CAR_Public/100609.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Wednesday, June 9, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 112

                            Headlines

AMPAL-AMERICAN: Motion to Certify Class in Suit vs. 012 Pending
AMPAL-AMERICAN: Pre-Trial Hearing in "Tariffs" Suit on June 23
AMPAL-AMERICAN: 012 Smile Defends "Anti Spam" Violations Suit
AMPAL-AMERICAN: Certification Hearing vs. 012 Set for June 22
AMPAL-AMERICAN: 012 Defends "Web Traffic" Suit in Central Israel

AMPAL-AMERICAN: 012 Smile Defends Suit Over Call Center Charge
ARC INT'L: Recalls 12 Million Collectable Drinking Glasses
BH MANAGEMENT: Sued for Failing to Return Rental Security Deposit
CARL ICAHN: Sued for Manipulating XO Holdings' Stock Price
CBS RADIO: Sued for Including Non-Compete Provision in Contracts

CNH AMERICA: Accused of Refusing to Pay Guaranteed Overtime Pay
COOPER COMPANIES: Agrees to Settle Consolidated Suit in Calif.
DINEEQUITY INC: Continues to Defend Gerald Fast's Lawsuit
GALEN HOSPITAL: Notice of Proposed Settlement of ADA Litigation
GENERAL ELECTRIC: Accused of Selling Defective SmartMeters

INTEGRAL SYSTEMS: Maryland Suit Over Restatement Concluded
INTELIUS INC: Sued in Wash. Over Unauthorized Subscriptions
LG DISPLAY: Accused in New York Suit of Misleading Shareholders
LOMA GARDENS: Charged With Failing to Provide Necessary Repairs
M.A. LAW: Accused in Calif. Suit of Abandoning Clients

MEDIACOM COMMUNICATION: Sued Over Proposed Discounted Share Sale
OLD REPUBLIC: ORNTIC Defends Class Suit in Pennsylvania
OLD REPUBLIC: ORNTIC Defends Title Insurance Lawsuit in Texas
OLD REPUBLIC: Settles Title Insurance Suits in NJ and Conn.
OLD REPUBLIC: ORNTIC Remains a Defendant in 27 Consumer Suits

OLD REPUBLIC: ORHP Removes Suit to Southern California
OLD REPUBLIC: Defends RESPA Violations Suit in Alabama
SONY COMPUTER: Suit Calls Final Fantasy XIII Video Game Defective
SONY CORP: Rear Projection TV Settlement Hearing Set For Aug. 13
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Sept. 13 Fairness Hearing Set in S.D.N.Y.

WHOLE FOODS: Accused in New York Suit of Not Paying Overtime

                            *********

AMPAL-AMERICAN: Motion to Certify Class in Suit vs. 012 Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
A motion to certify a class action against several international
telephony companies, including 012 Smile Communications Ltd.,
remains pending.

012 Smile is Ampal-American Israel Corporation's subsidiary.

In April 2008, a motion to certify a class action was filed with
various District Courts in Israel against several international
telephony companies including 012, with respect to prepaid
calling card services.

The plaintiffs allege that:

     (i) the defendants unlawfully charged consumers in excess
         of the tariffs published by them,

    (ii) the prepaid calling cards provide an average of 50% of
         the units of time indicated to the purchasers of the
         cards,  

   (iii) the defendants deducted from the prepaid calling card
         the time spent when a user unsuccessfully attempts to
         make a call utilizing the card,

    (iv) the defendants calculated and collected payment not by
         units of round minutes indicated,

     (v) the defendants provided misleading information about
         the number of "units" on the card, and

    (vi) the defendants formed a cartel that arranged and raised
         the prices of calling cards.

In the event the lawsuit is certified as a class action, the
total amount claimed against 012 is NIS226.4 million
(approximately $60 million).  012 replied to the motion on April
2009, and the court is currently awaiting the filing of final
summaries by the parties before granting its decision.

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

Ampal-American Israel Corporation -- http://www.ampal.com/-- and  
its subsidiaries acquire interests primarily in businesses
located in the State of Israel or that are Israel-related.  Ampal
is seeking opportunistic situations in a variety of industries,
with a focus on energy, chemicals, communication and related
sectors.  Ampal's goal is to develop or acquire majority
interests in businesses that are profitable and generate
significant free cash flow that Ampal can control.  


AMPAL-AMERICAN: Pre-Trial Hearing in "Tariffs" Suit on June 23
--------------------------------------------------------------
Another pre-trial hearing in a class action against 012 Smile
Communications Ltd., in connection with its monthly tariffs for
Internet services, is set for June 23, 2010, according to Ampal-
American Israel Corp.'s May 5, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2010.

012 Smile is Ampal-American's subsidiary.

In November 2008, a motion to certify a class action was filed
with the Tel Aviv District Court in Israel against 012.

The action alleges that 012 unlawfully raised the monthly tariffs
for its Internet services.

The total amount of the claim is NIS 81.5 million (approximately
$21.6 million). 012 replied to the motion on May 2009.

The motion was scheduled to be heard on March 16, 2010.

A pre-trial hearing was held on January 2010.  The case is
scheduled for an additional pre-trial hearing on June 23, 2010.

Ampal-American Israel Corporation -- http://www.ampal.com/-- and  
its subsidiaries acquire interests primarily in businesses
located in the State of Israel or that are Israel-related.  Ampal
is seeking opportunistic situations in a variety of industries,
with a focus on energy, chemicals, communication and related
sectors.  Ampal's goal is to develop or acquire majority
interests in businesses that are profitable and generate
significant free cash flow that Ampal can control.


AMPAL-AMERICAN: 012 Smile Defends "Anti Spam" Violations Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
012 Smile Communications Ltd., continues to defend a suit
alleging violation of Israeli "anti spam" law in the Central
District Court in Israel.

012 Smile is Ampal-American Israel Corporation's subsidiary.

In November 2009, a motion to certify a class action was filed
against 012 with the Central District Court in Israel.

Together with the filing of the motion, the plaintiff filed a
motion for a temporary restrictive order to prevent 012 from
deleting or changing data from its database with regard to the
plaintiff's claims in the motion.  The motion alleges that 012
has violated the Israeli "anti spam" law by sending advertising
materials to its customers.

The amount of the plaintiff's personal claim is set at NIS 10,000
(approximately $2,650).  The estimated amount of the entire claim
is yet to be known.

On Nov. 29, 2009, the court granted a temporary order which
prevents 012 from deleting or changing data from its database
with regard to specific messages which according to the motion
were sent by the plaintiff to 012.  012 filed its response to the
motion on February 2010.  

A court hearing was held on March 2010 and the court ordered the
plaintiff to notify the Court by May 17, 2010, whether he intends
to litigate the claim and the request or to submit a motion to
withdrawal.

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

Ampal-American Israel Corporation -- http://www.ampal.com/-- and  
its subsidiaries acquire interests primarily in businesses
located in the State of Israel or that are Israel-related.  Ampal
is seeking opportunistic situations in a variety of industries,
with a focus on energy, chemicals, communication and related
sectors.  Ampal's goal is to develop or acquire majority
interests in businesses that are profitable and generate
significant free cash flow that Ampal can control.  


AMPAL-AMERICAN: Certification Hearing vs. 012 Set for June 22
-------------------------------------------------------------
A motion to certify a class action against 012 Smile
Communications Ltd., in relation to its collection expenses
charged to customers, is set for June 22, 2010, according to
Ampal-American Israel Corp.'s May 5, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
March 31, 2009.

012 is Ampal-American's subsidiary.

In November 2009, a motion to certify a class action was filed
against 012 with the Tel-Aviv District Court in Israel.

The motion alleges that 012 unlawfully charges its customers who
do not pay their debts on time with collection expenses.

The estimated amount of the entire claim is NIS 21.75 Million
(approximately $5.9 million).  012 has not yet replied to the
motion.

The motion is scheduled to be heard on June 22, 2010.

Ampal-American Israel Corporation -- http://www.ampal.com/-- and  
its subsidiaries acquire interests primarily in businesses
located in the State of Israel or that are Israel-related.  Ampal
is seeking opportunistic situations in a variety of industries,
with a focus on energy, chemicals, communication and related
sectors.  Ampal's goal is to develop or acquire majority
interests in businesses that are profitable and generate
significant free cash flow that Ampal can control.


AMPAL-AMERICAN: 012 Defends "Web Traffic" Suit in Central Israel
----------------------------------------------------------------
012 Smile Communications Ltd., continues to defend a suit
alleging that its unlawfully intervenes in web traffic.

012 is Ampal-American Israel Corp.'s subsidiary.

In December 2009, a motion to certify a class action was filed
against 012 with the Central District Court in Israel.

The motion alleges that 012 unlawfully intervenes with web
traffic, especially as it relates to Peer to Peer websites.

The estimated amount of the entire claim is NIS 40 Million
(approximately $10.8 million).

012 has not yet replied to the motion.

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

Ampal-American Israel Corporation -- http://www.ampal.com/-- and  
its subsidiaries acquire interests primarily in businesses
located in the State of Israel or that are Israel-related.  Ampal
is seeking opportunistic situations in a variety of industries,
with a focus on energy, chemicals, communication and related
sectors.  Ampal's goal is to develop or acquire majority
interests in businesses that are profitable and generate
significant free cash flow that Ampal can control.


AMPAL-AMERICAN: 012 Smile Defends Suit Over Call Center Charge
--------------------------------------------------------------
012 Smile Communications Ltd., is defending a suit relating to
charging customers when placing calls to 012's support center,
according to Ampal-American Israel Corp.'s May 5, 2010, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

012 is Ampal-American's subsidiary.

In January 2010, a motion to certify a class action was filed
against 012, 012's subsidiary, 012 Telecom Ltd., and others with
the Central District Court in Israel.

The motion alleges that 012 unlawfully charges its customers when
placing calls to 012's support center.

The total amount of the action against 012 and its subsidiary is
approximately NIS 48.6 million (approximately $13 million).

012's response to the motion is due by July 1, 2010.

Ampal-American Israel Corporation -- http://www.ampal.com/-- and  
its subsidiaries acquire interests primarily in businesses
located in the State of Israel or that are Israel-related.  Ampal
is seeking opportunistic situations in a variety of industries,
with a focus on energy, chemicals, communication and related
sectors.  Ampal's goal is to develop or acquire majority
interests in businesses that are profitable and generate
significant free cash flow that Ampal can control.


ARC INT'L: Recalls 12 Million Collectable Drinking Glasses
----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
ARC International, of Millville, NJ., announced a voluntary
recall of about 12 million "Shrek Forever After 3D" Collectable
Drinking Glasses.  Consumers should stop using recalled products
immediately unless otherwise instructed.

The designs on the glasses contain cadmium.  Long term exposure
to cadmium can cause adverse health effects.

No injuries or incidents have been reported.

The "Shrek Forever After 3D" collectable drinking glass are 16
ounce glasses that came in four designs, Shrek, Fiona, Puss n'
Boots, and Donkey.

This recall involves the "Shrek Forever After 3D"collectable
drinking glass are 16 ounce glasses that came in four designs,
Shrek, Fiona, Puss n' Boots, and Donkey.  Pictures of the
recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10257.html

The recalled products were manufactured in the United States and
sold exclusively at McDonald's restaurants nationwide from May
2010 into June 2010 for about $2.

McDonald's is asking consumers to immediately stop using the
glass out of an abundance of caution.  Visit
http://www.mcdonalds.com for additional instructions on how to  
obtain a full refund.  For additional information, contact
McDonald's toll-free at (800) 244-6227 between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00
p.m., Central Time, Monday through Friday or visit the firm's
website at http://www.mcdonalds.com/


BH MANAGEMENT: Sued for Failing to Return Rental Security Deposit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Carolina Orozco, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. BH Management Services Inc., et al., Case No.
2010-CH-23127 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty. June 1, 2010), accuses
the
apartment management company of refusing to return Ms. Orozco's
security deposit or interest on her security deposit, in
violation of the Illinois Security Deposit Return Act ("ISDRA")
and the Illinois Security Deposit Interest Act. ("ISDIA").  The
ISDIA requires a lessor of residential real property, containing
25 or more units, to pay security deposit interest within 30 days
after the end of each 12-month rental period, except when the
lessee is in default under the terms of the lease.  ISDRA
provides that a lessor of residential real property, containing 5
or more units, may not withhold any part of a security deposit as
compensation for property damage, unless he has furnished to the
lessee an itemized statement of the damage allegedly caused and
the estimated or actual cost of the repairs.  If no statement is
furnished, the lessor is required to return the security deposit
in full within 45 days of the date that the lessee vacated the
premises.  

Between April 1, 2008, and March 31, 2010, Ms. Orozco leased from
BH Management Services, Apartment 110 at the residential
apartment building at 427 E. Seegers Rd. in Arlington Heights,
County of Cook.  Ms. Orozco says she was not in default when she
moved out March 31, 2010.  Ms Orozco further says BH Management
Services kept her security deposit for alleged damage to property
despite not providing a statement of the estimated cost of the
damage allegedly caused as required under ISDRA.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark Silverman, Esq.
          MARK SILVERMAN LAW OFFICE LTD.
          225 W. Washington, Suite 2200
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 775-1015


CARL ICAHN: Sued for Manipulating XO Holdings' Stock Price
----------------------------------------------------------
Youlu Zheng, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. Carl C. Icahn, et al., Case No. 650499/2010 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.,
N.Y. Cty. June 2, 2010), accuses the Chairman of the Board and
controlling shareholder of XO Holdings, Inc., and other
individual defendants of manipulating XO Holdings' stock price at
the expense of the Company's minority shareholders, in breach of
their fiduciary duties to the company and its shareholders.  Mr.
Zheng is a minority stockholder of XO Holdings.    

XO Holdings is a leading facilities-based, competitive
telecommunications services provider.  Mr. Zheng says that Mr.
Icahn, through related entities, attempted several times to
acquire a portion of the Company that he does not already own for
inadequate consideration, and that each time his attempt failed,
he deliberately manipulated the Company's EBITDA and depressed
the stock price in order to reach 80% ownership and take the
Company's net operating losses ("NOLs") for his own benefit.  
Under the tax laws, a shareholder who owns 80% or more of a
company may use its NOLs to reduce the tax burden on other,
profitable companies, in which the shareholder holds more than an
80% interest.  

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Arthur N. Abbey, Esq.
          Judith L. Spanier, Esq.
          Stephanie Amin-Giwner, Esq.
          ABBEY SPANIER RODD & ABRAMS, LLP
          212 East 39th Street
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 889-3700


CBS RADIO: Sued for Including Non-Compete Provision in Contracts
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Murphy, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. CBS Radio East Inc., Case No. 2010-CH-23039 (Ill.
Cir. Ct., Cook Cty. June 1, 2010), accuses CBS Radio of including
non-compete and other restrictive covenants limiting broadcasting
industry employees' right to seek employment upon termination or
expiration of their employment contracts, in violation of
Illinois statute 820 ILCS 17/10.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lucas M. Fuksa, Esq.
          FUKSA KHORSHID, LLC
          70 W. Erie, 2nd Floor
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 266-2221


CNH AMERICA: Accused of Refusing to Pay Guaranteed Overtime Pay
---------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Headley, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. CNH America LLC, Case No. 2010-L-006367 (Ill. Cir.
Ct., Cook Cty. June 1, 2010), asserts breach of contract,
promissory estoppel, quantum meruit, unjust enrichment, and
violation of the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act claims.  
Mr. Headley says the agricultural equipment manufacturer required
depot personnel to carry a cell phone with them 24 hours, 7 days
a week, guaranteeing 4 hours overtime seven days a week whether
or not employees handled a call.  Mr. Headley says that CNH
America has refused to pay him the overtime pay he has earned.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marty Denis, Esq.
          Samantha Seberg, Esq.
          BARLOW, KOBATA & DENIS LLP
          525 W. Monroe, Suite 2360
          Chicago, IL 60661
          Telephone: (312) 648-5570


COOPER COMPANIES: Agrees to Settle Consolidated Suit in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Cooper Companies, Inc. has reached an agreement in principle
to settle all claims in the consolidated class action, pending in
the United States District Court for the Central District of
California, according to the company's May 5, 2010, Form 8-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

On Feb. 15, 2006, Alvin L. Levine filed a putative securities
class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, Case No. SACV-06-169 CJC, against the
Company,cA. Thomas Bender, its Chairman of the Board and a
director, Robert S. Weiss, its Chief Executive Officer and a
director, and John D. Fruth, a former director.  On May 19, 2006,
the Court consolidated this action and two related actions under
the heading In re Cooper Companies, Inc. Securities Litigation
and selected a lead plaintiff and lead counsel pursuant to the
provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of
1995, 15 U.S.C. Section 78u-4.

The lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint on July 31,
2006.  The consolidated complaint was filed on behalf of all
purchasers of the company's securities between July 28, 2004, and
Dec. 12, 2005, including persons who received company securities
in exchange for their shares of Ocular Sciences, Inc. in the
January 2005 merger pursuant to which the company acquired
Ocular.  In addition to the company, Messrs. Bender, Weiss, and
Fruth, the consolidated complaint named as defendants several of
the Company's other current officers and directors and former
officers.  On July 13, 2007, the Court granted Cooper's motion to
dismiss the consolidated complaint and granted the lead plaintiff
leave to amend to attempt to state a valid claim.

On Aug. 9, 2007, the lead plaintiff filed an amended consolidated
complaint.  In addition to the company, the amended consolidated
complaint names as defendants Messrs. Bender, Weiss, Fruth,
Steven M. Neil, the company's former Executive Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer, and Gregory A. Fryling, CooperVision's
former President and Chief Operating Officer.

The amended consolidated complaint purports to allege violations
of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of
1934 by, among other things, contending that the defendants made
misstatements concerning the Biomedics(R) product line, sales
force integration following the merger with Ocular, the impact of
silicone hydrogel lenses and financial projections.  The amended
consolidated complaint also alleges that the company improperly
accounted for assets acquired in the Ocular merger by improperly
allocating $100 million of acquired customer relationships and
manufacturing technology to goodwill (which is not amortized
against earnings) instead of to intangible assets other than
goodwill (which are amortized against earnings), that the company
lacked appropriate internal controls and issued false and
misleading Sarbanes-Oxley Act certifications.

On Oct. 23, 2007, the Court granted in-part and denied in-part
Cooper and the individual defendants' motion to dismiss.  The
Court dismissed the claims relating to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
certifications, the company's financial projections and the
Company's accounting of assets acquired in the Ocular merger.
The Court denied the motion as to the claims related to alleged
false statements concerning the Biomedics product line, sales
force integration and the impact of silicone hydrogel lenses.  On
Nov. 28, 2007, the Court dismissed all claims against Mr. Fruth.  
On Dec. 3, 2007, the company and Messrs.  Bender, Weiss, Neil and
Fryling answered the amended consolidated complaint.  On April 8,
2008, the Court granted a motion by Mr. Neil for judgment on the
pleadings as to him.  On Oct. 20, 2009, the Court reaffirmed that
Plaintiffs' financial projection claims had been dismissed in its
earlier rulings.

On Jan. 6, 2009, the Court granted plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.  The certified class consists of those persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired Cooper common stock between July
28, 2004, and Nov. 21, 2005.  Discovery in this matter has
closed. Cooper and the individual defendants filed summary
judgment motions on Dec. 21, 2009.  On Feb. 2, 2010, the Court
vacated the pre-trial and trial dates while it considered the
summary judgment motions.  On March 4, 2010, the Court denied in
substantial part the motions for summary judgment.  Court ordered
settlement efforts have not been successful.

The company reached an agreement in principle to settle all
claims in the consolidated class action brought on behalf of a
class of stockholders who purchased common stock of the company
during the period from July 28, 2004 through Nov. 21, 2005.

The company will record, in its quarter ended April 30, 2010, a
charge in the amount of $27.0 million for the settlement.  The
settlement is subject to the completion of a final written
settlement agreement and court approval.

The Cooper Companies, Inc. -- http://www.coopercos.com/--  
manufactures and markets specialty healthcare products through
its CooperVision and CooperSurgical units. Corporate offices are
in Pleasanton, California.  CooperVision, Inc., develops,
manufactures and markets a broad range of contact lenses for the
worldwide vision correction market.  Headquartered in Pleasanton,
CA, it manufactures in: Juana Diaz, Puerto Rico; Norfolk, VA;
Rochester, NY; Adelaide, Australia; and Hamble and Hampshire, UK.  
CooperSurgical, Inc. develops, manufactures and markets medical
devices, diagnostic products and surgical instruments and
accessories used primarily by gynecologists and obstetricians.  
Its major manufacturing and distribution facilities are in
Trumbull, CT, Pasadena, CA, and Stafford, TX.


DINEEQUITY INC: Continues to Defend Gerald Fast's Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------
DineEquity, Inc., continues to defend the matter Gerald Fast v.
Applebee's International, Inc., according to the company's
May 5, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

The company is currently defending a collective action filed
under the Fair Labor Standards Act in which named plaintiffs
claim that tipped workers in company restaurants perform
excessive amounts of non-tipped work for which they should be
compensated at the minimum wage.  The court has conditionally
certified a nationwide class of servers and bartenders who have
worked in company-operated Applebee's restaurants since June 19,
2004.

Unlike a class action, a collective action requires potential
class members to "opt in" rather than "opt out."  On Feb. 12,
2008, 5,540 opt-in forms were filed with the court.

In cases of this type, conditional certification of the plaintiff
class is granted under a lenient standard.  On Jan. 15, 2009, the
company filed a motion seeking to have the class de-certified and
the plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment, both of which
were denied by the court.  The parties stipulated to a bench
trial which was set to begin on Sept. 8, 2009 in Jefferson City,
Missouri.

Just prior to trial, however, the court vacated the trial setting
in order to submit key legal issues to the Eighth Circuit Court
of Appeals for review on interlocutory appeal.  The Court of
Appeals has agreed to hear the interlocutory appeal.

According to the current schedule, briefing will be complete mid-
August 2010.  

No date has been set for oral argument.

Based in Glendale, California, DineEquity, Inc. --
http://www.dineequity.com/-- through its subsidiaries,  
franchises and operates restaurants under the Applebee's
Neighborhood Grill & Bar and IHOP brands.  With more than 3,450
restaurants combined, DineEquity is the largest full-service
restaurant company in the world.


GALEN HOSPITAL: Notice of Proposed Settlement of ADA Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
NOTICE OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT TO: ALL PEOPLE IN THE UNITED
STATES WITH DISABILITIES AS THAT TERM HAS BEEN DEFINED BY 42
U.S.C. Sec. 12102(2), INCLUDING THOSE PERSONS WHO HAVE AN
IMPAIRMENT THAT SUBSTANTIALLY LIMITS A MAJOR LIFE FUNCTION,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO MOBILITY, HEARING, AND SIGHT, WHO
SEEK, HAVE SOUGHT, OR WILL SEEK ACCESS TO OR USE OF ANY GOOD,
SERVICE, PROGRAM, FACILITY, PRIVILEGE, OR ACCOMMODATION OF THE
FACILITIES OF GALEN HOSPITAL ALASKA, INC.

You are covered by and will be bound by the settlement of a class
action lawsuit involving physical access barriers at the
Facilities of Galen Hospital Alaska, Inc. d/b/a Alaska Regional
Hospital.  This Notice is to inform you of facts which affect
your legal rights.

SUMMARY OF THE LAWSUIT

A class action lawsuit entitled Access Now, Inc., et al. v.
Ambulatory Surgery Center Group, Ltd., et al., Case No. 99-0109-
CIV-GARBER, is currently pending in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Florida involving disability
access at the facilities of Galen Hospital Alaska, Inc. ("Medical
Center"). The complaint alleges on behalf of all disabled
individuals, including individuals with mobility, visual, or
hearing impairments, that the Medical Center is in violation of
the Americans with Disabilities Act and its implementing
regulations. The complaint alleges that the Medical Center has
failed to provide equal access for persons with disabilities to
the Medical Center's facilities, because numerous physical,
communication, structural, and program barriers exist at the
Medical Center. The Medical Center has denied these allegations.
By entering into a settlement of this action, the Medical Center
does not admit or imply that it engaged in any wrongful action or
inaction, or damages or injured anyone in any fashion.  This
lawsuit has been certified by the Court as a class action. The
Named Plaintiffs serve as class representatives, and their
counsel are Miguel M. de la O and David E. Marko of the law firm
de la O, Marko, Magolnick & Leyton. Those lawyers serve as
counsel for the class. The Medical Center is represented by
Elizabeth Rodriguez of the law firm Ford & Harrison LLP.

DEFINITION OF THE CLASS

You are a member of the class if you are an individual with any
type of disability whatsoever, and seek, have sought, or will
seek access to or use of any facility of Medical Center.

SUMMARY OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT

The named plaintiffs and the Medical Center have reached a
proposed settlement of this class action lawsuit as to the
Medical Center. The United States District Court has
preliminarily approved that settlement, although the Court has
made no findings and offers no o pinion with respect to the
merits of the settlement. The proposed settlement provides in
substances that the Medical Center will make modifications and
alterations to its Facilities, including public restrooms, paths
of travel, parking, and other public areas within the facilities,
with the express purpose of improving and/or providing equal
access to and usability of the Facilities by persons with
disabilities. No money damages are to be paid to members of the
class.

PROCEDURES CONCERNING THE SETTLEMENT

Court Hearing. On August 5, 2010, at 10:00 a.m., the court will
hold a hearing at the United States District Court, Southern
District of Florida, Courtroom Four, 10th Floor, 99 N.E. 4th
Street, Miami, Florida 33132, to determine whether the proposed
settlement agreement is fair and reasonable and should be given
Final Approval, and to consider the application of Named
Plaintiffs' counsel for attorneys' fees and costs.

Objections to the Settlement.

If you believe the Court should not approve the settlement, you
may advise the Court of your objections and a special hearing
will be scheduled on a date to be determined by the Court. To be
considered by the Court, however, any objections to the final
approval of the settlement must state the basis for the objection
and must be timely filed in writing, along with all other papers
or briefs the objector wishes the Court to consider, with the
office of the Clerk of the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida, 301 N. Miami Avenue, Miami,
Florida, 33128, and served upon Class Counsel and counsel for
Defendant on or before July 9, 2010 ("Cutoff Date"). All
objections must include at the top of the document the case name,
the case number, and the name of the Defendant to whom the
objections relate. If any attorney will be representing an
individual objecting to the settlement, the attorney shall file a
notice of appearance with the Court and serve counsel for all
parties on or before the Cutoff Date. Any member of the class who
does not timely file and serve a written objection in the manner
prescribed herein (1) shall not be permitted to raise such
objection, except for good cause shown, and (2) shall be deemed
to have waived, and shall be foreclosed from raising, any such
objection.

Entry of Judgment.

If the settlement is approved by the Court, the order approving
the proposed settlement and a judgment dismissing this action
with prejudice as to Medical Center, will be entered on or after
August 5, 2010. You should not expect to receive any further
notices concerning the entry of such order and judgment, or of
the proceedings which occur before such entry. All class members
will be bound by the judgment. The judgment will bar all class
members from asserting any claims under or related to Title III
of the ADA and its implementing regulations against the Medical
Center concerning physical, communication, structural and program
access barriers in accordance with the terms of the Agreement.
Also, pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement in this
matter, all class members are deemed to have waived the
protection provided by any state statutes or codes with respect
to unknown claims at the time of a general release, and the
general release in this action will be effective to forever
discharge any claims relating to physical, communication,
structural and program access barriers under or related to Title
III of the ADA and its implementing regulations, if any, at the
Medical Center by a class member at the time of the settlement
agreement whether known or unknown to the class member.

FURTHER INFORMATION

The nature of this lawsuit and the proposed settlement are
summarized in this Notice. More detailed information about the
settlement of the Action, including a complete copy of the
settlement agreement, may be obtained from class counsel at:

          Miguel M. de la O, Esq.
          David E. Marko, Esq.
          DE LA O, MARKO, MAGOLNICK & LEYTON
          3001 S.W. 3rd Ave.
          Miami, FL 33129

or by consulting the public file on the case at the Office of the
Clerk of the Court, United States District Court, Southern
District of Florida, 301 N. Miami Avenue, Miami, Florida.

            Please Follow the Procedures Set out Above.

           Please Do Not Contact the Judge or the Clerk
        of the Court With Any Question About the Settlement


GENERAL ELECTRIC: Accused of Selling Defective SmartMeters
----------------------------------------------------------
William Edwards and Angela Rollings, on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated v. General Electric Co., et al., Case
No. 10-cv-02431 (N.D. Calif. June 1, 2010), assert violations of
the California Legal Remedies Act and the California Business and
Professional Code, also known as the Unfair Competition Law, and
unjust enrichment arising out of Defendants' defective SSN
transmission technology (the "SmartMeters").  Mr. Edwards and Ms.
Rollings say the SmartMeters are defective because the
Smartmeters' firmware transmits incorrect electrical usage data
in excess of the amount of electricity actually consumed.  Mr.
Edwards and Ms. Rollings add that the SmartMeters manufacturer
has refused to remedy the defect or to compensate for the amount
wrongfully charged.  SmartMeters record and electrical
consumption data from a residence to the utility company, without
the need for a utility company employee to read the display of
the customer's electrical meter.  General Electric and its co-
defendants have refused to publicly admit that the SmartMeters
are defective.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Paul R. Kiesel, Esq.
          KIESEL BOUCHER & LARSON LLP
          8648 Wilshire Boulevard
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211-2910
          Telephone: (310) 854-4444

               - and -

          Paul O. Paradis, Esq.
          Gina M. Tufaro, Esq.
          HORWITZ, HORWITZ & PARADIS
          405 Lexington Avenue, 61st Floor
          New York, NY 10174
          Telephone: (212) 986-4500

               - and -

          Brant C. Martin, Esq.
          WICK PHILLIPS GOULD & MARTIN LLP
          100 Throckmorton St., Suite 550
          Fort Worth, TX 76102
          Telephone: (817) 332-7788      


INTEGRAL SYSTEMS: Maryland Suit Over Restatement Concluded
----------------------------------------------------------
A purported securities class action against Integral Systems,
Inc., arising out of its restatement of financial results for the
first three quarters of fiscal year 2008, has been concluded,
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 26, 2010.

On Dec. 15, 2008, a purported securities class action complaint
was filed in Maryland federal court against the company and
certain of its current and former officers following the
company's announcement on Dec. 10, 2008, that it would restate
its financial results for the first three quarters of fiscal year
2008.

On Feb. 17, 2009, five individual shareholders referring to
themselves as the "Ulrich Group" filed an uncontested motion for
appointment as lead plaintiffs and for approval of lead counsel.  
On July 21, 2009, the court dismissed the case for failure to
effect service, apparently as a result of the fact that
plaintiffs had not filed proofs of service as of that date.

On Aug. 3, 2009, plaintiffs filed a motion for relief from
judgment requesting that the court vacate the order of dismissal,
grant the uncontested motion for appointment of lead plaintiff
and lead counsel, and enter a joint stipulation and proposed
scheduling order.  Defendants consented to the relief requested
in the motion, which the court granted on Aug. 24, 2009.
Pursuant to the scheduling order, lead plaintiffs filed an
amended complaint on Sept. 21, 2009.  The amended complaint
sought certification of a class composed of all persons who
purchased the company's common stock between Feb. 4, 2008, and
Dec. 10, 2008, inclusive.

The amended complaint asserted claims under sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act, based on allegations that
certain statements made by the company during the Class Period
were false and/or misleading because those statements failed to
disclose that:

     (1) the company prematurely and improperly recognized
several categories of revenue;

     (2) as a result, the company misstated its financial results
during the Class Period;

     (3) the company's financial statements were not prepared in
accordance with the company's publicly-disclosed accounting
policies and/or generally accepted accounting principles;

     (4) the company lacked adequate internal and financial
controls; and

     (5) as a result, the company's financial statements were
materially false and misleading.

The amended complaint also includes a purported insider trading
claim against one individual defendant.  No specific damage
amount was alleged in the amended complaint.

On Oct. 26, 2009, the company and the individual defendants filed
a motion to dismiss the amended complaint.  A hearing on this
motion was held on Jan. 19, 2010.

At the conclusion of the hearing, the court granted the motion
and stated that judgment would be entered dismissing the amended
complaint for failure to state a claim.  The court's formal order
of dismissal was filed on Feb. 25, 2010.
Plaintiffs initially filed a notice of appeal on March 26, 2010,
but withdrew that notice of appeal on March 29, 2010.  The time
for filing any appeal from the judgment in this action has now
expired and the litigation is thus concluded.

Integral Systems, Inc. -- http://www.integ.com/-- of Columbia,  
MD, applies more than 25 years experience to provide integrated
technology solutions for satellite communications-interfaced
systems.  Customers have relied on the Integral Systems family of
companies (Integral Systems, Inc., Integral Systems Europe,
Lumistar, Inc., Newpoint Technologies, Inc., RT Logic, and SAT
Corporation) to deliver on time and on budget for more than 250
satellite missions.  The company's dedication to customer service
has solidified long-term relationships with the U.S. Air Force,
NASA, NOAA, and nearly every satellite operator in the world.


INTELIUS INC: Sued in Wash. Over Unauthorized Subscriptions
-----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that when a customer buys a
service from the Intelius website, "the consumer is without
knowledge enrolled in a subscription-based service with Intelius
or defendant Adaptive Marketing  . . . often $19.95 per month in
perpetuity," a class action claims in Seattle Federal Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Paskowitz v. Intelius, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 10-cv-00909 (W.D. Wash.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/06/04/Intelius.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Derek Linke, Esq.
          John Du Wors, Esq.
          NEWMAN & NEWMAN, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP
          505 Fifth Ave. South, Suite 610
          Seattle, WA 98104
          Telephone: 206-274-2800

               - and -

          Brian M. Felgoise, Esq.
          FELGOISE LAW FIRM
          261 Old York Rd., Suite 518
          Jenkintown, PA 19046
          Telephone: 215-886-1900

               - and -

          Roy Jacobs, Esq.
          ROY JACOBS & ASSOCIATES
          One Grand Central Place
          60 East 42nd St., 46th Floor
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: 212-867-1156
          E-mail: rjacobs@jacobsclasslaw.com


LG DISPLAY: Accused in New York Suit of Misleading Shareholders
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that LG Display Co., an
electronics manufacturer, inflated its share price through false
and misleading statements, shareholders claim in Manhattan
Federal Court.

The case is Son, et al. v. LG Display Co., Ltd., et al., Case No.
10-cv-04380 (S.D.N.Y.) (______, J.), and the Plaintiffs are
represented by:
          
          Paul Kleidman, Esq.
          Richard A. Speirs, Esq.
          Jeffrey Charles Zwerling, Esq.
          ZWERLING, SCHACHTER & ZWERLING
          41 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10010
          Telephone: 212-223-3900
          E-mail: pkleidman@zsz.com
                  rspeirs@zsz.com
                  jzwerling@zsz.com


LOMA GARDENS: Charged With Failing to Provide Necessary Repairs
---------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Garcia, et al., on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated v. Loma Gardens, Inc., et al., Case No.
BC438704 (Calif. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty. May 28, 2010), seek
relief for injuries and damages sustained as a result of
untenable living conditions at their rented dwelling units
located at 251 S. Loma Drive, in Los Angeles, Calif., defendants'
breaches of the implied warranty of habitability, failure to
abide by the City of Los Angeles Municipal Code, and related
negligence and other acts.  Ms. Garcia says the property suffered
from an insect and vermin infestation, pervasive plumbing and
sewage problems, inadequate weather-proofing and heat, and that
defendant 251 S. Loma Drive Associates, LLC, the current
landlord, failed to abide by City-mandated repair procedures.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Daniel J. Bramzon, Esq.
          Benjamin G. Ramm, Esq.
          BASTA, INC.
          2500 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1111
          Los Angeles, CA 90057
          Telephone: (213) 736-5050


M.A. LAW: Accused in Calif. Suit of Abandoning Clients
------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that M.A. Law Group, Wall Street
Associates Group, Abbasi & Associates, Hope 4 Homes, Bay Law
Group, and Mahan Matthew Abbasi, all of Los Angeles, charge
thousands of dollars upfront for "loan modification" services,
then abandon clients, a class action claims in L.A. Superior
Court.

The Plaintiff in Sanchez v. M.A. Law Group, et al., Case No.
BC438451 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty.), is represented by:

          Patricio T.D. Barrera, Esq.
          Ashley A. Davenport, Esq.
          BARRERA & ASSOCIATES, APC
          1500 Rosecrans Ave., Suite 500
          Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
          Telephone: 310-802-1500

               - and -  

          Michelle Friend, Esq.
          KNEAFSEY & FRIEND LLP
          800 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 710
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: 213-892-1200


MEDIACOM COMMUNICATION: Sued Over Proposed Discounted Share Sale
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Mediacom Communication CEO
Rocco Commisso, who owns 87 percent of the voting stock, wants to
buy the remaining shares at an unfair $6 a share -- a discount to
its recent trading price -- and his board is likely to let him do
it, shareholders claim in Delaware Chancery Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Witmer v. Mediacom Communications
Corporation, et al., Case No. 5537 (Del. Ch. Ct.), is available
at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/06/04/SCA.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Carmella P. Keener, Esq.
          ROSENTHAL, MONHAIT & GODDESS, P.A.
          919 North Market St., Suite 1401
          Citizens Bank Center
          P.O. Box 1070
          Wilmington, DE 19899-1070
          Telephone: 302-656-4433

               - and -

          Debra S. Goodman, Esq.
          Henry J. Young, Esq.
          THE WEISER LAW FIRM, P.C.
          121 N. Wayne Ave., Suite 100
          Wayne, PA 19087
          Telephone: 610-225-2677

               - and -

          Katharine M. Ryan, Esq.
          Richard Maniskas, Esq.
          RYAN & MANISKAS, LLP
          995 Old Eagle School Rd., Suite 311
          Wayne, PA 19087
          Telephone: 484-588-5516


OLD REPUBLIC: ORNTIC Defends Class Suit in Pennsylvania
-------------------------------------------------------
Old Republic National Title Insurance Co. (ORNTIC) is defending a
class-action suit over title insurance in state and federal
courts in Pennsylvania, according to Old Republic International
Corp.'s May 5, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

ORNTIC is a principal title insurance subsidiary of Old Republic
International Corp.

The plaintiffs allege that ORNTIC failed to give consumers
reissue and/or refinance credits on the premiums charged for
title insurance covering mortgage refinancing transactions, as
required by rate schedules filed by ORNTIC or by state rating
bureaus with the state insurance regulatory authorities.  The
suit also alleges violations of the federal Real Estate
Settlement Procedures Act.

Substantially similar lawsuits are also pending against other
unaffiliated title insurance companies in these and other states
as well, and additional lawsuits based upon similar allegations
could be filed against ORNTIC in the future.

Classes have been certified in the Pennsylvania action.

Old Republic International Corp. -- http://www.oldrepublic.com/
-- is an insurance holding company.  The company is engaged in
the single business of insurance underwriting.  It conducts its
business through a number of regulated insurance company
subsidiaries organized into three major segments: General
(property and liability), Mortgage Guaranty and Title insurance
segments.


OLD REPUBLIC: ORNTIC Defends Title Insurance Lawsuit in Texas
-------------------------------------------------------------
Old Republic National Title Insurance Co. (ORNTIC) is defending a
purported class-action suit over title insurance in state and
federal courts in Texas, according to Old Republic International
Corp.'s May 5, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

ORNTIC is a principal title insurance subsidiary of Old Republic
International Corp.

The plaintiffs allege that ORNTIC failed to give consumers
reissue and/or refinance credits on the premiums charged for
title insurance covering mortgage refinancing transactions, as
required by rate schedules filed by ORNTIC or by state rating
bureaus with the state insurance regulatory authorities.  The
suit alleges violations of the federal Real Estate Settlement
Procedures Act.

Old Republic International Corp. -- http://www.oldrepublic.com/
-- is an insurance holding company.  The company is engaged in
the single business of insurance underwriting.  It conducts its
business through a number of regulated insurance company
subsidiaries organized into three major segments: General
(property and liability), Mortgage Guaranty and Title insurance
segments.


OLD REPUBLIC: Settles Title Insurance Suits in NJ and Conn.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Old Republic National Title Insurance Co. (ORNTIC) has reached
settlement agreements in purported class-action suits over title
insurance in state and federal courts in Connecticut and New
Jersey, according to Old Republic International Corp.'s May 5,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

ORNTIC is a principal title insurance subsidiary of Old Republic
International Corp.

The plaintiffs allege that, pursuant to rate schedules filed by
ORNTIC or by state rating bureaus with the state insurance
regulators, ORNTIC was required, but failed, to give consumers
reissue and refinance credits on the premiums charged for title
insurance covering mortgage refinancing transactions, as required
by rate schedules filed by ORNTIC or by state rating bureaus with
the state insurance regulatory authorities.

The actions seek damages and declaratory and injunctive relief.

The plaintiffs allege that ORNTIC failed to give consumers
reissue and/or refinance credits on the premiums charged for
title insurance covering mortgage refinancing transactions, as
required by rate schedules filed by ORNTIC or by state rating
bureaus with the state insurance regulatory authorities.

Classes have been certified in the New Jersey action.

Settlement agreements have been reached in the Connecticut and
New Jersey actions and are not expected to cost ORNTIC more than
$2.9 million and $2.2 million, respectively, including attorneys'
fees and administrative costs.

Old Republic International Corp. -- http://www.oldrepublic.com/
-- is an insurance holding company.  The company is engaged in
the single business of insurance underwriting.  It conducts its
business through a number of regulated insurance company
subsidiaries organized into three major segments: General
(property and liability), Mortgage Guaranty and Title insurance
segments.


OLD REPUBLIC: ORNTIC Remains a Defendant in 27 Consumer Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Old Republic International Corp.'s principal title insurance
subsidiary, Old Republic National Title Insurance Co. (ORNTIC),
remains a defendant in 27 purported consumer class action
lawsuits, 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.

Since early February 2008, some 80 purported consumer class
action lawsuits have been filed against the title industry's
principal title insurance companies, their subsidiaries and
affiliates, and title insurance rating bureaus or associations in
at least 10 states.  The suits are substantially identical in
alleging that the defendant title insurers engaged in illegal
price-fixing agreements to set artificially high premium rates
and conspired to create premium rates which the state insurance
regulatory authorities could not evaluate and therefore, could
not adequately regulate.

A number of them have been dismissed and others consolidated.  
Approximately 49 remain nationwide.

ORNTIC is currently among the named defendants in 27 of these
actions in 4 states; its affiliate, American Guaranty Title
Insurance Company, is a named defendant in 10 of the consolidated
actions in 1 state.

The company is not a named defendant in any of the actions.

No class has yet been certified in any of these suits against
ORNTIC, and none of the actions against it allege RESPA
violations.

Old Republic International Corp. -- http://www.oldrepublic.com/
-- is an insurance holding company.  The company is engaged in
the single business of insurance underwriting.  It conducts its
business through a number of regulated insurance company
subsidiaries organized into three major segments: General
(property and liability), Mortgage Guaranty and Title insurance
segments.


OLD REPUBLIC: ORHP Removes Suit to Southern California
------------------------------------------------------
Old Republic International Corp. has removed a national class
action against its subsidiary, Old Republic Home Protection
Company (ORHP), from the California Superior Court, San Diego, to
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California,
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.

A national class action suit was filed against ORHP in the
California Superior Court, San Diego.

The suit was filed on behalf of all persons who made a claim
under an ORHP home warranty contract from March 6, 2003, to the
present.  The suit alleges breach of contract, breach of the
implicit covenant of good faith and fair dealing, violations of
certain California consumer protection laws and misrepresentation
arising out of ORHP's alleged failure to adopt and implement
reasonable standards for the prompt investigation and processing
of claims under its home warranty contracts.

The suit seeks unspecified damages consisting of the rescission
of the class members' contracts, restitution of all sums paid by
the class members, punitive damages, and declaratory and
injunctive relief.

No class has been certified in the action.

ORHP has removed the action to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California.

Old Republic International Corp. -- http://www.oldrepublic.com/
-- is an insurance holding company.  The company is engaged in
the single business of insurance underwriting.  It conducts its
business through a number of regulated insurance company
subsidiaries organized into three major segments: General
(property and liability), Mortgage Guaranty and Title insurance
segments.


OLD REPUBLIC: Defends RESPA Violations Suit in Alabama
------------------------------------------------------
Old Republic International Corp.'s subsidiary, Old Republic Home
Protection Company (ORHP), faces a suit alleging violation of the
Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act in the U.S. District Court
in Birmingham, Alabama, 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.  

A national class action suit was filed against ORHP in the U.S.
District Court in Birmingham, Alabama.

The suit alleges that ORHP pays fees to the real estate brokers
who market its home warranty contracts and that the payment of
such fees is in violation of Section 8(a) of RESPA.  The suit
seeks unspecified damages, including treble damages under RESPA.

No class has been certified in the action.

Old Republic International Corp. -- http://www.oldrepublic.com/
-- is an insurance holding company.  The company is engaged in
the single business of insurance underwriting.  It conducts its
business through a number of regulated insurance company
subsidiaries organized into three major segments: General
(property and liability), Mortgage Guaranty and Title insurance
segments.


SONY COMPUTER: Suit Calls Final Fantasy XIII Video Game Defective
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Wolf, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Sony Computer Entertainment America Inc., et al.,
Case No. 10-cv-02436 (N.D. Calif. June 2, 2010), asserts
violations of the California Business and Professions Code, the
California Consumer legal Remedies Act, breach of express
warranty and breach of implied warranty of merchantability
concerning the damage the defendants' video game Final Fantasy
XIII causes when played in conjunction with Playstation 3 gaming
consoles.  Mr. Wolf says playing Final Fantasy XIII caused their
PS3 consoles to freeze and become totally and permanently
inoperable, a phenomenon Mr. Wolf says is known as "bricking".  
Mr. Wolf explains that when a PS3 "bricks", the consumer becomes
unable to play any games and watch movies on his PS3 console.  
None of the defendants has agreed to cover the cost of the
repairs.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kristen Law Safafi, Esq.
          LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
          275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
          Telephone: (415) 956-1000          
          E-mail: ksagafi@lchb.com

               - and -

          Jonathan D. Selbin, Esq.
          LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
          250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor
          New York, NY 10013-1413
          Telephone: (212) 3550-9500
          E-mail: jselbin@lchb.com

               - and -

          J. Gordon Rudd, Jr., Esq.
          David M. Cialkowski, Esq.
          Brian C. Gudmundson, Esq.
          ZIMMERMAN REED, PLLP
          651 Nicollet Mall, Suite 501
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 341-0400
          E-mail: Gordon.Rudd@zimmreed.com
                  David.Cialkowski@zimmreed.com
                  Brian.Gudmundson@zimmreed.com


SONY CORP: Rear Projection TV Settlement Hearing Set For Aug. 13
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Robert PO. Patterson will convene a fairness
hearing at 9:30 a.m. on Aug. 13, 2010, in Manhattan to consider a
proposed settlement in In re Sony Corp. SXRD Rear Projection
Television Marketing, Sales Practices & Products Liability
Litigation, Master Docket No. 09-md-2102 (S.D.N.Y.), and Cardenas
v. Sony Corporation of America, Case No. 09-cv-8952 (S.D.N.Y.).  

Additional information about the settlement and the litigation is
available at:

     http://www.sony.com/sxrd2settlement/

The settlement applies to purchasers (or gift recipients) to
projection devices with model numbers:

          KDS-R60XBR2
          KDS-R70XBR2
          KDS-50A2000/2020/3000
          KDS-55A2000/2020/3000
          KDS-60A2000/2020/3000 and
          KDS-70Q006

Class Counsel is:

          William B. Deferman, Esq.
          Federman & Sherwood
          10205 N. Pennsylvania Ave.
          Oklahoma City, OK 73120

               - and -  

          Cornelius P. Dukelow, Esq.
          ABINGTON ILTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP, PC
          10026-A S. Mingo Road, No. 240
          Tulsa, OK 74133

Counsel to Sony is:

          John S. Purcell, Esq.
          Richard I. Werder, Esq.
          K. McKenzie Anderson, Esq.
          QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
          51 Madison Ave., 22nd Floor
          New York, NY 10010


UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Sept. 13 Fairness Hearing Set in S.D.N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------------
MEMBERS OF HEALTHCARE PLANS INSURED OR ADMINISTERED BY UNITED
HEALTHCARE CORPORATION (NOW KNOWN AS UNITEDHEALTH GROUP),
INGENIX, INC., METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, AMERICAN
AIRLINES, INC., AND THEIR SUBSIDIARIES AND AFFILIATES; AND HEALTH
CARE PROVIDERS AND HEALTH CARE PROVIDER GROUPS WHO FURNISHED OUT-
OF-NETWORK SERVICES OR SUPPLIES TO SUCH MEMBERS:

A Proposed Class Action Settlement May Affect Your Rights.

A Settlement has been preliminarily approved in a class action
lawsuit that alleges that the companies described above provided
insufficient reimbursement for Covered Out-of-Network healthcare
benefits by using the Ingenix Databases and certain policies to
make reimbursement determinations from March 15, 1994 to November
18, 2009.

If you were or are: (1) a Subscriber, meaning a member of a
healthcare plan insured or administered by a Defendant, and
received Covered Out-of-Network (OON) healthcare benefits at any
time from March 15, 1994 through November 18, 2009, that were
processed or reimbursed by the Defendant using the Ingenix
Databases or one of the Seven OON Reimbursement Policies listed
below; or (2) a Provider or Provider Group, who furnished Covered
OON Services or Supplies to a Subscriber at any time from March
15, 1994 through November 18, 2009 and whose claim for payment
was processed or reimbursed by a Defendant using the Ingenix
Databases or one of the Seven OON Reimbursement Policies listed
below, you are a member of the Settlement Class and may be
eligible for a payment if you qualify and submit a valid Claim
Form. The Seven OON Reimbursement Policies are Defendants (1)
Anesthesia Policy, (2) Assistant Surgeon Policy, (3) Co-
Surgeon/Team Surgeon Policy, (4) Multiple Procedure Policy, (5)
Preventative Medicine Policy, (6) Professional/Technical Policy,
and (7) Reduced Services Policy.

For a list of United Health Groups subsidiaries and affiliates,
you should obtain a copy of the full Notice.

A Settlement has been proposed in a class action lawsuit
involving the Defendants. The name of the case is American
Medical Assn v. United HealthCare Corp., 00 Civ. 2800 (LMM)(GWG).

This Notice is a summary of your rights under the Settlement.

To obtain a copy of the complaints filed in this lawsuit, the
Settlement Agreement and Amendment to the Settlement Agreement,
and the full Notice and Proof of Claim Form (which includes a
description of how the money provided by the Settlement will be
allocated among members of the Settlement Class), visit
http://www.unitedUCRsettlement.com/or  
http://www.berdonclaims.com/

The United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York authorized this Notice.

Before any money is paid, the Court will hold a hearing on
September 13, 2010 to decide whether to approve the Settlement.

What Is This Case About?

This case was brought by the American Medical Association, other
medical associations, Class Representative Plaintiffs, and Union
Plaintiffs, alleging that the Defendants provided insufficient
reimbursement for Covered OON healthcare benefits by: using
fiawed databases (the Ingenix Databases) in determining
reimbursement amounts for Covered OON healthcare benefits; using
certain reimbursement policies to improperly reduce amounts for
Covered OON healthcare benefits; and not adequately disclosing
their use of the Ingenix Databases and certain reimbursement
policies in determining reimbursement amounts for Covered OON
healthcare benefits. Defendants deny all claims of wrongdoing but
agreed to the Settlement to avoid the further expense,
inconvenience and burden of this lawsuit.

What Are the Terms of the Proposed Settlement?

The Settlement Agreement provides for both monetary and non-
monetary benefits to be provided by Defendants to members of the
Settlement Class. The Settlement establishes a Cash Settlement
Fund in the amount of $350,000,000 plus accrued interest. If the
Settlement is finally approved by the Court, members of the
Settlement Class will be entitled to payments from the Cash
Settlement Fund as set forth in the Plan of Allocation included
in the full Notice. In addition, as a part of the Settlement and
consistent with the terms of the separate Office of New York
Attorney General Assurance of Discontinuance, UnitedHealth Group
and its affiliates have agreed to certain commitments regarding
their reimbursement practices and procedures for OON healthcare
benefits. They have agreed that they: (1) will stop using the
Ingenix Databases that Plaintiffs alleged are fiawed and, in
their place, will use a New Database independently established
and operated by a consortium of New York State university-level
schools of public health led by Syracuse University; and (2) will
contribute $50,000,000 (in addition to the Cash Settlement Fund)
towards the funding and implementation of the New Database.
UnitedHealth Group and its affiliates will also coordinate with
the consortium to create the Healthcare Information Transparency
(HIT) Website that will allow the public to access information
about the range of provider charges, by geographical region,
contained in the New Database for common medical services. The
Settlement also provides for the release of claims, and a
covenant not to sue, by members of the Settlement Class in favor
of Defendants and others, as explained in detail in the
Settlement Agreement.

Who Represents Me?

The Court has appointed Stanley M. Grossman, D. Brian Hufford,
and Robert J. Axelrod of Pomerantz Haudek Grossman and Gross LLP
as Lead Counsel to represent you and other members of the
Settlement Class. You may retain your own attorney as you wish.
However, you will be responsible for your attorneys fees and
expenses.

How Do I File a Claim?

In order to be eligible for payment under the Settlement, you
must complete, sign, and mail the Claim Form SO THAT IT IS
POSTMARKED NO LATER THAN OCTOBER 5, 2010. A Claim Form is part of
the full Notice package you can request, as described below. What
Are My Rights? If you wish to remain a member of the Settlement
Class, you do not have to do anything. You will be bound by all
of this Courts orders. This means you cannot sue any of the
Defendants for any of the claims described in the Settlement
Agreement. You can file a claim for monetary benefits if you
remain in the Settlement Class. To make a claim, you must
complete a Claim Form and mail it to the Claims Administrator as
explained in the full Notice. Your Claim Form must be postmarked
by October 5, 2010. If you do not wish to be a member of the
Settlement Class, you must send a letter asking to be excluded
from the Settlement Class, as explained in the full Notice. The
letter must be postmarked no later than July 27, 2010. If you do
not exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you or your
lawyer can tell the Court if you do not like the Settlement or
some part of it, as explained in the full Notice. You must file
your objection with the Court and serve Settlement Class counsel
and counsel for Defendants no later than July 27, 2010.

Will the Court Approve the Proposed Settlement?

The Court will hold a Final Settlement Hearing to determine if
the Settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate, and to consider
the motion for attorneys fees and expenses on September 13, 2010
at 10:30 a.m. at the United States Courthouse, United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York, 500 Pearl
Street, New York, New York. For more information on how to file a
claim, exclude yourself or object, or to obtain a copy of the
complaints filed in this lawsuit, the Settlement Agreement and
Amendment to the Settlement Agreement and the full Notice and
Claim Form, visit http://www.unitedUCRsettlement.com/or contact  
the Claims Administrator at:

          United HealthCare Class Action Litigation
          c/o Berdon Claims Administration LLC
          P.O. Box 15000
          Jericho, NY 11853-0001
          Toll-Free Phone: 800-443-1073
          Fax: 516-222-0271
          Web site: http://www.berdonclaims.com/
          E-mail: unitedhealthcare@berdonclaimsllc.com

Dated: June 4, 2010


WHOLE FOODS: Accused in New York Suit of Not Paying Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Whole Foods Market Group
stiffed workers for overtime, a class action claims in Manhattan
Federal Court.

The case is Truluck, et al. v. Whole Foods Market Group, Inc.,
Case No. 10-cv-04371 (S.D.N.Y.) (Buckwald, J.), and the
Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Robert David Lipman, Esq.
          LIPMAN & PLESUR, LLP
          500 North Broadway, Ste. 105
          Jericho, NY 11753-2131
          Telephone: (516) 931-0050
          E-mail: lipman@lipmanplesur.com

                            *********

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  * * *