder Class), you must submit a Request for
Exclusion so that it is received no later than July 7, 2010, in
the manner and form explained in the Notice referred to above.
All members of the Bondholder Class who do not timely and validly
request exclusion will be bound by the judgments entered by the
court in this action, including the judgments that may be entered
pursuant to these Settlements. The Notice explains in greater
detail the effect of excluding yourself from the Bondholder Class
and it should be read.

Any objection to the proposed Settlements with E&Y and the UBS
Defendants, which can only be made by members of the E&Y
Bondholder Class or UBS Bondholder Class respectively, must be
received no later than July 7, 2010, by the persons and in the
manner and form set forth in the Notice.

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING
THIS NOTICE. If you have any questions about the litigation or
the proposed settlements, you may contact the Bondholder
Plaintiffs' Lead Counsel at the following addresses:

          Salvatore J. Graziano, Esq.
          BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
          1285 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10019

               - and -  

          Robert T. Cunningham, Jr.
          CUNNINGHAM BOUNDS, LLC
          1601 Dauphin Street
          Mobile, AL 36604

Lead Counsel for Bondholder Lead Plaintiff, the E&Y Bondholder
Class and the UBS Bondholder Class

Dated: May 12, 2010           BY ORDER OF THE COURT
                              UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                              NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA,
                              SOUTHERN DIVISION


HUGHES COMMUNICATIONS: Defends Consolidated Complaint in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hughes Communications, Inc., is defending a consolidated
complaint pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.

On May 18, 2009, the company and its subsidiary, Hughes Network
Systems, LLC, received notice of a complaint filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California by two
California subscribers to the HughesNet service.

The plaintiffs complain about the speed of the HughesNet service,
the Fair Access Policy, early termination fees and certain terms
and conditions of the HughesNet subscriber agreement.  The
plaintiffs seek to pursue their claims as a class action on
behalf of other California subscribers.

On June 4, 2009, the company and HNS received notice of a similar
complaint filed by another HughesNet subscriber in the Superior
Court of San Diego County, California.  The plaintiff in this
case also seeks to pursue his claims as a class action on behalf
of other California subscribers.

Both cases have been consolidated into a single case in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California.

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.

Hughes Communications, Inc. -- http://www.hughes.com/-- is the  
100 percent owner of Hughes Network Systems, LLC.  Hughes is the
global leader in providing broadband satellite networks and
services for enterprises, governments, small businesses, and
consumers.  HughesNet(R) encompasses all broadband solutions and
managed services from Hughes, bridging the best of satellite and
terrestrial technologies.  Its broadband satellite products are
based on global standards approved by the TIA, ETSI, and ITU
standards organizations, including IPoS/DVB-S2, RSM-A, and GMR-1.  
To date, Hughes has shipped more than 2.2 million systems to
customers in over 100 countries.  Headquartered outside
Washington, DC, in Germantown, Maryland, USA, Hughes maintains
sales and support offices worldwide.


HUGHES COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Suit Over Early Termination Fees
-------------------------------------------------------------
Hughes Communications, Inc., faces a complaint relating to its
early termination fees under the subscriber agreement, 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 Dec. 18, 2009, the company and its subsidiary, Hughes Network
Systems, LLC, received notice of a complaint filed in the Cook
County, Illinois, Circuit Court by a former subscriber to the
HughesNet service.

The complaint seeks a declaration allowing the former subscriber
to file a class arbitration challenging early termination fees
under the subscriber agreement.

Hughes Communications, Inc. -- http://www.hughes.com/-- is the  
100 percent owner of Hughes Network Systems, LLC.  Hughes is the
global leader in providing broadband satellite networks and
services for enterprises, governments, small businesses, and
consumers.  HughesNet(R) encompasses all broadband solutions and
managed services from Hughes, bridging the best of satellite and
terrestrial technologies.  Its broadband satellite products are
based on global standards approved by the TIA, ETSI, and ITU
standards organizations, including IPoS/DVB-S2, RSM-A, and GMR-1.  
To date, Hughes has shipped more than 2.2 million systems to
customers in over 100 countries.  Headquartered outside
Washington, DC, in Germantown, Maryland, USA, Hughes maintains
sales and support offices worldwide.


IKEA HOME: Recalls 200 Boys' Hooded Jackets
-------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
IKEA Home Furnishings, of Conshohocken, Pa., announced a
voluntary recall of about 1,900 IKEA Sultan Heidal spring
mattresses.  Consumers should stop using recalled products
immediately unless otherwise instructed.

The mattresses fail to meet the federal mandatory open flame
standard for mattresses, posing a fire hazard to consumers.

No injuries or incidents have been reported.

The mattresses fail to meet the federal mandatory open flame
standard for mattresses, posing a fire hazard to consumers.


    Mattress Size         Article Number      Supplier Number
    -------------         --------------      ---------------
        Twin                 701-095-77
        Full                 301-109-69
        Queen                501-109-73          20520
        King                 901-109-71


Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10256.html

The recalled products were manufactured in Mexico and sold
through IKEA stores nationwide from June 2007 through April 2010
for between $500 and $1,000.

Consumers should immediately stop using the mattresses and
contact their local IKEA store for instructions on returning the
mattress for a replacement of full refund.

For additional information, contact IKEA toll-free at
(888) 966-4532 anytime, or visit the firm's website at
http://www.ikea-usa.com/


IRWIN NATURALS: Sold Overpriced, Ineffective "Colon Cleansers"
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Klee Irwin, Irwin Naturals,
Ultimate Nutraceuticals, and James Chappell sold overpriced,
ineffective, harmful "colon cleansers" and other stuff to more
than 200,000 people, according to a class action in Wilmington,
N.C., Federal Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Rodriguez v. Irwin, et al., Case No.
10-cv-00102 (E.D.N.C.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/06/02/CCA.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher W. Livingston, Esq.
          2154 Dowd Dairy Rd.
          White Oak, NC 28399
          Telephone: 910-866-4948
          E-mail: chrisatty@hotmail.com


MAYTAG CORP: Recalls 1.7 million Dishwashers
--------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Maytag Corp. of Newton, Iowa or Maytag Corp. of Benton Harbor,
Mich., announced a voluntary recall of about 1.7 million
Dishwashers.  Consumers should stop using recalled products
immediately unless otherwise instructed.

An electrical failure in the dishwasher's heating element can
pose a serious fire hazard.

Maytag has received 12 reports of dishwasher heating element
failures that resulted in fires and dishwasher damage, including
one report of extensive kitchen damage from a fire.  No injuries
have been reported.

The recall includes Maytag(R), Amana(R), Jenn-Air(R), Admiral(R),
Magic Chef(R), Performa by Maytag(R) and Crosley(R) brand
dishwashers with plastic tubs and certain serial numbers.  The
affected dishwashers were manufactured with black, bisque, white,
silver and stainless steel front panels.  The brand name is
printed on the front of the dishwasher.  The model and serial
numbers are printed on a label located inside the plastic tub on
a tag near the left side of the door opening.  Serial numbers
will start or end with one of the following sequences.

     SERIAL number STARTING with     - OR -  SERIAL number ENDING with
     ---------------------------             -------------------------
     NW39, NW40, NW41, NW42, NW43, NW44,     JC, JE, JG, JJ, JL, JN,
     NW45, NW46, NW47, NW48, NW49, NW50,     JP, JR, JT, JV, JX, LA,
     NW51, NW52, NY01, NY02, NY03, NY04,     LC, LE, LG, LJ, LL, LN,
     NY05, NY06, NY07, NY08, NY09, NY10,     LP, LR, LT, LV, LX, NA,
     NY11, NY12, NY13, NY14, NY15, NY16,     NC, NE, NG, NJ, NL, NN,
     NY17, NY18, NY19                        NP, NR

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10255.html

The recalled products were manufactured in United States and sold
through Department and appliance stores and by homebuilders
nationwide from February 2006 through April 2010 for between $250
and $900.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled dishwashers,
disconnect the electric supply by shutting off the fuse or
circuit breaker controlling it, inform all users of the
dishwasher about the risk of fire and contact Maytag to verify if
their dishwasher is included in the recall.  If the dishwasher is
included in the recall, consumers can either schedule a free in-
home repair or receive a rebate following the purchase of certain
new Maytag brand stainless-steel tub dishwashers.  The rebate is
$150 if the consumer purchases new dishwasher models MDB7759,
MDB7609 or MDBH979; or $250 if the consumer purchases new
dishwasher models MDB8959, MDB8859, MDB7809 or MDB7709.  
Consumers should not return the recalled dishwashers to the
retailer where purchased as retailers are not prepared to take
the units back.  For additional information, contact Maytag at
(800) 544-5513 anytime, or visit the firm's website at
http://www.repair.maytag.com/


MDL 1840: Judge Vratil Certifies "Hot Fuel" Class
-------------------------------------------------
David Tanner at LandLineMag.com reports that the class-action
lawsuit against fuel companies that sell so-called "hot fuel" is
a step closer to proceeding to trial.

U.S. District Court Judge Kathryn Vratil of the District of
Kansas certified a class of plaintiffs following recent oral
arguments.  A copy of her 36-page Memorandum and Order in In re
Motor Fuel Temperature Sales Practice Litigtion, MDL No. 1840;
Master Docket No. 07-1840 (D. Kan.), is available at:

     https://ecf.ksd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2007md1840-1675

Certification of the class is an important step in the case going
to trial, said plaintiff attorney George Zelcs of the Korein-
Tillery firm. If a case is not certified, then it cannot proceed
as a class action.

Plaintiff groups from all over the U.S. began filing lawsuits in
2007 against oil and fuel companies, alleging that retail fuel
sold without regard for temperature changes is a violation of
consumer protection laws. The higher the temperature of the fuel
is above 60 degrees Fahrenheit, the bigger the rip-off.

The plaintiffs seek a ruling to make automatic temperature
compensation mandatory on all retail fuel pumps. They are also
seeking financial compensation from dozens of oil and fuel
companies in 26 states, the District of Columbia and Guam.

The defendant group, consisting of many familiar oil companies
and fuel retailers, defends the sale of uncompensated retail
fuel, saying their sales adhere to current laws.


ONE STEP AHEAD: Recalls 2,700 Animal Crackers Giant Stacking Toys
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
One Step Ahead, of Lake Bluff, Ill., announced a voluntary recall
of about 2,700 Animal Crackers Giant Stacking Toys.  Consumers
should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise
instructed.

The fabric covering the stacking ring's center pole can come
apart at the seam exposing the foam material inside.  The foam
material poses choking and aspiration hazards to young children.

The firm has received one report of a 10-month-old child mouthing
the toy's foam material. No injuries have been reported.

This recall involves Animal Crackers Giant Stacking Toys.  The
multi-colored toy has five plush stacking rings that stack and
rest on a stationary turtle base.  The rings represent different
animals including a frog, dog, cat, rabbit, mouse and chick.  A
fish is on top of the center pole. Each ring makes a different
sound: rattle, jingle, crinkle and squeak.  "One Step Ahead" is
printed on a white tag attached to the toy.  The toy measures
about 19 inches high and 10 inches wide when assembled.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10741.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold through
One Step Ahead's catalog and on the firm's website at
http://www.onestepahead.com/ from October 2008 through April  
2010 for about $35.

Consumers should immediately take the recalled toy away from
children and return the toy's center pole to One Step Ahead for a
$50 merchandise certificate to be applied toward the purchase of
another product(s) sold in the One Step Ahead catalog or online
at http://www.onestepahead.com/  The firm is directly contacting  
consumers who purchased the recalled toy.

Consumer Contact: For more information, contact One Step Ahead
toll-free at (866) 271-4536 between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m.,
Central Time, Monday through Friday or visit the firm's website
at http://www.onestepahead.com/


PHI INC: Motion to Dismiss Superior Offshore's Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
PHI Inc.'s motion to dismiss a purported class action brought by
Superior Offshore International Inc., remains pending in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Delaware.

The suit names the company as a defendant along with Bristow
Group Inc., ERA Helicopters, LLC, Seacor Holdings Inc., ERA Group
Inc., and ERA Aviation, Inc.

This purported class action was filed on June 12, 2009, on behalf
of a class defined to include all direct purchasers of offshore
helicopter services in the Gulf of Mexico from the defendants at
any time from Jan. 1, 2001, through Dec. 31, 2005.  The suit
alleges that the defendants acted jointly to fix, maintain, or
stabilize prices for offshore helicopter services during the
above time frame in violation of the federal antitrust laws.  The
plaintiff seeks unspecified treble damages, injunctive relief,
costs, and attorneys' fees.

Defendants' motion to dismiss filed on Sept. 4, 2009 is pending.

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.

PHI Inc. -- http://www.phihelico.com/-- provides helicopter  
transportation services in the Gulf of Mexico.  It also provides
helicopter services to the oil and gas industry internationally,
and to non-oil and gas customers, such as health care providers
and United States governmental agencies, such as the National
Science Foundation. It also provides air medical transportation
for hospitals and emergency service agencies, where it operates
as an independent provider of medical services.  PHI also
provides helicopter maintenance and repair services to certain
customers.  At Dec. 31, 2009, the company owned or operated
approximately 255 aircraft domestically and internationally.  PHI
operates in three segments: Oil and Gas, Air Medical and
Technical Services.


REX ENERGY: Court Gives Final Approval to $1.9 Mil. Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois
gave its final approval to the settlement agreement entered into
between two of Rex Energy Corp.'s wholly owned subsidiaries, Rex
Energy Operating Corp. and PennTex Resources Illinois, Inc., and
Julia Leib and Lisa Thompson, individually and on behalf of a
certified class, 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 class action lawsuit involved several causes of action
generally alleging that hydrogen sulfide released in connection
with the Defendants' oil producing operations in and around the
towns of Bridgeport and Petrolia, Illinois had resulted in
contamination of the class area with hydrogen sulfide. The
Settlement Agreement will become effective upon entry by the
district court of a final approval order.

Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, the Defendants,
without any admission of liability, agreed to pay the class a
total of $1.9 million, of which Leib and Thompson will each
receive $25,000.  Pursuant to the terms of a pollution liability
policy with Federal Insurance Company, $1.0 million of the
settlement payment will be funded by the company's insurance
carrier.

Pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement, in return for
the above consideration, each member of the class, including Leib
and Thompson, has released all claims against the Defendants and
their affiliates that in any way arose from or related to
hydrogen sulfide or other environmental conditions in the class
area which were the subject of, or could have been the subject
of, the claims alleged in the class action lawsuit, including any
class action medical monitoring claims.
In addition, each class member released any claims related to any
future releases of hydrogen sulfide in the class area on the
condition that the Defendants substantially comply with the terms
and conditions of the Consent Decree previously entered into with
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Department
of Justice on Sept. 7, 2006.

Leib and Thompson also agreed to release any individual claims
they may have for medical monitoring.

The Settlement Agreement does not provide for a release of any
potential individual claims of other class members since those
claims were not the subject of the class action lawsuit.  
Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, the Defendants also agreed
to permanently plug four inactive oil wells adjacent to the
residences of Leib and Thompson.

The Settlement Agreement was conditioned upon the entry of an
order of the district court granting preliminary approval of the
settlement, which was issued by the district court on Dec. 21,
2009.

The Settlement Agreement is also conditioned upon the entry of an
order by the district court granting final approval to the
settlement and providing for the dismissal of the lawsuit with
prejudice.

Members of the class had until March 12, 2010, to object to the
proposed settlement as set forth in the Settlement Agreement;
however, no persons objected to the Settlement Agreement.

On March 26, 2010, the district court granted final approval of
the settlement and dismissed the lawsuit with prejudice, and as a
result, the Settlement Agreement became effective thirty days
thereafter, thus resolving the lawsuit.

In accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement, on
April 27, 2010, the company paid $900,000 to the settlement fund
of the class.  Pursuant to the terms of a pollution liability
policy with Federal Insurance Company, on April 27, 2010, the
remaining $1 million of the settlement amount was paid to the
settlement fund by our insurance carrier.

Rex Energy Corporation -- http://www.rexenergy.com/-- is an  
independent oil and gas company operating in the Illinois Basin
and the Appalachian Basin.


SEI INVESTMENTS: SIDCO Defends Suit Over ProShares Advised ETFs
---------------------------------------------------------------
SEI Investments Company's subsidiary, SEI Investments
Distribution Co. (SIDCO), is defending a consolidated suit to
leveraged exchange traded funds advised by ProShares Advisors,
LLC, 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.

One of SEI's principal subsidiaries, SIDCO, has been named as a
defendant in certain putative class action complaints related to
leveraged exchange traded funds (ETFs) advised by ProShares
Advisors, LLC.  As of March 31, 2010, the complaints have been
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York and in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland
although the three complaints filed in the District of Maryland
have been voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiffs.  Two of them
were subsequently re-filed in the Southern District of New York.  
Two of the complaints filed in the Southern District of New York
have been voluntarily dismissed by plaintiffs.  The first
complaint was filed on Aug. 5, 2009.

The complaints are purportedly made on behalf of all persons that
purchased or otherwise acquired shares in various ProShares
leveraged ETFs pursuant or traceable to allegedly false and
misleading registration statements, prospectuses and statements
of additional information.  The complaints name as defendants
ProShares Advisors, LLC; ProShares Trust; ProShares Trust II,
SIDCO, and various officers and trustees to ProShares Advisors,
LLC; ProShares Trust and ProShares Trust II.

The complaints allege that SIDCO was the distributor and
principal underwriter for the various ProShares leveraged ETFs
that were distributed to authorized participants and ultimately
shareholders.  The complaints allege that the registration
statements for the ProShares ETFs were materially false and
misleading because they failed to adequately describe the nature
and risks of the investments.  The complaints allege that SIDCO
is liable for these purportedly material misstatements and
omissions under Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933.

The complaints seek unspecified compensatory and other damages,
reasonable costs and other relief.  The cases are in the early
stage, and the court has not yet appointed lead plaintiff(s).  
Defendants have moved to consolidate the complaints, which motion
has been granted.

SEI Investments Company -- http://www.seic.com/-- is a leading  
global provider of outsourced asset management, investment
processing and investment operations solutions.  The company's
innovative solutions help corporations, financial institutions,
financial advisors, and affluent families create and manage
wealth.  As of March 31, 2010, through its subsidiaries and
partnerships in which the company has a significant interest, SEI
administers $394 billion in mutual fund and pooled assets and
manages $162 billion in assets.  SEI serves clients, conducts or
is registered to conduct business and/or operations, from
numerous offices worldwide.


SEI INVESTMENTS: Defends Suits over Services to Stanford Trust
--------------------------------------------------------------
SEI Investments Company is defending lawsuits purportedly related
to the role of SEI Private Trust Company (SPTC) in providing data
consolidation, securities processing, and other services to
Stanford Trust 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 company has been named in three lawsuits that were filed in
August 2009 in the 19th Judicial District Court for the Parish of
East Baton Rouge, State of Louisiana.  One of the three actions
purports to set forth claims on behalf of a class and also names
SPTC as a defendant.  All three actions name various defendants
besides SEI, and, in all three actions, the plaintiffs purport to
bring a cause of action against SEI under the Louisiana
Securities Act.  The putative class action also includes a claim
against SEI for an alleged violation of the Louisiana Unfair
Trade Practices Act.

In addition, in December 2009, a group of six plaintiffs filed a
lawsuit in the 23rd Judicial District Court for the Parish of
Ascension, State of Louisiana against SEI and other defendants
asserting claims of negligence, breach of contract, breach of
fiduciary duty, violations of the uniform fiduciaries law,
negligent misrepresentation, detrimental reliance, violations of
the Louisiana Securities Act and Louisiana Racketeering Act and
conspiracy.

Further, SEI is aware that in February 2010 two groups of
plaintiffs amended petitions that they had previously filed in
the 19th Judicial District for the Parish of East Baton Rouge,
State of Louisiana to add claims against SEI and SPTC for alleged
violations of the Louisiana Securities Act, the Louisiana
Racketeering Act, and civil conspiracy.  The underlying
allegations in all six actions are purportedly related to the
role of SPTC in providing data consolidation, securities
processing, and other services to Stanford Trust Company.

Two of the three actions filed in East Baton Rouge have been
removed to federal court, and plaintiffs' motions to remand are
pending.  These two cases were also transferred by the Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to a MDL pending in the
Northern District of Texas.

The case filed in Ascension was also removed to federal court and
transferred by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to
the same MDL pending in the Northern District of Texas.  That
case has been stayed.

SEI and SPTC filed exceptions in the putative class action that
remains pending in East Baton Rouge, which the Court granted in
part and dismissed the claims under the Louisiana Unfair Trade
Practices Act and denied, in part, as to the other exceptions.  
There is a motion for class certification that is pending in that
case.  The time for SEI and SPTC to respond to the two amended
petitions adding claims against them has not yet run.

SEI Investments Company -- http://www.seic.com/-- is a leading  
global provider of outsourced asset management, investment
processing and investment operations solutions.  The company's
innovative solutions help corporations, financial institutions,
financial advisors, and affluent families create and manage
wealth.  As of March 31, 2010, through its subsidiaries and
partnerships in which the company has a significant interest, SEI
administers $394 billion in mutual fund and pooled assets and
manages $162 billion in assets.  SEI serves clients, conducts or
is registered to conduct business and/or operations, from
numerous offices worldwide.


SPROUT STUFF: Recalls 40 Sprout Stuff Infant Ring Slings
--------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Sprout Stuff, of Austin, Texas, is announced the recall of about
40 Sprout Stuff infant ring slings.  CPSC advises consumers to
immediately stop using these slings due to a risk of suffocation
to infants.

CPSC and Sprout Stuff are aware of one report of a death of a 10-
day-old boy in the recalled sling in Round Rock, Texas in 2007.

The Sprout Stuff infant ring sling is fabric/natural muslin and
comes with or without a shoulder pad.  The sling is worn by
parents and caregivers to carry a child up to two years of age.
"Sprout Stuff" is printed on the back side of the tail's hem.

Sprout Stuff sold the recalled infant slings, which were made in
the United States, directly to consumers between October 2006 and
May 2007 for between $35 and $45.  Sprout Stuff is directly
contacting known purchasers of the recalled infant slings.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled slings and
contact Sprout Stuff to return the sling for a full refund.
Contact Sprout Stuff toll-free at (877) 319-3103 anytime, email
the firm at sproutstuffrefunds@gmail.com or contact the firm by
mail at Sprout Stuff Refunds, P.O. Box 612, Buda, Texas 78610.


TRANSOCEAN LTD: Defends Suits Over Deepwater Horizon Incident
-------------------------------------------------------------
Transocean Ltd. is defending numerous putative class-action
complaints resulting from the Deepwater Horizon incident,
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 April and May 2010, the company and one or more of its
subsidiaries were named, along with other unaffiliated
defendants, in numerous complaints that were filed in either the
U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana or the
District Courts of the State of Texas involving multiple
plaintiffs that allege wrongful death and other personal injuries
arising out of the Deepwater Horizon incident.  The complaints
generally allege negligence and seek awards of unspecified
economic damages and punitive damages.

Also in April and May 2010, the company and one or more of its
subsidiaries were named, along with other unaffiliated
defendants, in numerous putative class-action complaints filed in
either the United States District Court, Eastern or Western
Districts of Louisiana, the Southern District of Texas, the
United States District Court, Southern District of Mississippi,
the United States District Court, Southern District of Alabama or
the United States District Court, Northern or Southern Districts
of Florida and possibly other courts on behalf of various
potential classes of persons.

The complaints generally allege, among other things, potential
economic losses as a result of environmental pollution.  The
plaintiffs are generally seeking awards of unspecified economic,
compensatory and punitive damages, as well as injunctive relief.

The lawsuits were recently filed.  The company has not been
served with many of these complaints.  The company has have
retained counsel and is investigating and evaluating the claims,
the theories of recovery, damages asserted and its respective
defenses to all these claims.  The company is also investigating
its potential rights of indemnity and the scope of its insurance
coverage.

Transocean Ltd. -- http://www.deepwater.com/-- is the world's  
largest offshore drilling contractor and the leading provider of
drilling management services worldwide.  With a fleet of 139
mobile offshore drilling units plus three ultra-deepwater units
under construction, the company's fleet is considered one of the
most modern and versatile in the world due to its emphasis on
technically demanding segments of the offshore drilling business.  
Its worldwide fleet is more than twice the size of the next-
largest competitor.  The company owns or operates a contract
drilling fleet of 45 High-Specification Floaters (Ultra-
Deepwater, Deepwater and Harsh-Environment semisubmersibles and
drillships), 26 Midwater Floaters, 10 High-Specification Jackups,
55 Standard Jackups and other assets utilized in the support of
offshore drilling activities worldwide.


VOX AMPLIFICATION: Recalls 200 Amplifier Carrying Cases
-------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
VOX Amplification, of Melville, N.Y., is announced the recall of
about 4,200 Night Train Amplifier Carrying Cases.  Consumers
should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise
instructed.

The clasp on the shoulder strap is defective and can fail,
allowing the amplifier to fall and pose a risk of injury to
consumers.

The firm has received two reports of clasps failing.  No injuries
have been reported.

This recall involves the nylon carrying case sold with Night
Train guitar amplifiers.  The black carrying case has metal
clasps and a nylon arm strap.  "VOX" is printed on the front
pocket of the carrying case.  The carrying cases were sold with
amplifiers with model number NT15H.  Model numbers can be found
on the rear panel of the amplifier.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10253.html

The recalled products were manufactured in Vietnam and sold
through music instrument stores nationwide and on the Internet
from April 2009 to April 2010 for about $700 for the amplifier.
The carrying case was sold with the amplifier.

Consumers should immediately remove and stop using the carrying
case with the strap.  Consumers should contact VOX Amplification
for a free replacement strap with a new clasp.

For additional information, contact VOX Amplification at (800)
645-3188 between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday
through Friday or visit the firm's web site at
http://www.voxamps.com/   

Consumers can also write to VOX Amplification at 316 South
Service Road, Melville, NY 11747.


WESTERN COAL: Shareholder Amends Class Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------
Western Coal Corp disclosed that it has received notice that the
proposed class action served in November 2009 may be amended.  
News about the filing of that shareholder lawsuit in Canada
appeared in the Class Action Reporter on Nov. 27, 2009.

The plaintiff has advised Western that he intends to claim that
Western, some of its current and former directors and other
parties caused Western to enter transactions between April 26,
2007, and July 13, 2009, that were oppressive.  The plaintiff has
not indicated any intention to claim additional damages from
Western or any other parties.

Western continues to believe that the proposed allegations are
without merit and intends to vigorously defend them as well as
the plaintiff's attempt to obtain court approval to proceed with
the action.

                       About Western Coal

Western Coal -- http://www.westerncoal.com/-- is a producer of  
high quality metallurgical coal from mines in northeast British
Columbia (Canada) and high quality metallurgical coal and
compliant thermal coal from mines located in West Virginia (USA).
Western Coal also owns approximately 55% of Energybuild Group Plc
(EBG: AIM) which produces high quality anthracite and
metallurgical coal in South Wales (UK). Other interests owned
include a 48% interest in Mandalay Resources Corporation (TSX.V:
MND), 38% interest in Xtract Energy (XTR: AIM), 20% interest in
NEMI Northern Energy & Mining (NNE.A: TSX). The Company is
headquartered in Vancouver, BC, Canada, and trades on the AIM and
TSX stock exchanges under the symbol "WTN".


* R. Eisler Leads New Antitrust Practice at Grant & Eisenhofer
--------------------------------------------------------------
Leading securities and corporate governance law firm Grant &
Eisenhofer P.A. is adding antitrust litigation to its existing
practice areas.  

The firm has hired Robert G. Eisler, one of the country's leading
antitrust attorneys, to head the new practice group.  Mr. Eisler
will be based in the firm's Wilmington, Del., office.

"With the increasing complexity of antitrust cases, clients are
looking for firms who have a long history of success," said Jay
Eisenhofer, managing director and co-founder of Grant &
Eisenhofer.  "Having someone of Bob's caliber come on board to
head the new antitrust practice group, coupled with the
credentials, reputation and experience of G&E's litigators,
allows the firm to grow strategically while offering clients a
single source to meet their complex litigation needs."

Mr. Eisler's practice focuses on antitrust, securities fraud and
complex commercial litigation. Mr. Eisler has extensive
experience in class action and complex litigation at the trial
and appellate levels.  He has been involved in many of the most
significant antitrust class action cases in recent years, and has
frequently served as court-appointed lead or co lead counsel.

Mr. Eisler's experience spans industries including
pharmaceuticals, paper products, construction materials,
industrial chemicals, processed foods, and municipal securities,
as well as consumer goods such as compact disks, automotive
parts, and agricultural products, among many others.  Mr. Eisler
has also been involved in securities and derivative litigation on
behalf of public pension funds, municipalities, mutual fund
companies, and individual investors in state and federal courts.

Mr. Eisler is a member of the Bar of the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania and the State of New York, as well as numerous
federal district and appellate courts.  He graduated from LaSalle
University in 1986 and Villanova University Law School in 1989.  

Mr. Eisler can be reached at:

          Robert G. Eisler, Esq.
          GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.          
          1201 North Market Street
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: 302.622.7000
          E-mail: reisler@gelaw.com

Grant & Eisenhofer P.A. -- http://www.gelaw.com/-- represents  
institutional investors and shareholders internationally in
securities class actions, corporate governance actions and
derivative litigation.  The firm has recovered approximately $12
billion for shareholders in the last five years and was cited by
RiskMetrics for securing the highest average investor recovery in
securities class actions of any U.S. law firm in 2008.  Grant &
Eisenhofer has also been named one of the country's top
plaintiffs' law firms by the National Law Journal for the past
four years.  

                            *********

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  * * *