CAR_Public/100608.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Tuesday, June 8, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 111

                            Headlines

3M CO: Awaits Ruling on Class Certification Issue in "Whitaker"
3M CO: Continues to Defend "Garcia" Suit in Minnesota
3M CO: Defending Suits Over Chemical Exposure at Alabama Plant
3M CO: "Chemical Dumping" Lawsuit Transferred to Morgan County
AMERICAN EXPRESS: "Amick" Lawsuit Dismissed by Plaintiff

AMERICAN EXPRESS: Wants "Patzke" Transferred to North Carolina
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Suit Pending
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Merchants' Suit Remanded to Second Circuit
AMERICAN EXPRESS: "Wild Grape" Suit in California Dismissed
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Motion to Dismiss "Lopez" Suit Remains Pending

BANK OF MONTREAL: Class Certification Hearing Set for Spring 2011
BENDIGO BANK: 1,700 Swindled Investors Sue in Australia
BP PLC: Beachfront Condominium Owner Files Suit in S.D. Ala.
BP PLC: Bernard M. Gross Files Shareholder Suit in C.D. Calif.
CANADIAN SUPERIOR: Siskinds & May Jensen File Shareholder Lawsuit

CLASSMATES MEDIA: Proposed Settlement of E-Mail Practices Suit
DETROIT: Class Action Alleges Abusive Treatment by City Police
FIRST BANKS: Suit Claims Complex Loan Documents are Deceptive
FIRST HEALTH: La. App. Ct. Declines Invitation to Decertify Class
GOOGLE INC: Reportedly Wants to Patent Wi-Fi Snooping Technology

GUIDANT: CORP: Notice of Settlement of ERISA Lawsuits
HARTFORD INSURANCE: Notice of $10 Mil. Madison Cty. Settlement
IDAHO: ACLU to Dismiss Prison Lawsuit for Better CCA Monitoring
LEHMAN BROTHERS: Ernst & Young Moves for Dismissal of Lawsuit
MICHIGAN: Pro Se Parolee Can't Represent Plaintiff Class

PFIZER AUSTRALIA: Parkinson's Patients Complain About Addictions
QWEST CORP: Plaintiffs' Appeal to Dismissal Remains Pending
QWEST CORP: QCII Faces Suits Over Planned CenturyTel Merger
SONDE RESOURCES: Aware of Two Class Action Suits filed in Ontario
SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS: Buried Railroad Cable Suit Filed in Wyo.

UNUM GROUP: Plaintiffs' Appeal on Dismissal of Claims Pending
UNUM GROUP: Agrees to Settle Suit on Life Insurance Policies
WMS INDUSTRIES: Loto-Quebec Settles Quebec Class Suit

                            *********

3M CO: Awaits Ruling on Class Certification Issue in "Whitaker"
---------------------------------------------------------------
3M Co. continues to await the ruling from the District Court of
Ramsey County, Minnesota, on the class certification issue in a
purported class action alleging employment discrimination.

One current and one former employee of the company filed a
purported class action ("Whitaker" lawsuit) in the District
Court of Ramsey County, Minnesota, in December 2004, seeking to
represent a class of all current and certain former salaried
employees employed by the company in Minnesota below a certain
salary grade who were age 46 or older at any time during the
applicable period to be determined by the Court.

The complaint alleges the plaintiffs suffered various forms of
employment discrimination on the basis of age in violation of the
Minnesota Human Rights Act and seeks injunctive relief,
unspecified compensatory damages (which they seek to treble under
the statute), including back and front pay, punitive damages
(limited by statute to $8,500 per claimant) and attorneys' fees.

In January 2006, the plaintiffs filed a motion to join four
additional named plaintiffs.

This motion was unopposed by the company and the four plaintiffs
were joined in the case, although one claim has been dismissed
following an individual settlement.

The class certification hearing was held in December 2007.

On April 11, 2008, the Court granted the plaintiffs' motion to
certify the case as a class action and defined the class as all
persons who were 46 or older when employed by 3M in Minnesota in
a salaried exempt position below a certain salary grade at any
time on or after May 10, 2003, and who did not sign a document on
their last day of employment purporting to release claims arising
out of their employment with 3M.

On June 25, 2008, the Minnesota Court of Appeals granted the
company's petition for interlocutory review of the District
Court's decision granting class certification in the case.

On April 28, 2009, the Court of Appeals issued its decision,
reversing the District Court's class certification decision.

The Court of Appeals found that the District Court had not
required plaintiffs to meet the proper legal standards for
certification of a class under Minnesota law and had deferred
resolving certain factual disputes that were relevant to the
class certification requirements.

The Court of Appeals remanded the case to the District Court for
further proceedings in line with the evidentiary standards
defined in its opinion.

The company believes that the Court of Appeals correctly
determined the proper legal standards to apply to motions to
certify a class action, but the company also believes that
plaintiffs' motion for class certification in this case should be
denied as a matter of law.

Accordingly, on May 28, 2009, the company filed in the Minnesota
Supreme Court a Petition for Partial Review of the Decision of
the Court of Appeals.

On July 22, 2009, the Minnesota Supreme Court denied the
Petition.

The trial court had scheduled a hearing on May 5 and 6, 2010 to
take testimony on the class certification issue.

The trial court had scheduled a hearing on May 5 and 6, 2010, to
take testimony on the class certification issue pursuant to the
order of the Court of Appeals, sometime after which the court
will issue its decision on whether the case should proceed as a
class action.

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.

3M Co. -- http://www.3M.com/-- is a diversified technology  
company with a global presence in various businesses, including
industrial and transportation, healthcare, display and graphics,
consumer and office, safety, security and protection services,
and electro and communications.


3M CO: Continues to Defend "Garcia" Suit in Minnesota
-----------------------------------------------------
3M Co. continues to defend a purported class action/collective
action in U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota.

The company was served on May 7, 2009 with a purported class
action/collective action age discrimination lawsuit, which was
filed in United States District Court for the Northern District
of California, San Jose Division (the "Garcia lawsuit").

Five former and one current employee of the company are seeking
to represent all current and former salaried employees employed
by the company in the United States during the liability period,
which plaintiffs define as 2001 to the present.

In addition to the six named plaintiffs, 91 other current or
former employees have signed "opt-in" forms, seeking to join the
action.

The Garcia lawsuit expressly excludes those persons and those
claims encompassed within the proposed class and claims in the
Whitaker lawsuit.

The same counsel, joined by additional California counsel for the
Garcia lawsuit, represents the plaintiffs in both cases.

Plaintiffs claim that they and other similarly situated employees
suffered various forms of employment discrimination on the basis
of age in violation of the federal Age Discrimination in
Employment Act.

In regard to these claims, plaintiffs seek to represent "all
persons who were 46 or older when employed by 3M in the United
States in a salaried position below the level of director, or
salary grade 18, during the liability period."

Because federal law protects persons age 40 and older from age
discrimination, with respect to their claim of disparate impact
only, plaintiffs also propose an alternative definition of
similarly situated persons that would begin at age 40.

Plaintiffs allege that there are more than 6,000 current and
former employees who may potentially opt into the collective
action.

On behalf of this group, plaintiffs seek injunctive relief,
unspecified compensatory damages including back and front pay,
benefits, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees.

Certain of the plaintiffs' and putative class members' employment
terminated under circumstances in which they were eligible for
group severance plan benefits and in connection with those plans
they signed waivers of claims, including age discrimination
claims.

Plaintiffs claim the waivers of age discrimination claims were
invalid in various respects.

This subset of release-signing plaintiffs seeks a declaration
that the waivers of age discrimination claims are invalid, other
injunctive, but non-monetary, remedies, and attorneys' fees.

Plaintiffs allege that there are more than 2,000 current and
former employees who would comprise this declaratory judgment
class action.

On July 2, 2009, the company filed its Answer to the Garcia
lawsuit complaint and filed a motion, which was granted, to
transfer the venue of the lawsuit to the U.S. District Court for
the District of Minnesota.

The case has since transferred and is in early discovery.

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.

3M Co. -- http://www.3M.com/-- is a diversified technology  
company with a global presence in various businesses, including
industrial and transportation, healthcare, display and graphics,
consumer and office, safety, security and protection services,
and electro and communications.


3M CO: Defending Suits Over Chemical Exposure at Alabama Plant
--------------------------------------------------------------
3M Co. continues to defend purported class-action lawsuits
involving perfluorooctanyl chemistry exposure at or near the
company's Decatur, Alabama, manufacturing facility.

A former employee filed a purported class action lawsuit in 2002
in the Circuit Court of Morgan County, Alabama, involving
perfluorooctanyl chemistry, alleging that the plaintiffs suffered
fear, increased risk, subclinical injuries, and property damage
from exposure to perfluorooctanyl chemistry at or near the
company's Decatur, Alabama, manufacturing facility.

The Circuit Court in 2005 granted the company's motion to dismiss
the named plaintiff's personal injury-related claims on the basis
that such claims are barred by the exclusivity provisions of the
state's Workers Compensation Act.

The plaintiffs' counsel filed an amended complaint in November
2006, limiting the case to property damage claims on behalf of a
purported class of residents and property owners in the vicinity
of the Decatur plant.

Also in 2005, the judge in a second purported class action
lawsuit (filed by three residents of Morgan County, Alabama,
seeking unstated compensatory and punitive damages involving
alleged damage to their property from emissions of
perfluorooctanyl compounds from the company's Decatur, Alabama,
manufacturing facility that formerly manufactured those
compounds) granted the Company's motion to abate the case,
effectively putting the case on hold pending the resolution of
class certification issues in the action described above filed in
the same court in 2002.

Despite the stay, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint seeking
damages for alleged personal injuries and property damage on
behalf of the named plaintiffs and the members of a purported
class.

No further action in the case is expected unless and until the
stay is lifted.

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.

3M Co. -- http://www.3M.com/-- is a diversified technology  
company with a global presence in various businesses, including
industrial and transportation, healthcare, display and graphics,
consumer and office, safety, security and protection services,
and electro and communications.


3M CO: "Chemical Dumping" Lawsuit Transferred to Morgan County
--------------------------------------------------------------
A purported class-action lawsuit involving perfluorochemicals has
been transferred from Franklin County, Alabama, to Morgan County,
Alabama, according to 3M Co.'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 2009, a resident of Franklin County, Alabama, filed a
purported class action lawsuit in the Circuit Court of Franklin
County seeking compensatory damages and injunctive relief based
on the application by the Decatur wastewater treatment plant of
wastewater treatment sludge to farmland and grasslands in the
state that allegedly contain perflurooctanoic acid (PFOA),
perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and other perfluorochemicals.

The named defendants in the case include 3M, Dyneon LLC, Daikin
America, Inc., Synagro-WWT, Inc., Synagro South, LLC and
Biological Processors of America.

The named plaintiff seeks to represent a class of all persons
within the State of Alabama, Inc. who, within the past six years,
have had PFOA, PFOS and other perfluorochemicals released or
dumped onto their property by the defendants.

The defendants challenged venue in Franklin County, arguing that
the plaintiff had no connections to that county and asking that
it be transferred to Morgan County, where the other cases are
filed.  The trial court found venue was proper in a different,
adjoining county.

Following a successful appeal to the Alabama Supreme Court, the
case has been transferred to Morgan County.

The case is now subject to a motion to abate further activity
pending the outcome in the first case filed there.

3M Co. -- http://www.3M.com/-- is a diversified technology  
company with a global presence in various businesses, including
industrial and transportation, healthcare, display and graphics,
consumer and office, safety, security and protection services,
and electro and communications.


AMERICAN EXPRESS: "Amick" Lawsuit Dismissed by Plaintiff
--------------------------------------------------------
The matter Amick v. American Express Travel Related Services Co.,
has been voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff, according to
American Express 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 November 2009, a putative class action was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York seeking to
recover unpaid wages and overtime compensation at one of the
company's call centers.

The Plaintiff seeks to represent all similarly situated employees
in a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act and in
a Rule 23 class action under the North Carolina Wage and Hour
Act.

On Jan. 26, 2010, the Court granted the company's motion to
transfer the case to the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina.  Subsequently, plaintiff voluntarily
dismissed its action, without prejudice, but has joined as a
plaintiff in the matter Patzke, Knauss and Amick v. American
Express Travel Related Services Company, Inc.

American Express Company -- https://home.americanexpress.com/ --
is a global payments and travel company.  The company's principal
products and services are charge and credit payment card
products, and travel-related services offered to consumers and
businesses around the world.  The company's Global Consumer Group
offers a range of products and services, including charge and
lending (credit) card products for consumers and small businesses
worldwide; consumer travel services, and stored value products,
such as Travelers Cheques and pre-paid products.  The Global
Business-to-Business Group provides, among other products and
services, business travel, corporate cards, and other expense
management products and services; network services, and merchant
acquisition and merchant processing for the company's network
partners and payments businesses.


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Wants "Patzke" Transferred to North Carolina
--------------------------------------------------------------
American Express Company seeks to transfer the venue of the
matter Patzke, Knauss and Amick v. American Express Travel
Related Services Company, Inc., from the U.S. District Court for
the District of Arizona to the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, 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 2010, a putative class action captioned Patzke,
Knauss and Amick v. American Express Travel Related Services
Company, Inc., was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Arizona.

Similar to the suit captioned Amick v. American Express Travel
Related Services Co., the complaint in Patzke seeks to recover
allegedly unpaid wages and overtime compensation for a class of
employees at the company's call centers.

In April 2010, plaintiffs served an amended complaint on the
company that, among other things, added Amick as a plaintiff.

The company has filed a motion to have the Patzke action
transferred to North Carolina, which was the venue of the Amick
action.

American Express Company -- https://home.americanexpress.com/ --
is a global payments and travel company.  The company's principal
products and services are charge and credit payment card
products, and travel-related services offered to consumers and
businesses around the world.  The company's Global Consumer Group
offers a range of products and services, including charge and
lending (credit) card products for consumers and small businesses
worldwide; consumer travel services, and stored value products,
such as Travelers Cheques and pre-paid products.  The Global
Business-to-Business Group provides, among other products and
services, business travel, corporate cards, and other expense
management products and services; network services, and merchant
acquisition and merchant processing for the company's network
partners and payments businesses.


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
American Express Co.'s motion to dismiss a consolidated second
amended complaint remains pending, according to the company's May
5, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

In December 2008, a putative class action captioned Obester v.
American Express Company, et. al., was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York.

The complaint alleges that the defendants violated certain ERISA
obligations by:

     -- allowing the investment of American Express Retirement
        Savings Plan assets in American Express common stock
        when American Express common stock was not a prudent
        investment;

     -- misrepresenting and failing to disclose material facts
        to Plan participants in connection with the
        administration of the Plan; and

     -- breaching certain fiduciary obligations.

The company is also a defendant in three other putative class
actions making allegations similar to those made in the Obester
matter:

     -- Tang v. American Express Company, et. al., filed on
        Dec. 29, 2008 in the U.S. District Court for the
        Southern District of New York,

     -- Miner v. American Express Company et. al., filed on
        Feb. 4, 2009 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
        District of New York, and

     -- DiLorenzo v. American Express Company et. al., filed on
        Feb. 10, 2009 in the U.S. District Court for the
        Southern District of New York.

American Express has filed a motion to dismiss these actions.

In April 2009, these actions were consolidated into a
Consolidated Amended complaint, captioned In Re American Express
ERISA Litigation.

Following argument on American Express' motion to dismiss this
action, the Court permitted plaintiffs to file a Second Amended
Complaint.

In April 2010, American Express has filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint.

American Express Company -- https://home.americanexpress.com/ --
is a global payments and travel company.  The company's principal
products and services are charge and credit payment card
products, and travel-related services offered to consumers and
businesses around the world.  The company's Global Consumer Group
offers a range of products and services, including charge and
lending (credit) card products for consumers and small businesses
worldwide; consumer travel services, and stored value products,
such as Travelers Cheques and pre-paid products.  The Global
Business-to-Business Group provides, among other products and
services, business travel, corporate cards, and other expense
management products and services; network services, and merchant
acquisition and merchant processing for the company's network
partners and payments businesses.


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Merchants' Suit Remanded to Second Circuit
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Supreme Court has remanded the matter In re American
Express Merchants' Litigation back to the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit for further consideration, according to
American Express Company's May 5, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2010.

Since July 2003 the company has been named in a number of
putative class actions in which the plaintiffs allege an unlawful
antitrust tying arrangement between certain of the company's
charge cards and credit cards in violation of various state and
federal laws.  These cases have all been consolidated in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York under the
caption: In re American Express Merchants' Litigation.

A case making similar allegations was also filed in the Southern
District of New York in July 2004 captioned: The Marcus
Corporation v. American Express Company et al.  The Marcus case
is not consolidated.  The plaintiffs in these actions seek
injunctive relief and an unspecified amount of damages.

In April 2004, the company filed a motion to dismiss all the
actions filed prior to the date of its motion.

In March 2006, that motion was granted, with the Court finding
the claims of the plaintiffs to be subject to arbitration.
Plaintiffs asked the District Court to reconsider its dismissal.  
That request was denied.

The plaintiffs appealed the District Court's arbitration ruling
and in January 2009, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit reversed the District Court.

The company filed with the U.S. Supreme Court a petition of
certiorari from the Second Circuit's arbitration ruling.  On May
3, 2010, the Supreme Court granted the company's petition,
vacated the judgment of the Second Circuit and remanded the case
back to the Second Circuit for further consideration.

The company also filed a motion to dismiss the action filed by
The Marcus Corporation, which was denied in July 2005.  In
October 2007, The Marcus Corporation filed a motion seeking
certification of a class.  In March 2009, the Court denied the
plaintiffs' motion for class certification, without prejudicing
their right to remake such a motion upon resolution of the
pending summary judgment motion.

In April 2009, the Court denied plaintiffs' motion for
reconsideration of the March 2009 order.

In September 2008, American Express moved for summary judgment
seeking dismissal of The Marcus Corporation's complaint, and The
Marcus Corporation cross-moved for partial summary judgment on
the issue of liability.  A decision on the summary judgment
motions is pending.

A case captioned Hayama Inc. v. American Express Company et al.,
which makes similar allegations as those in the actions described
above, was filed and remains in the Superior Court of California,
Los Angeles County (filed December 2003).  The company continues
to request that the California Superior Court that is hearing the
Hayama action stay such action.  To date the Hayama action has
been stayed.

American Express Company -- https://home.americanexpress.com/ --
is a global payments and travel company.  The company's principal
products and services are charge and credit payment card
products, and travel-related services offered to consumers and
businesses around the world.  The company's Global Consumer Group
offers a range of products and services, including charge and
lending (credit) card products for consumers and small businesses
worldwide; consumer travel services, and stored value products,
such as Travelers Cheques and pre-paid products.  The Global
Business-to-Business Group provides, among other products and
services, business travel, corporate cards, and other expense
management products and services; network services, and merchant
acquisition and merchant processing for the company's network
partners and payments businesses.


AMERICAN EXPRESS: "Wild Grape" Suit in California Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiff in the matter The Wild Grape v. American Express
Company, et al., has agreed to dismiss the lawsuit, according to
American Express 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 July, 2009, a putative class action was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California.

The complaint challenges American Express's policy of retaining
the discount charged to certain merchants when underlying
purchases are returned to the merchant by an American Express
cardmember for a refund.  The complaint seeks certification of a
California-only class.

American Express has filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.

In April 2010, prior to the court's reaching a decision on the
Company's motion to dismiss, plaintiff agreed to dismiss its
lawsuit after the parties resolved the action on an individual
basis.

American Express Company -- https://home.americanexpress.com/ --
is a global payments and travel company.  The company's principal
products and services are charge and credit payment card
products, and travel-related services offered to consumers and
businesses around the world.  The company's Global Consumer Group
offers a range of products and services, including charge and
lending (credit) card products for consumers and small businesses
worldwide; consumer travel services, and stored value products,
such as Travelers Cheques and pre-paid products.  The Global
Business-to-Business Group provides, among other products and
services, business travel, corporate cards, and other expense
management products and services; network services, and merchant
acquisition and merchant processing for the company's network
partners and payments businesses.


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Motion to Dismiss "Lopez" Suit Remains Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
American Express Company's motion to dismiss the putative class
action captioned Lopez, et al. v. American Express Bank, FSB and
American Express Centurion Bank, remains pending, according to
the company's May 5, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March
31, 2010.

In October 2009, a putative class action was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California.

The complaint seeks to certify a nationwide class of American
Express cardmembers whose interest rates were changed from fixed
to variable in or around August 2009 or otherwise increases.

American Express filed a motion to compel arbitration, and
plaintiff has amended their complaint to limit the class to
California residents only.

The Company has filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint,
which is pending.

American Express Company -- https://home.americanexpress.com/ --
is a global payments and travel company.  The company's principal
products and services are charge and credit payment card
products, and travel-related services offered to consumers and
businesses around the world.  The company's Global Consumer Group
offers a range of products and services, including charge and
lending (credit) card products for consumers and small businesses
worldwide; consumer travel services, and stored value products,
such as Travelers Cheques and pre-paid products.  The Global
Business-to-Business Group provides, among other products and
services, business travel, corporate cards, and other expense
management products and services; network services, and merchant
acquisition and merchant processing for the company's network
partners and payments businesses.


BANK OF MONTREAL: Class Certification Hearing Set for Spring 2011
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Evelyn Juan, writing for Dow Jones Newswires, reports that Bank
of Montreal current and former investment advisers in Ontario
will have to wait until next year to find out whether the bank's
Nesbitt Burns unit owes them overtime pay.

The Superior Court of Justice in Ontario last week rejected
former BMO broker Yegel Rosen's proposal for BMO to deliver a
statement of defence before the case's class certification,
according to a court document released last month.

The Court scheduled the certification hearing for late March or
early May in 2011.

"There is no urgency to the matter and the plaintiff's proposal
will not promote either efficiency or economy," Justice G.R.
Strathy wrote in a court document.

Rosen sought BMO's statement of defence early so he could
consider a motion for summary judgment. However, the Court said a
summary-judgment motion could delay certification and "add an
unnecessary layer of complexity to the certification motion,"
according to the court document.

Rosen filed a C$100 million claim against BMO Nesbitt Burns in
early February alleging that firm failed to pay overtime to its
advisers, investment consultants, and financial representatives
who were employed with BMO from 2002.

In recent weeks, Rosen's counsel proposed that BMO deliver a
statement of defence at this time, which is rare given that the
normal route is for the defendants to defer pleading until a
purported class-action suit has been certified.

"To get something on the merits early on would speed up (the
case) because it would narrow the issues," said:

          Henry Juroviesky, Esq.
          JUROVIESKY & RICCI LLP
          4950 Yonge Street, Suite 904
          Toronto, Ontario M2N 6K1
          CANADA
          Telephone: (416) 481-0718
          E-mail: hjuroviesky@jruslaw.com

who represents Rosen. "There wouldn't be questions whether or not
they owe overtime -- the only question would be whether we need
the technicalities of a class action to bind them for everyone,"
he added.

Rosen, based in Thornhill, Ont., worked as an investment adviser
with BMO from June 2002 to April 2006. He claims that branch
managers would provide advisers with goals and targets to
increase assets under management and commission levels, given
that branch managers are paid a percentage of their branch's
asset level.

To meet those targets and complete their job requirements, the
advisers were required to work overtime, Rosen alleges.

None of the claims have been proven in court and BMO earlier said
it intends to defend itself against the proposed action.

In its scheduling endorsement, the Court said it is more
appropriate for the defendant to plead after certification when
everyone knows the causes of the action, the scope of the class,
and the common issues to be tried. "If the plaintiff's objective
is to bind the class, it would be preferable to proceed to
certification first," according to the court document.

Rosen's claim could cover 1,800 to 2,000 BMO investment advisers
in Ontario. So far, roughly 50 current and former BMO investment
advisers have come forward as potential claimants, Juroviesky
said.


BENDIGO BANK: 1,700 Swindled Investors Sue in Australia
-------------------------------------------------------
Karen Sweeney at the Bendigo Advertiser reports that Bendigo and
Adelaide Bank is being sued in a class action filed on behalf of
investors in Great Southern's managed investment schemes.
Macpherson and Kelley Lawyers launched the class action last
month on behalf of almost 1,700 investors who are also seeking
damages to recover principal and interest paid for loans for
entry into the agribusiness managed investment scheme.

Great Southern Finance, which is in liquidation, three of the
company's directors and former directors, and Javelin Asset
Management have been included in the writ.

The class action also covers cash investors who bought interest
in projects sold by Great Southern Managers Australia Limited.

The lawyer in charge of the case:

          Ron Willemsen, Esq.
          MACPHERSON+KELLEY LAWYERS PTY LTD
          40 - 42 Scott Street
          Dandenong Victoria 3175
          PO Box 343 Dandenong 3175
          AUSTRALIA
          Telephone: 03 9794 2625
          E-mail: ron.willemsen@mk.com.au          

said there were several key elements to the lawsuit.

"The package offered to investors included a finance option.

"There was a very close interconnectedness between GSMAL and
Great Southern Finance in the joint promotion of forestry and
non-forestry projects to potential investors.

"If the court rules that loans obtained by investors from Great
Southern Finance could not be enforced then Bendigo and Adelaide
Bank and Javelin Asset Management would similarly be unable to
collect on loans they acquired from Great Southern Finance."

Bendigo and Adelaide Bank managing director Mike Hirst said that
after months of claims by the lawyers the bank anticipated its
day in court.

"We now look forward to demonstrating through the court what we
have always argued - specifically that these loans are legitimate
and are required to be repaid by these investors."

The class action involves forestry, olive, almond or cattle
projects between 2005 and 2008.


BP PLC: Beachfront Condominium Owner Files Suit in S.D. Ala.
------------------------------------------------------------
As oil lapped up on the shores of the State of Alabama last week,
making swimming and fishing off the coast unsafe, the Gulf Oil
Spill Litigation Group announced that owners of beachfront and
coastal property in Alabama filed a class action lawsuit on
behalf of themselves and others like them who have suffered
damage to their property and its value caused by the Deepwater
Horizon oil disaster.  Defendants named in the complaint include
BP, PLC, BP America, Inc., BP Exploration and Production, which
own the oil well, Transocean Inc. and Transocean Offshore
Deepwater Drilling, Inc., which lease the Deepwater Horizon oil
rig to BP, Halliburton Energy Services, Inc., which was engaged
in cementing operations at the well, and Cameron International
Corporation, which supplied the blowout preventer valves for the
Deepwater Horizon oil rig that have failed to activate.

"As oil from the unprecedented oil spill now contaminates the
shores of Alabama, property owners are unable to use their beach
homes and condos as they would have before the spill and the
values of those properties are being destroyed," stated Stephen
Dampier of the Mobile, Alabama law firm of Vickers, Riis, Murray
and Curran LLC. "In addition, the slick will cause severe damage
to delicate wetlands and intertidal zones, destroying the
habitats where fish, shellfish, and crustaceans breed, spawn, and
mature."

"The complaint charges that this unfolding disaster was due to
negligence and wantonness of BP and the other corporations
involved in drilling at the Deepwater Horizon oil rig," added Mr.
Dampier. "This catastrophe was entirely avoidable, and they
failed to take appropriate measures to prevent damage to the Gulf
Coast's marine and coastal environments."

A copf of the 29-page Complaint in Ferguson, et ux. v. BP, PLC,
et al., Case No. 10-cv-00281 (S.D. Ala.), is available at:

     http://www.lieffcabraser.com/pdf/20100603-ferguson-oil-spill-al.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          M. Stephen Dampier, Esq.
          J. Marshall Gardner, Esq.
          VICKERS, RIIS, MURRAY AND CURRAN, LLC
          Post Office Drawer 2568
          Mobile, Alabama 36652-2568
          Telephone: (251) 432-9772

               - and -  

          Don Barrett, Esq.
          David McMullan, Esq.
          Brian Herrington, Esq.
          DON BARRETT, P.A.
          404 Court Square North
          P.O. Box 987
          Lexington, MS 39095
          Telephone: (662) 834-9168

               - and -  

          Richard R. Barrett, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF RICHARD R. BARRETT
          404 Court Square North
          P.O. Box 339
          Lexington, MS 39095
          Telephone: (662) 834-4960

               - and -  

          Zach Butterworth, Esq.
          Gary Yarborough, Jr., Esq.
          HESSE & BUTTERWORTH, PLLC
          841 Highway 90
          Bay St. Louis, MS 39520
          Telephone: (228) 466-0020

               - and -  

          Larry D. Moffett, Esq.
          DANIEL COKER HORTON & BELL, P.A.
          265 North Lamar Boulevard, Suite R
          P.O. Box 1396
          Oxford, MS 38655-1396
          Telephone: (662) 232-8979
     
               - and -  

          Edward C. Taylor, Esq.
          Brenda G. Long, Esq.
          DANIEL COKER HORTON & BELL, P.A.
          1712 15th Street, Suite 400
          Post Office Box 416
          Gulfport, MS 39502-0416
          Telephone: (228) 864-8117

               - and -  

          Dewitt M. "Sparky" Lovelace, Esq.
          Alex Peet, Esq.
          LOVELACE LAW FIRM, P.A.
          12870 U.S. Highway, 98 West, Suite 200
          Miramar Beach, FL 32550
          Telephone: (850) 837-6020
     
               - and -  

          Randall A. Smith, Esq.
          Zach Butterworth, Esq.
          J. Geoffrey Ormsby, Esq.
          Hiawatha Northington, II, Esq.
          SMITH & FAWER, L.L.C.
          201 St. Charles Avenue, Suite 3702
          New Orleans, LA 70170
          Telephone: (504) 525-2200

               - and -  

          Dawn M. Barrios, Esq.
          Bruce S. Kingsdorf, Esq.
          Zachary L. Wool, Esq.
          BARRIOS, KINGSDORF & CASTEIX, LLP
          701 Poydras Street, Suite 3650
          New Orleans, LA 70139-3650
          Telephone: (504) 524-3300

               - and -  

          Charles Barrett, Esq.
          BARRETT & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
          6518 Hwy. 100, Suite 210
          Nashville, TN 37205
          Telephone: (615) 515-3393

               - and -  

          Elizabeth A. Alexander, Esq.
          LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
          150 Fourth Avenue N., Suite 1650
          Nashville, TN 37219
          Telephone: (615) 313-9000

               - and -  

          Steven E. Fineman, Esq.
          Wendy R. Fleishman, Esq.
          Annika K. Martin, Esq.
          LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
          250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor
          New York, NY 10013-1413
          Telephone: (212) 355-9500

               - and -  

          Elizabeth J. Cabraser, Esq.
          LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
          275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
          Telephone: (415) 956-1000


                     Legal Resources For Victims
                of the Deepwater Horizon Oil Disaster

The Deepwater Horizon oil disaster poses a severe threat to the
economic welfare of the Gulf Coast, including:

     * property owners and developers;

     * companies and individuals involved in the commercial
       fishing, oyster and shrimping industries;

     * companies and individuals involved in the wholesale
       seafood processing and packaging industry;

     * dock and marina owners and operators;

     * commercial and private boat owners;
     * restaurants; and

     * city, county, and state public agencies and governments.

The lawyers of the Gulf Oil Spill Litigation Group possess the
expertise and financial resources to investigate the case
thoroughly and hold BP and the other defendants accountable for
this horrible disaster.

If you have been adversely impacted by the oil spill, please
visit www.gulfoilspilllitigationgroup.com to learn more about
your legal rights and to submit a complaint. A lawyer from the
Gulf Oil Spill Litigation Group will review your claim without
charge or obligation.

           About the Gulf Oil Spill Litigation Group

The Gulf Oil Spill Litigation Group consists of prominent lawyers
from the Gulf Coast with extensive experience in environmental
contamination litigation, including cases arising out of
Hurricane Katrina and the TVA coal ash sludge disaster. Members
of the litigation group have successfully prosecuted cases
against many of the world's most powerful corporations.

Adding to the resources of these lawyers is the national
plaintiffs law firm of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP,
with offices in Nashville, New York, and San Francisco. The
National Law Journal has recognized Lieff Cabraser for the past
seven consecutive years as one of the nation's top plaintiffs law
firms. Lieff Cabraser has played a significant role in achieving
settlements and verdicts valued at more than $62 billion,
including against Exxon on behalf of thousands of fishermen,
landowners, and others whose livelihoods were gravely harmed by
the Exxon Valdez oil disaster.

Learn more about the Gulf Oil Spill Litigation Group at
http://www.gulfoilspilllitigationgroup.com/


BP PLC: Bernard M. Gross Files Shareholder Suit in C.D. Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices Bernard M. Gross, P.C. commenced a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court, Central District of
California on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired the American Depository Receipts (ADRs) of BP, between
April 16, 2009, and May 21, 2010, inclusive, against BP and
Anthony Hayward for violations of §§10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. If you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than 60 days from May
21, 2010. Any member of the purported class may move the Court to
serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of its choice, or may
choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. If you
wish to discuss this action or any questions concerning this
notice, please contact plaintiffs' counsel, Deborah R. Gross or
Susan R. Gross at 866-561-3600 or via email at
debbie@bernardmgross.com or susang@bernardmgross.com

A copy of the complaint is available at:

     http://bernardmgross.com/press_releases/2010/02/20100602_Complaint.pdf

BP is an oil and petrochemical company. BP had a board of
directors meeting in California in 2009. The Complaint alleges
that defendants made false and misleading statements and omitted
to disclose material information during the Class Period
concerning the facts that BP (a) was ill equipped to deal with a
catastrophe; (b) had not taken the necessary precautions to
prevent such a disaster from occurring, such as the installation
of a backup blowout prevention valve on the sea floor; (c) had
not prepared an exploration plan which adequately analyzed the
project's oil spill risks; and (d) had not undertaken a risk
assessment to determine whether, if such a catastrophe occurred,
BP would be operationally able to contend with an oil spill or
financially able to be responsible.

On April 21, 2010, the first trading day following the accident,
the price of BP common closed at $59.10. Initially, limited
information was available as to the harm caused, the reasons for
the failure and the extent of BP's liability. On April 24, 2010,
two oil leaks were found, with an estimated 1000 barrels a day
leaking. As a result of this disclosure, BP's common stock price
decreased from a close of $58.90 on April 23, 2010, to a close of
$56.96 on April 26, 2010.

But the full truth had still not been disclosed. On April 29,
2010, BP disclosed that it had detected an additional leak, and
now, 5,000 barrels a day were leaking. As a result of these
disclosures, BP's stock price dropped from a close of $56.40 on
April 28, 2010 to a close on April 29, 2010 of $51.70. On May 21,
2010, BP launched a live webcam of the riser flow and experts and
BP both admitted that the prior estimates of the leakage were
incorrect, and as of May 21, 2010, BP's stock price closed at
$43.86.

The Plaintiffs in Yuen, et al. v. BP plc, et al., Case No.
10-cv-_____ (C. D. Calif.), are represented by:

          Kirk B. Hulett, Esq.
          Sarah P. Weber, Esq.
          HULETT HARPER STEWART LLP
          525 B Street, Suite 760
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 338-1133
          E-mail: kbh@hulettharper.com
                  sweber@hulettharper.com

               - and -  

          Deborah R. Gross, Esq.
          Robert P. Frutkin, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF BERNARD M. GROSS, P.C.
          Suite 450, Wanamaker Building
          Juniper and Market Streets
          Philadelphia, PA 19107
          Telephone: (215) 561-3600
          E-mail: debbie@bernardgross.com


CANADIAN SUPERIOR: Siskinds & May Jensen File Shareholder Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Siskinds LLP, in London, Ontario and May Jensen Shawa Solomon
LLP, in Calgary, Alberta, announced today that, on May 26, 2010,
they filed a proposed class action on behalf of their client
against Canadian Superior Energy, Inc., Challenger Energy Corp.
and certain current and former officers and directors of the
corporate defendants.

The plaintiff's claims concern various disclosures alleged to
have been made by the defendants in relation to Canadian
Superior's gas exploration project offshore Trinidad, and also in
relation to Canadian Superior's stock option practices.

The claim is brought on behalf of all persons and entities who
acquired Canadian Superior securities during the period January
14, 2008 to February 12, 2009. Persons who acquired Canadian
Superior securities during that period are encouraged to contact
Siskinds LLP for further information at (800) 461-6166, ext.
2380.

Siskinds LLP has successfully resolved more securities class
actions than any other law firm in Canada, and is co-counsel to
the plaintiffs in the first case certified under Ontario's new
investor protection legislation, Part XXIII.1 of the Ontario
Securities Act. May Jensen Shawa Solomon LLP successfully
resolved the largest securities class action settled in Canada in
2009.


CLASSMATES MEDIA: Proposed Settlement of E-Mail Practices Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
A settlement has been proposed In re Classmates.com Consolidated
Litigation, Case No. 09-cv-0045-RAJ (W.D. Wash.) (Jones, J.).  

In this Litigation, the Plaintiffs assert class action claims
against Classmates Online, Inc., Classmates Media Corporation,
and United Online, Inc.  Complaints filed in the action allege,
among other things, that the Defendants sent email messages to
subscribers of http://www.classmates.com/that were in violation  
of the law and engaged in conduct that had the potential to
violate Web site users' privacy rights.  The Defendants have
denied and continue to deny Plaintiffs' allegations and maintain
that Defendants have not engaged in any wrongful conduct.  The
Defendants also contend that the Litigation is not suitable for
class action treatment.  The Defendants have nevertheless
concluded that it is in their best interests that this Litigation
be resolved subject to and on the terms and conditions set forth
in the Settlement Agreement, a copy of which is available at:

     http://www.cmemailsettlement.com/sa.pdf

The settlement pact provides $2 credits or $3 cash payments to
individuals who subscribed to www.classmates.com between January
1, 2007 and April 19, 2010, and who paid for a Gold Membership
subscription to www.classmates.com (and did not previously
receive a refund of such payment).

Claims must be filed no later than August 17, 2010, at 11:59:59
p.m., Pacific Daylight Time.

The Court will hold a hearing on October 27, 2010, at 10:00 a.m.
in Seattle to decide whether to order final approval of the
Settlement and entry of judgment dismissing the litigation.

The Plaintiff Class is represented by:

          Mark A. Griffin, Esq.
          Amy Williams-Derry, Esq.
          KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P
          1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
          Seattle, Washington 98101

               - and -  

          Richard L. Kellner
          KABATECK BROWN KELLNER L.L.P.
          644 South Figueroa Street
          Los Angeles, California 90017

Defense counsel is:

          Stellman Keehnel, Esq.
          Russ Wuehler, Esq.
          DLA PIPER LLP
          701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7000
          Seattle, WA 98104          
          
Garden City Group, Inc., serves as the claims agent and maintains
a Web site at http://www.cmemailsettlement.com/providing  
additional information about this matter.


DETROIT: Class Action Alleges Abusive Treatment by City Police
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit alleging that the Detroit Police
Department (DPD) systematically abused and mistreated arrestees
was filed on Tuesday, June 1, 2010.

A copy of the 21-page Complaint in Brown, et al v. City of
Detroit, Case No. 10-cv-12162 (E.D. Mich.), is available at:

     http://www.healthcarelawyerblog.com/Brown%20Complaint.pdf

The lawsuit alleges that thousands of individuals were arrested
and denied basic constitutional rights by the DPD from May 27,
2007 through the present date.  A similar class action lawsuit
against the Chicago Police Department recently settled for $16.5
million.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that the DPD engaged in a
repeated pattern of detaining individuals for long periods of
time - often in excess of 48 hours - without allowing them access
to a judge.  These individuals were denied food, water, and sleep
during their detentions.  The complaint charges that these
inhumane conditions were often used to obtain false confessions
from suspects, while genuine perpetrators were left free to
continue committing crimes.

The suit has three classes of plaintiffs.  Class one is comprised
of thousands of people who were detained by the DPD overnight or
for more than 16 hours in a 24-hour period and who were deprived
of basic human needs for rest and hygiene.   Plaintiffs in the
second class were arrested by the DPD and detained in excess of
48 hours without a judicial determination of probable cause.  The
third group of plaintiffs consists of individuals detained by the
DPD in excess of 24 hours without being provided at least two
meals.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David L. Haron, Esq.
          Louis C. Szura, Esq.
          FRANK, HARON, WEINER, and NAVARRO
          5435 Corporate Drive, Suite 225
          Troy, MI 48098
          Telephone:(248) 952-0400

               - and -  

          Arthur Loevy, Esq.
          Michael Kanovitz, Esq.
          Jon Loevy, Esq.
          Cindy Tsai, Esq.
          LOEVY & LOEVY
          312 North May St., Suite 100
          Chicago, IL 60607
          Telephone:(312) 243-5900

Loevy & Loevy -- http://www.Loevy.com/-- is based in Chicago,  
and is one of the largest civil rights firms in the country.

Frank, Haron, Weiner & Navarro, PLC -- http://www.fhwnlaw.com/--  
is a full service boutique law firm that specializes in False
Claims Act/whistleblower litigation, along with along with other
complex litigation, business, health care, employment, and real
estate law.


FIRST BANKS: Suit Claims Complex Loan Documents are Deceptive
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Holleran at The Madison County Record reports that an
investment corporation has filed a putative class action lawsuit
against a Madison County bank, alleging the bank misrepresented
the amount of interest it charged on loans.

LDJ Investments claims defendant First Banks enticed customers to
borrow money from it by promising to charge a low interest rate
on complex standardized loan documents.

However, First Banks based its purportedly lower interest rates
on a per annum period of less than 12 calendar months, according
to the complaint filed May 24 in Madison County Circuit Court.

"By using only 360 days, the Bank charged over 12 calendar months
1.4 percent more than the contract cost of credit at a rate of
101.4 percent of the represented rate," the suit states.

"In utter disregard of the rights of the Class, the Bank
willfully and wantonly engaged in an ongoing systematic pattern
and common practice of deception and unfairness throughout the
loan transactions that included common misrepresentations, half-
truths, and omissions on the loans of Plaintiff and Class in
order to conceal the true 12 calendar month rate of interest and
costs credit thereby surreptitiously increasing its profits at
the expense of its borrowers."

By using inconspicuous, vague, confusing and contradictory
language in all of its loan documents, First Banks intentionally
created confusion among its clients about the actual interest
rates they were being charged, the complaint says.

For instance, it represented that its interest rate was charged
"per annum," a statement many of the bank's clients believed to
mean per year, the plaintiffs claim. In fact, under Illinois law,
when the phrase "per annum" is used in regard to interest rates,
it must mean per year, according to the complaint. However, First
Banks utilized the phrase "per annum" to mean 360 days, the suit
states.

"The public policy of the State of Illinois as set forth in
Promissory Notes and Bank Holiday Act and Interest Act prohibit
the deceptive and unfair acts of the Bank set forth above," the
complaint says. "The conduct of the Bank was intentional,
deliberate, willful and wanton, based solely on greed, and
performed in utter disregard of the rights of the Plaintiff and
the Class."

In its complaint, LDJ wants the court to certify its complaint as
a class action, to award damages of more than $50,000, to place a
constructive trust on the sum of the unlawful interest plus gains
and profits thereon charged by using less than 12 calendar months
to compute interest and an accounting of all loans on which the
bank used less than 12 calendar months to compute interest, plus
pre-judgment interest, costs, attorneys' fees and other relief
the court deems just.

It is also seeking an injunction preventing the bank from using a
year less than 12 calendar months to determine interest rates, an
award of the twice the amount of interest paid by the class
members and compensatory damages.

Eric W. Evans of Roth Evans in Granite City will be representing
it.

Madison County Circuit Court case number: 10-L-560


FIRST HEALTH: La. App. Ct. Declines Invitation to Decertify Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
First Health Group Corporation asked the Louisiana Court of
Appeals (No. 10-61, 3d Cir.), to reverse the trial court's denial
of its motion to decertify a class of Plaintiffs in a class
action lawsuit.  Finding no error in the trial court's ruling,
the appellate court declined First Health's invitation.

A copy of the ruling is available at:

     http://www.leagle.com/unsecure/page.htm?shortname=inlaco20100602386

First Health is represented by:

          Perry R. Staub, Jr., Esq.
          Donald J. Miester, Jr., Esq.
          1100 Poydras St., Ste. 2100
          New Orleans, LA 70163

               - and -  

          James R. Nieset, Esq.
          1123 Pithon St.
          Lake Charles, LA 70601

               - and -  

          Harry T. Lemmon, Esq.
          650 Poydras St.
          New Orleans, LA. 70130

The Plaintiff Class is represented by:

          John S. Bradford, Esq.
          William B. Monk, Esq.
          One Lakeside Plaza, Fourth Fl.
          Lake Charles, LA 70601

               - and -  

          Thomas A. Filo, Esq.
          Michael K. Cox, Esq.
          723 Broad St.
          Lake Charles, LA

               - and -  

          Stephen B. Murray, Esq.  
          Stephen B. Murray, Jr., Esq.
          Arthur M. Murray, Esq.
          650 Poydras St., Ste. 1100
          New Orleans, LA 70130


GOOGLE INC: Reportedly Wants to Patent Wi-Fi Snooping Technology
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gregg Keizer at Computerworld reports that Google's secret Wi-Fi
snooping was powered by new sniffing technology that the company
wants to patent, court documents filed Wednesday alleged.

A just-amended complaint in a class-action lawsuit first
submitted two weeks ago claims that a patent Google submitted to
the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in November 2008 shows that
the search giant purposefully created technology to gather,
analyze and use data sent by users over their wireless networks.

The lawsuit, which was filed by an Oregon woman and a Washington
man in a Portland, Ore. federal court May 17, accused Google of
violating federal privacy and data acquisition laws when its
Street View vehicles snatched data from unprotected Wi-Fi
networks as they drove up and down U.S. streets.

Google acknowledged the privacy issue May 14, but said it had not
known it was collecting data from unprotected wireless networks
until recently.

The company faces multiple civil lawsuits in the U.S., and is
under investigation by authorities in several countries,
including Canada, the Czech Republic, France, Germany Spain and
Italy. The U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has said it will
take a "very, very close look" at the Google practice.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs in the Oregon lawsuit upped the ante
Wednesday when they amended the original lawsuit to include
charges that Google filed for a patent on Wi-Fi sniffing
technology more than a year and a half ago.

According to the modified complaint, Google's technology can
collect the make and model of wireless routers, the street
address of that router and even the "approximate location of the
wireless AP [access point] within the user's residence or
business."

In its patent application, Google noted that multiple antennas
could be mounted on vehicles, which would be able to obtain a
more accurate estimate of the router's location based on a
"stereo" effect.

Google has admitted that it sniffed basic wireless network
information -- including the network and router identifiers -- to
map those networks, which would then be used by mobile devices
such as smartphones to pinpoint their locations in Google's
mapping services. Google has claimed, however, that the code
which grabbed data from unsecured Wi-Fi networks was added to the
Street View vehicles data sniffers by mistake.

But the plaintiffs' lawyers said Google's patent application
showed that the company's Wi-Fi locating technology had more in
mind than just basic information.

"As disclosed in the '776 Application, the more types and greater
the quantity of Wi-Fi data obtained, decoded, and analyzed by
Google from any particular user, the higher its 'confidence
level' in the calculated location of that user's wireless AP,"
the changed lawsuit stated. "Collection, decoding, and analysis
of a user's payload data would, therefore, serve to increase the
accuracy, value, usability, and marketability of Google's new
method."

"Payload data" is the term given to the information transmitted
over wireless networks, including the data that Google said it
unintentionally snatched from the air as its Street View cars and
trucks drove by homes and businesses.

"Google has employed one or more of the methods disclosed in the
'776 Application to collect, decode, analyze, store, and make
beneficial use of wireless data (including payload data) it
collected from plaintiffs and class members," the lawsuit
alleged.

The advocacy group Privacy International has had similar
thoughts. In a letter last month to European Union privacy
commissioners, the group said, "We are deeply unsettled by
Google's assertion that this situation was caused by a mere
'mistake' brought about by accidental use of inappropriate code
developed for sniffing the content of Wi-Fi networks. This
explanation to us seems entirely implausible."

As part of the amended complaint, the plaintiffs' lawyers added
another charge to the three original, alleging that Google
violated Title 47 of the U.S. Code. They also asked that Google
be forced to pay up to $100,000 to each person whose data it
obtained.

Google did not immediately reply to a request for comment.
Company lawyers have not yet responded to the class-action
lawsuit with a court filing of their own.


GUIDANT: CORP: Notice of Settlement of ERISA Lawsuits
-----------------------------------------------------
                   UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
               FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
                      INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION

IN RE GUIDANT CORPORATION        )
ERISA LITIGATION                 ) Master Docket No.
                                 ) 1:05-cv-1009-LJM-TAB
THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO         )
ALL ERISA CAPTIONS               )

             SUMMARY NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT
          OF ERISA CLASS ACTION, SETTLEMENT FAIRNESS
            HEARING AND MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES,
           REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES AND PAYMENT OF
            INCENTIVE AWARDS TO NAMED PLAINTIFFS

TO: ALL PERSONS WHO WERE PARTICIPANTS IN, OR BENEFICIARIES OF,
    THE GUIDANT EMPLOYEE SAVINGS AND STOCK OWNERSHIP PLAN (THE
    "PLAN") WHOSE PLAN ACCOUNTS HELD OR ACQUIRED INTERESTS IN
    INVESTMENTS IN COMPANY STOCK FOR THEIR BENEFIT FOR THE PERIOD
    JANUARY 1, 2003 THROUGH NOVEMBER 3, 2005 (THE "SETTLEMENT
    CLASS PERIOD").

PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY. YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS MAY BE
AFFECTED BY A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Indiana, that a proposed
settlement in the amount of $7 million (the "Settlement Fund")
has been reached in the above-captioned ERISA class action. The
terms and conditions of the proposed Settlement are set forth in
the Stipulation of Settlement, dated March 18, 2010 (the
"Stipulation"). If you have not yet received the full printed
Notice of Class Action Settlement ("Notice"), you may obtain a
copy by contacting the Claims Administrator at the address below.
To obtain additional information about the Guidant ERISA Action
and the proposed Settlement, or to obtain copies of the
Stipulation and other relevant documentation, please contact the
Claims Administrator at:

          Guidant Corporation ERISA Litigation
          c/o The Garden City Group
          P.O. Box 9590
          Dublin, OH 43017-4890
          Telephone: 1-866-249-8107
          http://www.GardenCityGroup.com/

You are further advised that a Settlement Fairness Hearing will
be held before the Honorable Larry J. McKinney on September 9,
2010, at 9:00 a.m., at the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Indiana, Birch Bayh Federal Building and
United States Courthouse, 46 East Ohio Street, Indianapolis,
Indiana 46204, in Courtroom 202 to: (i) determine whether the
proposed Settlement should be approved by the Court as fair,
reasonable and adequate; (ii) consider the application of Class
Counsel for an award of attorney's fees and reimbursement of
expenses; (iii) consider payment of incentive awards to named
Plaintiffs; and (iv) determine other matters described in the
Notice. Settlement Class members may object to the proposed
Settlement, the request for attorneys' fees, the reimbursement of
expenses and/or any award to the named Plaintiffs. Any objections
must be filed August 19, 2010.

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING
THIS NOTICE. Inquiries may be made to the Claims Administrator at
the address and toll-free number listed above, or to Class
Counsel at the following addresses:

          Morris and Morris LLC                           
          4001 Kennett Pike, Suite 300      
          Wilmington, DE 19807

               - and -       

          Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
          270 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10016

                      BY ORDER OF THE COURT


HARTFORD INSURANCE: Notice of $10 Mil. Madison Cty. Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
     If You Submitted A Claim For Medical Payments Coverage
    Under An Automobile Insurance Policy Issued By A Company
  Affiliated With The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc.,
     Between January 1, 1990 and April 6, 2010, Or You Are A
  Healthcare Provider Who Provided Medical Services To Such A
      Person, You May Be Part Of A Class Action Settlement.

As part of the settlement, you may be eligible to file a claim to
receive a cash payment. This notice is only a summary. For more
complete information, please read the full notice by visiting the
website www.hartfordmedpaysettlement.com or by writing to the
address at the bottom of the notice.

What is the Class Action Lawsuit About?

Plaintiffs Winnie Madison and Geraldine Huff allege that The
Hartford Insurance Company of the Midwest ("Hartford Midwest")
and its affiliates improperly paid healthcare providers less than
the full amount charged by those providers for certain services
and equipment in connection with claims arising under the medical
payments coverage of automobile insurance policies issued by
Hartford Midwest or its affiliates. The lawsuit alleges that the
defendants improperly made reductions based on computerized bill
review, and that the defendants asserted that the reductions were
based on a determination that the amount of the healthcare
provider's charge exceeded a reasonable price for the healthcare
service or equipment in question. Defendants have denied that
their conduct was improper in any way and have denied all
liability.

What Are the Terms of the Settlement?

Hartford agrees to pay valid and timely claims submitted by
Insured Persons or Healthcare Providers up to an aggregate total
of $7.5 million ($7,500,000). Insured Persons or Healthcare
Providers who complete and submit a valid and timely claim form
may receive a settlement payment in an amount up to 60% of the
amount of the Disputed Reduction, subject to certain limits and
documentation requirements as explained in the Settlement
Agreement and the full Notice of Class Action Settlement. In
addition, the Settlement Agreement permits the defendants and
other parties released in the Settlement to make certain future
disclosures which, if made, would limit the ability of class
members to sue based on some of the same practices alleged in
this Litigation.

Who Represents Me?

The Court has appointed attorneys to represent the settlement
class. The defendants will pay those attorneys' fees if the
settlement is approved. You may hire your own attorney, if you
wish, at your own expense.

What Are My Legal Rights?

     -- If you wish to remain a member of the settlement class,
you do not have to do anything. To receive a cash payment, you
must file a claim. If the Court approves the proposed settlement,
you will be bound by all of the Court's orders. This means you
will not be able to sue over any of the matters covered by the
settlement.

     -- If you wish to submit a claim, it must be submitted or
postmarked by October 18, 2010. You can download a copy of the
appropriate claim form online at:

          http://www.hartfordmedpaysettlement.com/

     -- If you do not wish to be a member of the settlement
class, you must submit a letter to the settlement administrator
at the address below so that it is received by August 6, 2010. If
you request to be excluded from the settlement class you cannot
submit a claim.

     -- You can tell the Court if you do not like this proposed
settlement or some part of it if you do not exclude yourself. To
object or comment, you must file the appropriate papers with (1)
the Clerk of Court, Third Judicial Circuit Court for Madison
County, Illinois, Madison County Courthouse, 155 North Main
Street, Edwardsville, Illinois 62025, and (2) send a copy of
those papers to settlement class counsel:

          Robert W. Schmieder II, Esq.
          LAKINCHAPMAN LLC
          P.O. Box 229
          300 Evans Avenue
          Wood River, IL 62095

and (3) send a copy of those papers to counsel for defendants:

          Eugene Schoon, Esq.
          SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
          One South Dearborn
          Chicago, IL 60603.

The papers must be filed with the Court and received by counsel
no later than August 6, 2010.

Will the Court Approve the Proposed Settlement?

The Court will hold a fairness hearing on September 2, 2010 at
1:30 p.m. to consider whether the proposed settlement is fair,
reasonable, and adequate and to consider the motion for
plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and expenses and incentive awards to
the plaintiffs who represent the settlement class.

For a copy of the full Notice of Proposed Class Action Settlement
and a Claim Form, write to:

          Hartford Settlement
          c/o Rust Consulting
          P.O. Box 2321
          Faribault, MN 55021-9021

or visit http://www.hartfordmedpaysettlement.com/or call  
1-866-665-8445.

                              *   *   *   

As reported in the April 21, 2010, edition of the Class Action
Reporter, the settlement provides $7.5 million for providers,
insurers and beneficiaries, and $2.5 million in legal fees.


IDAHO: ACLU to Dismiss Prison Lawsuit for Better CCA Monitoring
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rebecca Boone at The Associated Press reports that the American
Civil Liberties Union has reached an agreement with the Idaho
Department of Correction in a potential class-action lawsuit over
violence at a privately run prison.

Under terms announced Thursday, the Idaho Department of
Correction agreed to "aggressively oversee compliance with any
such order" a federal judge makes against private prison company
Corrections Corporation of America in connection with the
lawsuit.

In return, the ACLU will drop its case against the state, but
Nashville, Tenn.-based CCA remains a defendant in the lawsuit
that alleges harsh conditions at the Idaho Correctional Center.

The state "needs to do a better job in monitoring CCA's operation
of ICC. But the primary culprit is still CCA," said Stephen
Pevar, ACLU senior staff attorney. "This will save Idaho
taxpayers thousands of dollars in legal fees and will allow all
of us to focus our attention on what is happening at ICC and to
get CCA to comply with state and federal standards."

The ACLU filed the lawsuit against the company and the state
earlier this year, saying the prison near Boise is so violent
that inmates refer to it as "gladiator school" and that guards
deliberately expose prisoners to brutal beatings from other
inmates.

CCA has countered that the prison is under the constant
supervision of the state and that it meets the highest
professional standards in the country for correctional
management.

A prepared statement from the Idaho Department of Correction said
the ACLU dropped its claims in exchange for department Director
Brent Reinke making this statement: "It is the goal of the State
of Idaho to make its prisons safe. If the current litigation in
Riggs v. Valdez results in a federal court order directed at ICC
and CCA to change their policies and procedures, the State of
Idaho will aggressively oversee compliance of an order at ICC."

In a memo filed with the federal court, ACLU attorneys said the
department's promise sufficiently resolved the organization's
claims for declaratory and injunctive relief against IDOC.
U.S. District Judge B. Lynn Winmill could decide as early as
August whether to make the lawsuit a class-action case. It
currently involves about two-dozen inmates, including lead
plaintiff Marlin Riggs, but court filings indicate that in the
last couple of months more than 50 additional inmates have
contacted the ACLU asking to take part.

Riggs and the ACLU are suing for $155 million in damages - CCA's
entire net profit for 2009. They claim in part that guards force
prisoners to turn each other in for prison rule violations, and
those who refuse are moved to cell blocks where they face
beatings from other inmates. The prisoners also contend the
prison denies medical care to the injured inmates in an effort to
save money and hide the extent of their injuries.

According to its website, CCA manages about 75,000 inmates in 64
facilities located in 19 states and the District of Columbia.


LEHMAN BROTHERS: Ernst & Young Moves for Dismissal of Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Linda Sandler at Bloomberg News reports that Ernst & Young LLP,
auditor to Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., asked a federal judge
to dismiss a class-action lawsuit over Repo 105, a financing
method allegedly used by the now-bankrupt investment bank to
conceal billions of dollars of debt, according to court records.

"We are confident in our ability to successfully defend ourselves
against claims arising from our work with Lehman," Ernst & Young
spokesman Charlie Perkins said in an e-mail message.  "We firmly
believe our work met all applicable professional standards."
Lehman filed the biggest U.S. bankruptcy in history in September
2008 with $639 billion in assets. It has said it will spend
another five years liquidating to pay unsecured creditors as
little as 14.7 cents on the dollar.

The lawsuit is In re Lehman Brothers Equity/Debt Securities
Litigation, Case No. 08-cv-05523 (S.D.N.Y.).


MICHIGAN: Pro Se Parolee Can't Represent Plaintiff Class
--------------------------------------------------------
An individual presently on parole to the Michigan Department of
Corrections through the Washtenaw County Parole Office in Ann
Arbor, Michigan, sought issuance of a writ of habeas corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254.  In his pro se application, the
petitioner challenges the Michigan Parole Board's decision to
deny him parole on his conviction for armed robbery.  The
Petitioner also filed a petition for class action certification.
The Court in Leonard v. White, Case No. 07-cv-13226 (E.D. Mich.)
(Steeh, J.), denied the petition for writ of habeas corpus as
moot, and further denied the petitioner's request for class
action certification, saying:

     "In the present case, petitioner's main objective in filing
this petition was to be released on parole. Petitioner's release
on parole renders his claim moot, because there is no longer a
case or controversy to litigate.  See Townsend v. Vasbinder, No.
2010 WL 550603, * 3 (6th Cir. February 18, 2010); Mannino v.
Gluch, 891 F. 2d 291; No. 1989 WL 145909, *1 (6th Cir. December
4, 1989); Fendler v. U.S. Bureau of Prisons, 846 F. 2d 550, 554
(9th Cir. 1988); U.S. ex. rel. Graham v. United States Parole
Board Comm'n, 732 F. 2d 849, 850 (11th Cir. 1984); Yates v.
Cunningham, 70 F. Supp. 2d 47, 51 (D.N.H. 1999). Because
petitioner has been released on parole, his challenge to the
denial of parole has been rendered moot.

     "The Court will also deny petitioner's request to file a
class action because petitioner cannot adequately protect the
interests of the class. Numerous cases have held that a prisoner
proceeding pro se is inadequate to represent the interests of his
fellow inmates in a class action. See Heard v. Caruso, 351
Fed.Appx. 1, 15 (6th Cir. 2009); Palasty v. Hawk, 15 Fed. Appx.
197, 200 (6th Cir. 2001); Craig v. Cohn, 80 F. Supp. 2d 944, 956
(N.D. Ind. 2000); Caputo v. Fauver, 800 F. Supp. 168, 169 (D.N.J.
1992); Avery v. Powell, 695 F. Supp. 632, 643 (D.N.H. 1988)."

A copy of the Opinion is available at:

     http://www.leagle.com/unsecure/page.htm?shortname=infdco20100602a50


PFIZER AUSTRALIA: Parkinson's Patients Complain About Addictions
----------------------------------------------------------------
ABC News reports that a group of people suffering Parkinson's
disease is launching a class action claiming their medication has
caused gambling and sex addiction.

The Federal Court in Melbourne, Asutralia, is being asked to hear
claims that some people taking prescription medication to treat
the tremors associated with Parkinson's disease developed a range
of uncharacteristic addictive disorders.

Lawyers will claim two drug companies breached a duty of care to
the customers on multiple fronts.

The action targets Pfizer Australia and Aspen Pharmacare
Australia and will claim the companies failed to properly
research the possible side effects of the drug, failed to provide
proper warning about the increased risks of compulsive disorders,
and did not withdraw the drug from sale after they became aware
of the increased risks.

The writ claims some people taking the drug are alleged to have
become addicted to pornography and lost their life savings to
gambling, and that the compulsive behaviour ceased once they
stopped taking the drug.

Melbourne law firm Arnold Thomas and Becker is representing the
claimants suing the companies, which market a class of drug known
as dopamine agonists.

Pfizer sells the prescribed drug cabergoline in Australia under
the brand name Cabaser.

The drug is often used as a treatment for Parkinson's sufferers
under the age of 65.

The drug restores the imbalance of the chemical dopamine, which
controls the the body's movements.

Aspen Pharmacare markets a similar drug called pergolide, which
is marketed as Permax in Australia.

There is no known cure for Parkinson's which affects about 80,000
Australians.  Symptoms of the degenerative disease include
tremors, slowness of movement and stiffness.


QWEST CORP: Plaintiffs' Appeal to Dismissal Remains Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration on the dismissal of a
putative class action against Qwest Communications International
Inc. remains pending in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Colorado.

Qwest Communications International (QCII) is the ultimate parent
of Qwest Corp.

A putative class action filed on behalf of certain of QCII's
retirees was brought against QCII, the Qwest Group Life Insurance
Plan and other related entities in federal district court in
Colorado in connection with QCII's decision to reduce the life
insurance benefit for these retirees to a $10,000 benefit.

The action was filed on March 30, 2007.

The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that QCII and other
defendants were obligated to continue their life insurance
benefit at the levels in place before QCII decided to reduce
them.  Plaintiffs seek restoration of the life insurance benefit
to previous levels and certain equitable relief.

The district court ruled in QCII's favor on the central issue of
whether QCII properly reserved its right to reduce the life
insurance benefit under applicable law and plan documents.

The plaintiffs subsequently amended their complaint to assert
additional claims.

The court has since dismissed or granted summary judgment to QCII
on all of the plaintiffs' claims.

Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration is pending before the
court.

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

Qwest Corporation -- http://www.qwest.com/-- provides data,  
Internet, video and voice services within the 14-state region of
Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Iowa, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, New
Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington and
Wyoming.  The company is wholly owned by Qwest Services
Corporation (QSC), which is wholly owned by Qwest Communications
International Inc. (QCII).  Most of its products and services are
provided using its telecommunications network, which consists of
voice and data switches, copper cables, fiber optic broadband
cables and other equipment.  Its network serves approximately
11.6 million access lines and forms a portion of the public
switched telephone network.


QWEST CORP: QCII Faces Suits Over Planned CenturyTel Merger
-----------------------------------------------------------
Qwest Communications International Inc. faces lawsuits in
relation to its merger agreement with CenturyTel, Inc., according
to Qwest Corp.'s May 5, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March
31, 2010.

Qwest Communications International (QCII) is the ultimate parent
of Qwest Corp.

On April 21, 2010, QCII entered into a merger agreement whereby
CenturyTel, Inc., will acquire QCII in a tax-free, stock-for-
stock transaction.

From April 22 to May 3, 2010, thirteen individual or putative
class action lawsuits were filed in state and federal courts in
Colorado and in state court in Delaware relating to QCII's
pending merger with CenturyLink.

The lawsuits were filed by purported QCII stockholders and name
as defendants CenturyLink, QCII, certain of QCII's officers and
members of QCII's Board of Directors.  The plaintiffs generally
allege that QCII's directors breached their fiduciary duties in
approving the merger and seek to enjoin the merger and, in some
cases, damages if the merger is completed.

Qwest Corporation -- http://www.qwest.com/-- provides data,  
Internet, video and voice services within the 14-state region of
Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Iowa, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, New
Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington and
Wyoming.  The company is wholly owned by Qwest Services
Corporation (QSC), which is wholly owned by Qwest Communications
International Inc. (QCII).  Most of its products and services are
provided using its telecommunications network, which consists of
voice and data switches, copper cables, fiber optic broadband
cables and other equipment.  Its network serves approximately
11.6 million access lines and forms a portion of the public
switched telephone network.


SONDE RESOURCES: Aware of Two Class Action Suits filed in Ontario
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sonde Resources Corp. says that it has become aware of two
proposed class action lawsuits commenced in the Ontario Superior
Court of Justice. The lawsuits purport to be brought on behalf of
purchasers or holders of common shares of the Company between
January 14, 2008, and February 17, 2009.  The actions are made
against different groups of former executives and directors of
the Company and one current officer of the Company. The actions
contain various claims relating to allegations of
misrepresentation and failure to disclose information concerning
the Company's activities in Trinidad and Tobago. These actions
appear to be based on similar allegations as made in the claim
brought in the United States against former executives of the
Company which the Company disclosed on December 14, 2009.  One of
the actions also alleges improper option granting practices and
includes the Company and Challenger Energy Corp., a wholly owned
subsidiary of the Company, as defendants.

Neither action can proceed unless certified by the Court. The
Company intends to review these claims in detail and take steps
to protect its interests.


SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS: Buried Railroad Cable Suit Filed in Wyo.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Morton at the Casper Star-Tribune reports that
telecommunications companies need to bury thousands of miles of
fiber optic cable to meet their customers' needs.

They could approach tens of thousands of landowners and hundreds
of local governments for contracts and permits, or even seek
court-ordered condemnation of property, all of which would take
years and money with no guarantee of success.

Instead, they used a 150-year-old industry in Wyoming: the
railroads.

The federal government in the 1800s and early 1900s granted
railroads limited rights of way on the surface -- and only the
surface -- of private property for their tracks and support
equipment.
But nothing else, claims a class action civil lawsuit filed by
Legacy Ranch LLP in U.S. District Court this week.

The ranch in Albany County asserts that Sprint Communications Co.
of Overland Park, Kan., and Level 3 Communications LLC of
Broomfield, Colo., entered agreements with railroads -- without
asking landowners' permission -- to bury telecommunications cable
along the rights of way, according to the complaint filed by the
ranch's attorney:

          Anthony T. Wendtland, Esq.
          WENDTLAND & WENDTLAND LLP
          2161 Coffeen Ave., Suite 301
          Sheridan, WY 82801
          Telephone: 307-673-4696

Additionally, "upon information and belief, the Defendants have
paid millions of dollars to the Railroads in exchange for
purported licenses or easement agreements allowing the Defendants
to use the railroad rights of way on or adjacent to property
owned by the Plaintiff and members of the Class," says the
complaint.

The Legacy Ranch and possibly thousands of other landowners in
Wyoming want their cuts, too.

The lawsuit does not seek a specific dollar amount.

In similar lawsuits, telecommunications companies and railroads
have defended their actions, saying landowners do not absolutely
own and possess the lands with the rights of way.
Representatives of Sprint and Level 3 Communications did not
respond to requests for comment on the Legacy Ranch lawsuit.  

The lawsuit does not name as defendants the five railroads --
Union Pacific Railroad Co., BNSF Railway Co., Consolidated Rail
Corp., CSX Transportation Inc., and Norfolk Southern Railway Co.
-- that allegedly granted the telecom companies the ability to
bury cable.

                         Western Tradition

The Legacy Ranch lawsuit joins a legacy of litigation going back
to the mid-1800s, said:

          Nels Ackerson, Esq.
          ACKERSON KAUFFMAN FEX P.C.
          1701 K Street, N.W., Suite 1050                  
          Washington, D.C. 20006                  
          Telephone: 202-833-8833
          E-mail: Nels@ackersonlaw.com

who is working with Wendtland in Wyoming.

The railroads acquired the rights of way to run a railroad on the
surface of ranchers' properties, and that included the right to
set up telegraph poles and lines between stations, Ackerson said.
But even then, the railroads claimed the rights of way allowed
them to grant telegraph companies the ability to operate
commercially, he said.

That claim didn't go over well in the 19th century, Ackerson
said. "In the 1800s, (it was) the most frequent litigation before
the United States Supreme Court."

The courts consistently ruled in favor of the landowners and
against the railroads and the telegraph companies then, he said.
And they do now, he added.

As the telecommunications industry flourished in the early 1990s,
coupled with the advent of the Internet, those companies with the
largest networks of fiber-optic technology would gain a
substantial edge over their competitors, Ackerson said.

So they worked with railroads to bury cable on abandoned railbeds
in the Midwest, he said.

That was ruled illegal, as was telecommunications infrastructure
buried on ranches in the West, Ackerson said.

While the courts have agreed on the private-property issues,
they've not always agreed that class action lawsuits in multiple
federal jurisdictions are appropriate, he said.

So the Legacy Ranch lawsuit will involve only landowners in
Wyoming to avoid unnecessary procedural roadblocks, Ackerson
said.

Despite the legal precedents, the practice continues, with the
telecom companies and railroads taking the approach that it's
easier to ask for forgiveness than it is to ask for permission,
he said.

And the quasi-lawless attitude spices the disputes, Ackerson
said.

"There's the Wild West flair -- if you want something and can't
get it, you just take it," he said.


UNUM GROUP: Plaintiffs' Appeal on Dismissal of Claims Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
The appeal of the plaintiffs in the matter In re Insurance
Brokerage Antitrust Litigation, on the dismissal of the federal
antitrust and Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act
claims remains pending in the U.S. Third Circuit Court of
Appeals.

Unum Group and certain of its subsidiaries, along with many other
insurance brokers and insurers, have been named as defendants in
a series of putative class actions that have been transferred to
the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey for
coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings as part of
multidistrict litigation (MDL) No. 1663, In re Insurance
Brokerage Antitrust Litigation.

The plaintiffs in MDL No. 1663 filed a consolidated amended
complaint in August 2005, which alleges, among other things, that
the defendants violated federal and state antitrust laws, the
Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act, the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act, and various state common law
requirements by engaging in alleged bid rigging and customer
allocation and by paying undisclosed compensation to insurance
brokers to steer business to defendant insurers.
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on Nov. 29,
2005.  On April 5, 2007, defendants' motion to dismiss was
granted without prejudice as to all counts except the ERISA
counts.  Plaintiffs were granted a last opportunity to file an
amended complaint, and they did so on May 22, 2007.

On Aug. 31, 2007, and Sept. 28, 2007, plaintiffs' federal
antitrust and RICO claims were dismissed with prejudice.
Defendants' motion for summary judgment on the ERISA counts was
granted on Jan. 14, 2008.  All pending state law claims were
dismissed without prejudice.

Plaintiffs have filed an appeal with the Third Circuit Court of
Appeals of the order dismissing their federal antitrust and RICO
claims.

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.

Unum Group -- http://www.unum.com/-- is one of the leading  
providers of employee benefits products and services and the
largest provider of group and individual disability insurance in
the United States and the United Kingdom.


UNUM GROUP: Agrees to Settle Suit on Life Insurance Policies
------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in the matter Roy Mogel, Todd D. Lindsay and Joseph
R. Thorley individually and on behalf of those similarly situated
v. Unum Life Insurance Company, has reached a tentative
settlement resolving the matter, according to Unum Group's May 5,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

In May 2007, Roy Mogel, Todd D. Lindsay and Joseph R. Thorley
individually and on behalf of those similarly situated v. Unum
Life Insurance Company, was filed in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Massachusetts.  This is a putative class action
alleging that the company breached fiduciary duties owed to
certain beneficiaries under certain group life insurance policies
when the company paid life insurance proceeds by establishing
interest-bearing retained asset accounts rather than by mailing
checks.

Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of beneficiaries under group
life insurance contracts that were employee welfare benefit plans
under ERISA and under which the company paid death benefits
pursuant to a retained asset account.  Plaintiffs seek to recover
on behalf of the class the difference between the interest paid
to them and amounts alleged to have been realized by the company
through its investment of the retained assets.

On Feb. 4, 2008, the court granted the company's motion to
dismiss all claims, but on Nov. 6, 2008 the First Circuit Court
of Appeals vacated the District Court's order.

The company's petition for rehearing in the First Circuit Court
of Appeals was denied on Jan. 21, 2009, and the case was remanded
to the District Court.  On Aug. 19, 2009, the District Court
denied plaintiffs' motion for class certification under Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 23(b)(2).  Plaintiffs filed a
motion for leave to file an amended complaint and to file a
renewed motion for class certification under Rules of Civil
Procedure Rule 23(b)(3).

On Dec. 16, 2009, the court denied plaintiffs' motion.

During the first quarter of 2010, the parties reached a tentative
settlement of this matter.  The settlement agreement, which would
require payment of an amount immaterial to our operating results,
is subject to notice to the settlement class and District Court
approval following a fairness hearing.  An estimate of the
liability to resolve this matter has been established.

Unum Group -- http://www.unum.com/-- is one of the leading  
providers of employee benefits products and services and the
largest provider of group and individual disability insurance in
the United States and the United Kingdom.


WMS INDUSTRIES: Loto-Quebec Settles Quebec Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
La Societe de Loteries du Quebec has reached court approved
settlement resolving a class action lawsuit pending in the
uperior Court of the Province of Quebec, according to WMS
Industries 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 Oct. 2, 2003, La Societe de Loteries du Quebec (Loto-Quebec)
filed claims against the company and Video Lottery Consultants
Inc., a subsidiary of International Game Technology, (VLC) in the
Superior Court of the Province of Quebec, Quebec City District
(200-06-000017-015).

The pleadings alleged that Loto-Quebec would be entitled to be
indemnified by the manufacturers of Loto-Quebec's VLTs,
specifically WMS and VLC, if the class action plaintiffs were
successful in the pending class action lawsuit against Loto-
Quebec.  In July 2008, the company entered into a settlement
agreement with Loto-Quebec under which Loto-Quebec agreed to
suspend the action in warranty against the company in exchange
for the company's agreement to continue cooperating with the
defense of the class action lawsuit against Loto-Quebec and, in
the event of an adverse outcome in such lawsuit against Loto-
Quebec, to arbitration of any warranty claim by Loto-Quebec.

The class action lawsuit in Loto-Quebec's claim was brought on
May 18, 2001, against Loto-Quebec in the Superior Court of the
Province of Quebec.  It alleged that the members of the class
developed a pathological gambling addiction by using Loto-
Quebec's VLTs and that Loto-Quebec, as owner, operator and
distributor of VLTs, failed to warn players of the alleged
dangers associated with VLTs.  Loto-Quebec and the class-action
plaintiffs reached a court approved settlement in March 2010.  
Loto-Quebec has indicated it does not expect to pursue
arbitration of any claims against the company under the terms of
the settlement agreement, but the time period for a final
election by Loto-Quebec under the settlement agreement has not
expired.

WMS Industries Inc. -- http://www.wms.com/-- is engaged in  
serving the gaming industry worldwide by designing, manufacturing
and marketing video and reel-spinning gaming machines, video
lottery terminals, and in gaming operations, which consists of
the placement of leased participation gaming machines in legal
gaming venues.  WMS is proactively addressing the next stage of
casino gaming floor evolution with its WAGE-NET networked gaming
solution, a suite of systems technologies and applications
designed to increase customers' revenue generating capabilities
and operational efficiency.

                            *********

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  * * *