CAR_Public/100615.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Tuesday, June 15, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 116

                            Headlines

AMEDISYS INC: Pomerantz Files Securities Fraud Suit in M.D. La.
BCI COCA-COLA: $1.1 Mil. Settlement Affirmed in Overtime Case
BROADCOM CORP: Notice of Proposed $160.5 Mil. Auditor Settlement
BROOKFIELD MULTIPLEX: Australian Shareholder Suit About to Settle
CANADA: Court Certifies Class of Aboriginal Foster Children

CANADIAN SOLAR: Poerantz Files Securities Fraud Suit in S.D.N.Y.
CHARTER COMMS: Agrees to Settle Wage & Hour Suit for $18 Million
CIT GROUP: Officers & Directors Lose Motion to Dismiss Lawsuit
COLLINS & AIKMAN: $25 Mil. Settlement for Debt & Equity Holders
DELL INC: Sets Up $40 Mil. Reserve for Securities Suit Settlement

DOUBLE-TAKE SOFTWARE: Being Sold for Too Little, Mass. Suit Says
EL PASO: Tenn. Supreme Court Dismisses "Leggett" Lawsuit
EL PASO: Continues to Defend "Tomlinson" Suit in Colorado
FLORIDA: Children & Families Dept. Sued for Not Paying Overtime
GE APPLIANCES: Recalls 181,000 GE Front-Load Washing Machines

GOOGLE INC: Wants Wi-Fi Suits Consolidated & Moved to N.D. Calif.
HARTFORD FINANCIAL: $72.5 Mil. Settlement Preliminarily Approved
HEALTH CANADA: Named in Diabetes Drug Class Action Lawsuits
IKEA HOME: Recalls 3,360,000 Roller, Roman, and Roll-Up Blinds
LEAP WIRELESS: Court Gives Preliminary Nod to $13.75M Settlement

LOWE'S COMPANIES: R.I. Residents Complain About Construction Work
MRV COMMS: Nov. 15 Hearing to Review $10 Mil. Investor Settlement
NOVATEL WIRELESS: Class Certification Motion in "Backe" Pending
NUTRACEA: D. Ariz. Preliminarily Approves Shareholder Settlement
PALM INC: Inks Settlement of Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit

PAYPAL INC: Accused of Closing Accounts for Unfounded Reasons
PRICELINE.COM INC: Class Certified in County of Monroe's Suit
PRICELINE.COM INC: Oral Arguments in "Lawrence" Set for July 27
PRICELINE.COM INC: Court Okays Pine Bluff's Motion to Reconsider
PRICELINE.COM INC: Appeal in Lyndhurst Suit Remains Pending

PRICELINE.COM INC: Parties in "Genesee" Conducting Discovery
PRICELINE.COM INC: Parties in Nassau Suit Conducting Discovery
PRICELINE.COM INC: Parties in Rome Suit in Mediation
PRICELINE.COM INC: Discovery in Gallup Suit Ongoing
PRICELINE.COM INC: To Appeal Jury's Verdict in San Antonio Suit

PRYM CONSUMER: Recalls 12,000 Dritz Electric Scissors
PULASKI COUNTY: Arkansas Teachers Sue to Halt Contract Changes
REDBOX: St. Clair Cty. Court Denies Motion to Dismiss Class Suit
RHINO TOYS: Recalls 5,500 Beado Handheld Bead Play Toys
SINOENERGY CORP: Skywide Merger Class Action Lawsuits Dismissed

SUPERGAS: Israeli Supreme Court Rejects Gas Cartel Settlement
SYGENTA CROP: Says Plaintiffs Can't Prove Claim in Atrazine Suit
TOYOTA MOTOR: Calif. State Ct. Suits Consolidated in Los Angeles
TYCOM LTD: Notice of Proposed $79 Million Shareholder Settlement
U.S. CONCRETE: Settles Four Suits in California for $1.6 Million

UTSTARCOM INC: Inks Stipulation to Settle Securities Suit
ZIMMER INC: Kentucky Man Files Defective Hip Replacement Lawsuit

                            *********

AMEDISYS INC: Pomerantz Files Securities Fraud Suit in M.D. La.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Haudek Grossman & Gross LLP has filed a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court, Middle District of
Louisiana against Amedisys, Inc., and certain of its top
officials.  The class action (Case No. 10-cv-00395) was filed on
behalf of purchasers of Amedisys securities between February 23,
2010, and May 13, 2010, both dates inclusive.  The Complaint
alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

Amedisys is a provider of home health services to the chronic,
co-morbid, aging American population. The Company operates in two
segments: home health and hospice segments. The Complaint alleges
that throughout the Class Period, defendants made false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose: (1) that the Company's reported sales and earnings
growth were materially impacted by a scheme whereby the Company
intentionally increased the number of in-home therapy visits to
patients for the purpose of triggering higher reimbursement rates
under the Medicare home health prospective payment system, as
those excess visits were not always medically necessary; (2) that
the Company's reported sales and earnings were inflated by said
scheme and subject to recoupment by Medicare; (3) that the
Company was in material violation of its Code of Ethical Business
Conduct and compliance due to the scheme to inflate Medicare
revenues; and (4) based on the foregoing, defendants lacked a
basis for their positive statements about the Company, its
prospects and growth.

On April 27, 2010, The Wall Street Journal ("WSJ") reported that
Amedisys has been taking advantage of the Medicare reimbursement
system by increasing the number of in-home therapy visits in
order to trigger additional reimbursements. As reported in the
article, according to a former Amedisys nurse, the excess visits
that triggered additional reimbursements were "not always
medically necessary." In the wake of this revelation, Amedisys
securities fell $3.98 or 6.5%.

On May 13, 2010, the WSJ did a follow up article where it
reported that the Senate Finance Committee ("Committee") had
started an investigation into the billing and operating practices
of Amedisys. In a Committee letter dated May 12, 2010 to
Amedisys, the Committee cited the findings of the WSJ article and
requested the Company to produce documents dating as far back as
2006, concerning data on therapy visits, lists of physicians with
the highest patient referrals to the Company, and copies of all
marketing materials. In the wake of this additional revelation,
Amedisys securities fell nearly 8% or $4.48.

If you are a shareholder who purchased the Amedisys securities
during the Class Period, you have until August 9, 2010 to ask the
Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff for the class.
Shareholders outside the United States may join the action,
regardless of where they live or which exchange was used to
purchase the securities. A copy of the complaint can be obtained
at http://www.pomerantzlaw.com/

To discuss this action, contact Nicola Brown at info@pomlaw.com
or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll free. Those who inquire
by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address and
telephone number.

The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago,
Washington, D.C., Columbus, Ohio and Burlingame, California, is
acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of
corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by
the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class
action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities
class actions. Today, more than 70 years later, the Pomerantz
Firm continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the
rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary
duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous
multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members.


BCI COCA-COLA: $1.1 Mil. Settlement Affirmed in Overtime Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Munoz and Phillip Eichten filed a class action lawsuit
against BCI Coca-Cola Bottling Company of Los Angeles, seeking
damages and penalties for allegedly unpaid overtime wages, missed
meal and rest period wages, and other Labor Code violations and
unfair business practices. The proposed class consisted of
production supervisors and merchandising supervisors who were
allegedly misclassified by BCI as exempt employees.  After
mediation before a respected mediator, the parties agreed to
settle the matter for $1.1 million.  Notice of the proposed
settlement elicited one objection. Two of the 188 class members
opted out of the class and 142 submitted valid claim forms, so
that the average net payment to each class member would be about
$4,300. The trial court found the settlement fair and reasonable.

The objector, Greg (Tony) Greenwell, appeals.  He argues the
trial court abused its discretion in approving the settlement,
principally because the parties did not provide the court with
the information necessary to make a finding that the settlement
was reasonable and fair.

The California Court of Appeals found  no merit in Greenwell's
contentions and affirmed the trial court's order approving the
settlement.  A copy of the Court's June 10, 2010, ruling is
available at:

     http://www.leagle.com/unsecure/page.htm?shortname=incaco20100610014


BROADCOM CORP: Notice of Proposed $160.5 Mil. Auditor Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
                    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                   CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
                         WESTERN DIVISION
          
In re BROADCOM CORPORATION       )
                                 ) Lead Case No. CV-06-5036
CLASS ACTION LITIGATION          )
              
             SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION
         AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT WITH BROADCOM DEFENDANTS

TO: ALL PERSONS AND ENTITIES THAT PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED
    THE CLASS A COMMON STOCK OF BROADCOM CORPORATION DURING THE
    PERIOD FROM JULY 21, 2005 THROUGH JULY 13, 2006, INCLUSIVE,
    (THE "CLASS PERIOD") AND WERE ALLEGEDLY DAMAGED THEREBY (THE
    "SETTLEMENT CLASS").

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the Court, that the above-
captioned action has been certified as a class action for the
purposes of settlement only and that a settlement of certain
claims for $160,500,000 has been proposed by the Settling
Parties. Claims against defendant Ernst & Young LLP are not part
of the Settlement and continue to be litigated on appeal. A
hearing will be held before the Honorable Manuel L. Real of the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California in the Spring Street Courthouse, Room 8, 312 N. Spring
Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012, at 10:00 a.m., on August 2, 2010
to determine: whether the proposed settlement should be approved
by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate; whether the
Settlement Class should be certified and a class representative
and class counsel be appointed; whether the proposed plan of
allocation for distribution of the settlement proceeds should be
approved; to consider the request of Lead Counsel for attorneys'
fees and reimbursement of litigation expenses; and to consider
the request of Lead Plaintiff, if any, for reimbursement of its
reasonable costs and expenses relating to its representations of
the Settlement Class. The Court may change the date of the
hearing without providing another notice.

IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE SETTLEMENT CLASS DESCRIBED ABOVE, YOUR
RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO SHARE IN THE
NET SETTLEMENT FUND. If you have not yet received the full
printed Notice of Pendency of Class Action and Proposed
Settlement With Broadcom Defendants ("Notice") and a Proof of
Claim and Release form ("Proof of Claim"), you may obtain copies
of these documents by contacting the Claims Administrator:

          In re Broadcom Corp. Class Action Litigation
          c/o The Garden City Group, Inc.
          Claims Administrator
          P.O. Box 9612
          Dublin, OH 43017-4912
          Telephone: (866) 975-4790
          http://www.broadcomclassactionsettlement.com/

Inquiries, other than requests for information about the status
of a claim, may also be made to Lead Counsel:

          Labaton Sucharow LLP
          140 Broadway
          New York, New York 10005
          Telephone: (888) 212-5685
          http://www.labaton.com/

To participate in the proposed settlement and be eligible to
receive a recovery, you must submit a Proof of Claim postmarked
no later than August 13, 2010. To exclude yourself from the
Settlement Class, you must submit a request for exclusion
postmarked no later than July 16, 2010. If you are a Class Member
and do not exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will
be bound by the Final Order and Judgment as to Broadcom
Defendants of the Court. Any objections to the Settlement must be
filed with the Court and served on counsel for the parties on or
before July 16, 2010. If you are a Class Member and do not timely
submit a valid Proof of Claim, you will not share in the
Settlement, but you nevertheless will be bound by the Final Order
and Judgment of the Court.

    DATED: June 11, 2010         BY ORDER OF THE COURT
                                 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                                 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


BROOKFIELD MULTIPLEX: Australian Shareholder Suit About to Settle
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Leonie Wood at The Sydney Morning Herald reports that one of
Australia's longer and more tortuous class actions, the pursuit
by about 100 shareholders of Brookfield Multiplex for failing to
disclose huge losses on several British construction projects
including Wembley Stadium, is about to settle.

How much the Multiplex shareholders will get is not yet clear;
the terms at this stage are strictly confidential and will only
be made public next month. But confirmation that Multiplex has
agreed to pay anything by way of settlement is a stark and ironic
reminder of how class actions can fill the gaps left by
regulators.

Ironic, because the Multiplex case, curiously enough, emerged
despite the Australian Securities and Investments Commission's
controversial compromise in December 2006 in which Multiplex
agreed to pay $32 million compensation to aggrieved shareholders.
The compensation, however, was limited to those who bought
Multiplex shares in a three-week period in February 2005.

At the time, ASIC argued that its deal yielded "a guaranteed and
swift result" as opposed to the unpalatable option of suing
Multiplex in what could be a hotly contested and lengthy case,
one that might not have succeeded before a judge nor generated
any damages for shareholders.

A rump of shareholders said "garbage"; they believed Multiplex's
deception on the market had gone on for much longer than a brief
period in February - indeed, as far back as August 2004 and all
the way to May 2005 - and they viewed the $32 million as miserly
small change.

They shrugged off the compensation option and signed up to a
class action devised by law firm Maurice Blackburn and which was
funded by Canadian lawyers operating under the banner of
International Litigation Funders Pte Ltd.

Some 42 months later, those class action litigants, for whatever
sum, have emerged victorious - proving that ASIC should have
tightened the screws on Multiplex years ago. The regulator could
have extracted much higher compensation and it should not have
settled for such a brief, three-week window of culpability.

The Multiplex litigation, however, proved to be exactly the sort
of case that ASIC, conscious of its limited taxpayer-funded
resources, was desperate to avoid. It was long, and while it may
have set some crucial legal landmarks in determining how
Australian class actions can be conducted, it was hallmarked by a
series of aggressively-contested interlocutory actions - with the
inevitable result that legal bills for both sides escalated.

Back in 2007, the Federal Court heard that Maurice Blackburn's
initial estimate of legal costs was more than $7.5 million;
Multiplex suggested that with a limited discovery of documents,
its lawyers would receive a similar sum. In the intervening three
years, several aspects of the case veered into the Full Federal
Court, there was a convoluted foray over whistleblower
confidentiality and public interest immunity that ended up in an
application for leave to the High Court, and there was plenty of
scuffling over discovery issues.

On top of that, last year Multiplex launched a complex argument
that class actions amounted to participation in a managed
investment scheme. The court agreed, triggering appropriate
mayhem among those who would fund and operate class actions.

In May, the federal government confirmed it would legislate to
avoid that MIS problem. As a result, when the settlement is
finalised, the respective law firms' bills will be a multiple of
their initial estimates. Justice Ray Finkelstein saw that coming
back in 2007.

"It will come as no surprise to learn that this action will be
very expensive to run," Justice Finkelstein said. "But just how
much it will cost will likely shock most laypersons and some
lawyers to boot. Each side has several lawyers, including
multiple counsel, working on the case, some probably on a full-
time basis."

While corporate respondents may be able to claim legal costs as a
tax deduction, high legal bills for the plaintiffs inevitably
means less of the settlement ends up in the hands of the
claimants. But this does not necessarily mean that plaintiffs'
lawyers are making huge profits from class actions; indeed, if
they were, then plenty of other law firms would have piled in to
snare the spoils.

A recent study by NERA Economic Consulting, which examined
shareholder class actions in Australia from 1993 to 2009,
included a breakdown of settlement distributions for a clutch of
cases. The figures indicated that legal expenses still take only
a tiny slice of the final settlements in class actions, and class
actions almost inevitably settle.

The NERA director Greg Houston says the Multiplex case
demonstrated not just that class action litigation remains a
"very high risk" business, but that the economic determinants of
a successful result for the plaintiff are having a sizeable claim
to begin with - a large potential loss - as well as a significant
number of potential claimants who will settle in for the ride.

"The more people that opt in, the larger would be the potential
settlement," Mr Houston said, adding that media reports about
multi-billion-dollar class action cases tended to ignore the fact
that not all the potential "victims" end up making a claim.

This last point - how many claimants actually make a claim in the
final settlement - is one of the questions driving a vast, multi-
staged empirical study of class actions in Australia, which is
being supervised by Professor Vince Morabito of Monash
University.

Morabito said that after attending too many seminars where
discussion of class action litigation was overwhelmed by
ideological debates, he decided to survey the number of class
action cases, their settlement outcomes, the average duration and
average compensation, as well as how many eligible class members
finalise the documentation to secure their participation in
settlements.

His first report was released in December. The second, focusing
on settlements, is due in a few months.

Morabito said class actions, while an efficient mechanism for
extracting compensation for shareholders, need to become much
more efficient, and one avenue is by enforcing a courtroom regime
to eliminate the barrage of interlocutory actions from the
respondents.

"The most crucial question is how to make it less adversarial,
and that might be by having a judge cutting to the substance of
the claims," he said. "After all, the point is to ensure that at
the end the victims get their share of compensation."

Morabito suggested the "warfare" of interlocutory actions may be
designed to intimidate potential plaintiffs, and to scare
litigation funders from taking on any future class actions.

It may already be having an effect. The Maurice Blackburn
chairman, Bernard Murphy, who was behind the GIO Insurance class
action case (settled in 2003 for $112 million after 43
interlocutory actions), noted the recent AWB class action, which
offers a settlement of $39.5 million, squeezed its way through 70
interlocutory hearings.

Murphy declined to make any comment about the Multiplex case,
citing confidentiality, but he said Maurice Blackburn and
litigation funders were keen to get a more efficient system
working inside the courtrooms. He as urged the Federal Court to
allocate class actions cases to experienced judges who could cut
through the web of interlocutory actions that bog down cases and
force up costs.

Murphy said Maurice Blackburn and the three litigation funders it
works with - IMF Australia, International Litigation Funders and
Omni Bridgeway - would no longer run class actions that involve
relatively low-value claims "unless the defendants are forced by
the courts to change their tactics".

"Because we think when the cases get smaller, it is harder to
deliver justice to the shareholder," Murphy said.


CANADA: Court Certifies Class of Aboriginal Foster Children
-----------------------------------------------------------
Wawatay News Online reports that Justice. J. Perell of the
Superior Court of Justice ruled May 26 that the claimants,
Commanda and Brown, can have their action certified as a class
action, but with amendments. They have 20 days from the ruling to
reword their statement of claim taking into account the judge's
amendments.

"I am glad that we met the criteria to move forward with this
suit. It's been a long time coming since I ventured into this
arena (court system)," Commanda said in response to the ruling.

The lawsuit was launched on behalf of 16,000 former wards of
children aid societies.

Like Commanda and Brown, thousands of children were apprehended
from First Nations homes and communities, particularly from 1965
to 1984.

The children were placed into foster homes or adopted out to non-
Aboriginal parents.

Aboriginal communities now refer to this, as the 'Sixties Scoop'.

As a result Aboriginal culture, society, language, customs,
traditions and spirituality of children were lost.

The pair alleges the federal government had breached its
fiduciary obligation and duty of care to protect Aboriginal
rights when it handed over the responsibility of child welfare
administration to provincial authorities.

Commanda has been proceeding with this lawsuit for a long time
and is busy working with his legal team, Jeffrey Wilson and
Morris Cooper.

"Nothing will come easy from here on in but we are at the next
stage," Commanda said.


CANADIAN SOLAR: Poerantz Files Securities Fraud Suit in S.D.N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Haudek Grossman & Gross LLP filed a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York against Canadian Solar Inc. and certain of
its top officials.  The class action (Case No. 10-cv-04562) was
filed on behalf of purchasers of Canadian Solar securities
between May 26, 2009, and June 1, 2010, both dates inclusive.  
The Complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.

Canadian Solar, one of the world's largest solar companies,
designs, manufactures and delivers solar products and solar
system solutions for on-grid and off-grid use to customers
worldwide. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class
Period, defendants made false and/or misleading statements, as
well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, the
Complaint alleges that defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose: (1) that the Company's
financial results were overstated, as the Company had recorded
revenue from sales for which it had not been paid; (2) that
certain goods had been returned after the end of the fourth
quarter of 2009; (3) that the Company's internal and disclosure
controls with respect to its revenue recognition policy were
materially deficient; (4) as a result of the foregoing, Canadian
Solar's financial statements were not fairly presented in
conformity with United States Generally Accepted Accounting
Principles ("GAAP"), and were materially false and misleading;
and (5) based on the foregoing, defendants lacked a basis for
their positive statements about the Company, its prospects and
growth.

On June 1, 2010, defendants disclosed that, as a result of the
commencement of an investigation by the Company's Audit
Committee, the Company was postponing the release of its
financial results for the first quarter ended March 31, 2010.
Defendants further disclosed that the investigation was launched
after the Company received a subpoena from the Securities and
Exchange Commission requesting documents from the Company
relating to, among other things, certain sales transactions in
2009. As a result of this revelation, Canadian Solar securities
fell $1.69, or 14%.

If you are a shareholder who purchased the securities of Canadian
Solar during the Class Period, you have until August 2, 2010 to
ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff for the class.
Shareholders outside the United States may join the action,
regardless of where they live or which exchange was used to
purchase the securities.  A copy of the Complaint can be obtained
at http://www.pomerantzlaw.com/

To discuss this action, contact:

          Nicola Brown
          Telephone: 888-476-6529
          E-mail: info@Pomlaw.com

Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their
mailing address and telephone number.

The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago,
Washington, D.C., Columbus, Ohio and Burlingame, California, is
acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of
corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by
the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class
action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities
class actions. Today, more than 70 years later, the Pomerantz
Firm continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the
rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary
duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous
multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members.


CHARTER COMMS: Agrees to Settle Wage & Hour Suit for $18 Million
----------------------------------------------------------------
Charter Communications and plaintiffs in the wage and hour class
action lawsuit Marc Goodell, et. al. v. Charter Communications,
LLC, Case No. 08-cv-00512 (W.D. Wisc.), have reached a settlement
of all claims alleged in the lawsuit.  U.S. District Court Judge
Barbara Crabb preliminarily approved the settlement on May 20,
2010. The settlement, which remains subject to final approval by
Judge Crabb, will fully resolve all of the plaintiffs' and class
members' wage and overtime claims in exchange for the payment by
Charter of $18 million. The class includes current and former
employees who worked for Charter in certain field technician
positions in California, Missouri, Michigan, Minnesota, Illinois,
Nevada, Washington, Oregon and Nebraska during specified class
periods. Plaintiffs alleged that the class was not adequately
compensated for all of the work they performed.

It is and has been Charter's policy to pay its hourly employees
for all hours worked, and Charter has denied any liability under
the settlement. "We settled this lawsuit to remove the
distraction and expense that comes with preparing a case like
this for trial. Our technicians are critical to providing a
superior experience for our customers and we need them to be
focused on what is most important -- taking care of our
customers," said Greg Doody, Charter Communications' Executive
Vice President and General Counsel.

Named plaintiffs and participating class members are represented
by Michael J. Modl of Axley Brynelson, LLP and Robert J. Gingras
of Gingras, Cates & Luebke, S.C. "We believe that this settlement
is fair and reasonable for the class as a whole," said Robert
Gingras.

Charter is represented by David Dunn of Hogan Lovells US LLP and
Barbara A. Neider of Stafford Rosenbaum LLP.


CIT GROUP: Officers & Directors Lose Motion to Dismiss Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Stempel at Reuters reports that a Manhattan federal
judge ordered former CIT Group Inc Chief Executive Jeffrey Peek
and other officers and directors to defend themselves against a
class-action securities fraud lawsuit over actions preceding the
large commercial lender's 2009 bankruptcy.

In re CIT Group Inc Securities Litigation, Case No. 08-cv-06613
(S.D.N.Y.), was brought on behalf of purchasers of CIT securities
from Dec. 12, 2006 to March 5, 2008.

CIT once lent to 1 million small- and mid-sized businesses, but
filed one of the five largest bankruptcies in U.S. history on
Nov. 1, 2009 after loan losses surged. The New York-based company
emerged on Dec. 10 after a prepackaged reorganization.

"We're pleased with the result," said Tor Gronborg, a partner at
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP in San Diego, representing
"hundreds of thousands, if not millions" of former CIT
shareholders in the case. He said it is too early to speculate on
potential damages.

Douglas Flaum, a lawyer for the defendants, did not immediately
return a request for comment.

In her 19-page ruling, U.S. District Judge Barbara Jones said the
investors sufficiently alleged they were misled by Peek and other
officials, including through CIT's failure to disclose a lowering
of credit standards, misrepresenting the performance of subprime
mortgage and student loan portfolios, and misstating CIT's
financial information.

She also said the plaintiffs' adequately pleaded that directors
sometimes approved the lowered lending standards while touting a
"conservative" and "disciplined" approach to subprime lending,
and learned of the weakened loan portfolios while publicly saying
CIT would suffer "minimal" losses.

The lead plaintiff is Pensioenfonds Horeca & Catering, a pension
fund for the Dutch hospitality and catering industry, with about
800,000 participants.

CIT was dropped as a defendant after it entered Chapter 11
protection.  Spokesman Curt Ritter declined to comment.

The bankruptcy filing caused the government to lose the $2.3
billion in bailout money it had injected into CIT in December
2008.

Peek was replaced as chief executive by John Thain, who
previously held the same role at Merrill Lynch & Co and NYSE
Euronext (NYX.N) (NYX.PA).


COLLINS & AIKMAN: $25 Mil. Settlement for Debt & Equity Holders
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Szczesny at The Oakland Press reports that class-action
lawsuits stemming from the 2005 bankruptcy of Troy-based Collins
& Aikman have ended in a $25 million settlement, partly funded by
C&A's former chairman David Stockman.

U.S. Judge Gerald Rosen has approved the settlement negotiated by
the lawyers representing disgruntled shareholders and bond
holders after a hearing this week.

Under the proposed terms of the settlement, Stockman, the budget
director in President Ronald Reagan's White House who went on to
make a fortune on Wall Street, has agreed to contribute $4.4
million from his own pocket to the tentative $25 million
settlement

The settlement will end the lengthy litigation against Stockman
stemming from the collapse of Collins & Aikman and its subsequent
bankruptcy and liquidation.

Stockman was indicted in 2007 for defrauding investors and banks
of $1.6 billion while serving as C&A chairman. Last year,
however, in a move that still rankles C&A creditors, the
government withdrew both the criminal charges and a separate
civil suit brought against Stockman by the Securities Exchange
Commission.

Stockman, who was also the company's chief executive, was accused
of issuing fraudulent statements to raise capital and avoid
defaulting on credit agreements that would have required him to
surrender control of the company

Collins & Aikman filed for bankruptcy in 2005, five days after
Stockman resigned as chairman and chief executive officer.

The Collins & Aikman bankruptcy was the first of several among
major suppliers to the domestic automakers as they faced demands
for price concessions from automakers and rising competition from
foreign competitors.

A successor company to Collins & Aikman, Cadence Innovation of
Troy, also filed for bankruptcy and was liquidated last year.

Since 2007, Stockman has said in various news interviews that the
key reason behind Collins & Aikman's failure was the demand for
price concessions from General Motors Co., Ford Motor Co. and
Chrysler Group LLC.

Neither Stockman nor his attorney was in court as the case moved
towards its climax.

The attorneys for the plaintiffs told Judge Rosen the settlement
ultimately is in the best interest of their clients who might not
recover anything if the lawsuits were put in front of jury, which
would have to sit through the testimony of seven expert witnesses
before deciding the outcome of any trial.

"We are prepared to go to trial," said Thomas Burt, a New York
attorney from Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz. But implicit
in any trial, he said, is a risk his clients were better off
avoiding.

Rosen also approved the attorney's fees for the two sets of  
lawyers that brought the class action lawsuits for the
plaintiffs.  Each of the two firms involved, Wolf Haldenstein
Adler Freeman and Herz and Bernstein Litowitz Berger and Grossman
both of New York, will keep 25 percent of their clients'
settlements or about $2.8 million each in fees and an additional
$960,000 in out-of-pocket expenses.


DELL INC: Sets Up $40 Mil. Reserve for Securities Suit Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dell, Inc., disclosed last week that as a result of ongoing
discussions with the staff of the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission, the company recorded a $100 million liability in its
first quarter of Fiscal 2011 to establish a reserve for the
potential settlement by the company of the previously reported
SEC investigation.  The $100 million charge includes a $40
million reserve for settlement of pending class action securities
litigation.

Dell says the settlement would involve a civil injunctive action
against the company for alleged violations of certain federal
securities laws, including the antifraud provisions of federal
securities laws, relating to certain accounting and financial
reporting matters.  The settlement would also include negligence-
based fraud charges, as well as other non-fraud based charges,
relating to the company's disclosures and alleged omissions prior
to Fiscal 2008 regarding certain aspects of its commercial
relationship with Intel Corp.

In addition, the company reported that Michael Dell, Chairman and
CEO, and the SEC staff have recently commenced discussion of a
settlement framework relating to Mr. Dell that would resolve
allegations relating to the company's disclosures and alleged
omissions prior to Fiscal 2008 regarding certain aspects of the
company's commercial relationship with Intel Corp. Any such
settlement by Mr. Dell would involve alleged violations of
negligence-based fraud provisions of the federal securities laws,
as well as other non-fraud based provisions, and would not
include any bar against Mr. Dell's service as an officer and
director of a public company. Any settlement would be made
without admitting or denying the SEC's allegations.

"We are hopeful that these settlement discussions will achieve a
comprehensive resolution in the near future. The independent
directors of the Board have affirmed that Michael Dell will
continue to lead the company as its Chairman and CEO, and he
continues to have our complete confidence and support," said Sam
Nunn, presiding director of the Dell Board.

The investigation of the company began in 2005. In response, Dell
undertook an independent investigation, completed in 2007, which
led to a restatement of certain historical financial reports and
implementation of extensive remedial measures.


DOUBLE-TAKE SOFTWARE: Being Sold for Too Little, Mass. Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that directors of Double-Take
Software are selling the company too cheaply to Thoma Bravo, for
$10.55 a share, or $242 million, shareholders claim in four class
actions in Worcester Superior Court, Mass.

A copy of the Complaint in Page v. Double-Take Software, Inc.,
Case No. 10-1170 (Mass. Super. Ct., Worcester Cty.), is available
at:
     
     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/06/10/SCA.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas G. Shapiro, Esq.
          Adam M. Stewart, Esq.
          SHAPIRO HABER & URMY LLP
          53 State St.
          Boston, MA 02109
          Telephone: 617-439-3939

               - and -

          Jonathan M. Stein, Esq.
          Stuart A. Davidson, Esq.
          Cullin A. O'Brien, Esq.
          ROBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          120 E. Palmetto Park Rd., Suite 500
          Boca Raton, FL 33432
          Telephone: 561-750-3000

               - and -

          RANDALL BARON DAVID WISSBROECKER
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: 619-231-1058


EL PASO: Tenn. Supreme Court Dismisses "Leggett" Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------
Tennessee Supreme Court has dismissed the matter Leggett, et al.
v. Duke Energy Corporation, et al., according to El Paso Corp.'s
May 10, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

Beginning in 2003, several lawsuits were filed against El Paso
Marketing L.P. alleging that El Paso, EPM and other energy
companies conspired to manipulate the price of natural gas by
providing false price information to industry trade publications
that published gas indices.

One of these case is the purported class action lawsuits styled
Leggett, et al. v. Duke Energy Corporation, et al., filed in
Chancery Court of Tennessee in January 2005.  The suit was filed
on behalf of certain purchasers of natural gas.

The Leggett case was dismissed by the Tennessee state court, but
in October 2008, the Tennessee Court of Appeals reversed the
dismissal, remanding the matter to the trial court.

The decision was been appealed to the Tennessee Supreme Court.

In April 2010, the Tennessee Supreme Court dismissed the lawsuit.

El Paso Corp. -- http://www.elpaso.com/-- is an energy company,  
which operates in the natural gas transmission and exploration
and production sectors of the energy industry.  The company owns
or has interests in North America's interstate pipeline system,
which has approximately 42,000 miles of pipe that connect North
America's producing basins to its consuming markets.  It also
provides approximately 230 billion cubic feet (Bcf) of storage
capacity and has a liquefied natural gas (LNG) receiving terminal
and related facilities in Elba Island, Georgia with 933 million
cubic feet (MMcf) of daily base load sendout capacity.  El Paso's
exploration and production business is focused on the exploration
for and the acquisition, development and production of natural
gas, oil and natural gas liquids (NGL) in the United States,
Brazil and Egypt.  The company operates in two business segments:
Pipelines, and Exploration and Production.  It also has Marketing
and Power segments.


EL PASO: Continues to Defend "Tomlinson" Suit in Colorado
---------------------------------------------------------
El Paso Corp. continues to defend a purported class action
lawsuit alleging violations of the Age Discrimination in
Employment Act.

In December 2004, a purported class action lawsuit entitled
Tomlinson, et al.v. El Paso Corporation and El Paso Corporation
Pension Plan was filed in U.S. District Court for Denver,
Colorado.

The lawsuit alleges various violations of the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act
as a result of the company's change from a final average earnings
formula pension plan to a cash balance pension plan.

The trial court has dismissed the claims that the company's plan
violated ERISA.

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

El Paso Corp. -- http://www.elpaso.com/-- is an energy company,  
which operates in the natural gas transmission and exploration
and production sectors of the energy industry.  The company owns
or has interests in North America's interstate pipeline system,
which has approximately 42,000 miles of pipe that connect North
America's producing basins to its consuming markets.  It also
provides approximately 230 billion cubic feet (Bcf) of storage
capacity and has a liquefied natural gas (LNG) receiving terminal
and related facilities in Elba Island, Georgia with 933 million
cubic feet (MMcf) of daily base load sendout capacity.  El Paso's
exploration and production business is focused on the exploration
for and the acquisition, development and production of natural
gas, oil and natural gas liquids (NGL) in the United States,
Brazil and Egypt.  The company operates in two business segments:
Pipelines, and Exploration and Production.  It also has Marketing
and Power segments.


FLORIDA: Children & Families Dept. Sued for Not Paying Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that the Florida Department of
Children and Families stiffs workers for overtime, a class action
claims in Ocala Federal Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Rayner v. Florida Department of
Children and Families, et al., Case No. 10-cv-00248 (M.D. Fla.),
is available at:
                         
     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/06/10/EmployFDCF.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Arthur R. Brown, Jr., Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF RANDY BROWN
          301 N. Baker St., Suite 208
          Mount Dora, FL 32757
          Telephone: 352-508-4237


GE APPLIANCES: Recalls 181,000 GE Front-Load Washing Machines
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
GE Appliances & Lighting, of Louisville, Ky., announced a
voluntary recall of about 181,000 GE Front-Load Washing Machines.  
Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless
otherwise instructed.

A wire can break in the machine and make contact with a metal
part on the washtub while the machine is operating, posing fire
and shock hazards to consumers.

GE is aware of seven incidents in which flames escaped the units
and caused minor smoke damage.  No injuries have been reported.

This recall involves GE front-load washing machines without
auxiliary water heating.  Model and serial numbers are listed in
the chart below.  Recalled washing machines were manufactured
between December 2006 and February 2010.  The model and serial
numbers are located on the bottom right side and on the bottom
door frame of the washers.


   Brand    Model Number Begins With:   Serial Number Begins With:
   -----    ------------------------    --------------------------
    GE                WBVH5             AM, AR, AS, AT, DM, DR,
                                        DS, FM, FR, FS, GM, GS,
                                        HM, HR, HS, LM, LR, LS,
                                        MM, MR, MS, RM, RR, RS,
                                        SM, SR, SS, TM, TR, TS,
                                        VM, VR, VS, ZL, ZM, ZR,
                                        ZS

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10259.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold through
department and various retail stores nationwide from December
2006 through May 2010 for about $700.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled washers,
unplug it from the electrical outlet and contact GE for a free
repair.  Consumers should not operate the washer until it has
been repaired.  For additional information, contact GE toll-free
at (888) 345-4124 between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Eastern Time,
Monday through Friday, or visit the firm's website at
http://www.geappliances.com/


GOOGLE INC: Wants Wi-Fi Suits Consolidated & Moved to N.D. Calif.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Rogoway at The Oregonian reports that Google, facing
lawsuits and government inquires over collection of residential
Wi-Fi data by its Street View cars, wants the Oregon suit against
the company moved out of state.

In a court filing last week, Google argues that it's facing eight
Wi-Fi suits, from Oregon to Massachusetts.

Google's attorneys argue that the cases are all similar in that
they contend the company violated federal wiretapping laws.

The Oregon case and others around the country would be better
heard in Northern California, Google maintains, because its
headquarters are in Mountain View and most witnesses and
documents are there.  


HARTFORD FINANCIAL: $72.5 Mil. Settlement Preliminarily Approved
----------------------------------------------------------------
On June 7, 2010, the U.S. District Court for the District of
Connecticut granted preliminary approval of a $72.5 million
dollar settlement between The Hartford Financial Services Group,
Inc. and a class of more that 21,000 members who had previously
settled personal injury and workers' compensation claims with The
Hartford's property and casualty company.  Zuckerman Spaeder LLP
partner Carl S. Kravitz serves as one of the class counsel.  On
average, the settlement will provide each of the class members
with approximately $3,300, before payment of fees and expenses.

According to Mr. Kravitz, "the settlement will put real money in
the pockets of class members."

The class action suit alleges that when The Hartford settled
personal injury and workers' compensation claims asserted against
its insureds, it often paid some or all of the settlement amount
with what is known a structured settlement. With a structured
settlement, payments are made to the injury victim over time,
rather than in one lump sum payment. Those payments over time are
commonly funded with an annuity issued by a life insurance
company.

The suit further alleges that The Hartford, in funding the class
members' structured settlements, purchased the annuity from its
own life insurance company, and in the process, and without
disclosure to the injury victim, retained 15 percent of the value
of the settlement for itself. The plaintiffs assert claims under
The Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organization Act (RICO) and for
fraud.

                      About Zuckerman Spaeder

Founded in 1975, Zuckerman Spaeder LLP's attorneys practice in
the areas of complex commercial, civil and criminal litigation,
as well as in appellate, bankruptcy, food and drug law,
government ethics, insurance, legal profession and ethics, public
clients, real estate, securities, tax and white collar. The firm
is "AV" rated by Martindale-Hubbell and has offices in
Washington, DC; New York; Tampa; Baltimore; and Wilmington, DE.
In 2009, the firm was named a finalist for "Litigation Boutique
of the Year" by The American Lawyer. The same year,Washingtonian
magazine named Zuckerman Spaeder one of the Washington, DC area's
"50 Great Places to Work." For more information about the firm,
visit its Web site at http://www.zuckerman.com/


HEALTH CANADA: Named in Diabetes Drug Class Action Lawsuits
-----------------------------------------------------------
Laura Eggertson at CMAJ.com reports that class-action lawsuits
against the company that manufactures the Type II diabetes drug
rosiglitazone (Avandia(R)) also name the federal government,
accusing Health Canada of failing to protect the public from the
medication's "serious adverse medical events."

The lawsuits, which the Merchant Law Group filed in Ontario,
Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, BC, and Newfoundland and
Labrador, claim that GlaxoSmithKline Inc. (GSK) failed to fully
inform those who took rosiglitazone that they faced an increased
risk of serious medical events, such as heart attacks and heart
failure, according to a statement of claim filed in the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice.

The lawsuit also alleges that GSK "did shoddy pre- and post-
marketing research and testing on Avandia mainly for the purpose
of obtaining financial benefit and ignoring the potentially
serious risks posed to the public."

In addition, the class-action suit says that Health Canada "knew,
or ought to have known, that there was a significant risk that
Avandia was not properly or thoroughly tested by GSK, and that
Avandia was a dangerous product."

None of these claims have been proven in court. The cases have
not yet been certified as a class, meaning none of the courts
have decided whether all of the defendants have enough in common
to allow cases to proceed, representing everyone who took
rosiglitazone in Canada.

Health Canada would not comment upon the lawsuits at this time
"because the matter is before the courts," said a spokesperson in
an email to CMAJ.

The Canadian lawsuits follow a spate of claims in the United
States against GSK regarding rosiglitazone and its potential
links to myocardial infarction and ischemia. The pharmaceutical
company has begun to offer settlements in some of those cases.

In an email, a spokesperson for GSK said the company could not
comment on class-action settlements or other matters before the
courts.

So far, GSK has not offered to settle the cases in Canada, says
Tony Merchant, senior counsel at The Merchant Law Group, which
specializes in class-action lawsuits. To date, about 500 people
have contacted the firm regarding the rosiglitazone suit. The
group includes the families of about 50 people who died and had
been taking the medication.

Naming Health Canada in the lawsuit is intended to provoke
changes in public policy around the way drugs are regulated, says
Merchant, who was previously unsuccessful in suing the department
over its regulation of silicone breast implants.

"Drug companies simply paying to have the problem go away isn't
accomplishing the societal effect that is desirable, which is an
increased safety approach," Merchant says. "Instead, what it's
doing is just meaning that they price into a drug the cost of
paying for things going wrong."

In 2007, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a
safety alert about the possible association between rosiglitazone
and an increased risk of heart problems. In the wake of
subsequent studies that compared rosiglitazone to pioglitazone
which suggested a higher risk of heart failure and death in
patients taking rosiglitazone, the FDA is holding a public
hearing this July into rosiglitazone. The agency will present
updated evidence regarding the drug and its cardiac safety
profile, and a current risk/benefit analysis of using the drug.

Health Canada followed the FDA warning with a "Dear Doctor"
letter in November 2007 telling physicians not to prescribe
rosiglitazone alone or to patients taking insulin, and advising
against other combinations of medications with the drug. Health
Canada posted a similar letter to patients taking rosiglitazone
on its website. Both letters also cautioned against the use of
rosiglitazone in patients with underlying heart disease or those
who had previously experienced heart failure.

But Merchant and his clients believe those warnings were
inadequate. If they are successful in securing a judgment against
Health Canada, Merchant believes it will result in improvements
to the drug regulatory system.

One of those clients, Debbie Allison, wants something more
specific than regulatory change. In fact, she wants Health Canada
to take rosiglitazone off the market.

Allison's husband, Jeff Lesmeister, was 43 years old when he
dropped dead in 2007 from a sudden cardiac event, about eight
days after being hospitalized for atrial fibrillation and having
stents implanted. Lesmeister had been taking rosiglitazone to
help manage his diabetes and had no previous history of heart
disease or cardiac problems, she says, adding that a doctor had
increased his dosage of rosiglitazone shortly before his death.

Allison says neither she, nor her husband, were aware of the
Health Canada warnings. She believes Health Canada should recall
rosiglitazone, and she is urging physicians not to prescribe it.

"I want the drug off the market," she says. "I joined the class
action because it is public and people will be aware of it. A
settlement means nothing to me. All the money in the world is not
going to bring back what I lost."

"I lost my life partner," she adds. "I lost my life."


IKEA HOME: Recalls 3,360,000 Roller, Roman, and Roll-Up Blinds
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
IKEA Home Furnishings, of Conshohocken, Pa., announced a
voluntary recall of about 3,360,000 Roller, Roman, and Roll-Up
blinds (about 790,000 Roman blinds were recalled in November 2008
and August 2009 and about 533,000 Roller blinds were recalled in
October 2009).  Consumers should stop using recalled products
immediately unless otherwise instructed.

Roller Blinds: Strangulations can occur if the blind's looped
bead chain is not attached to the wall or the floor with the
tension device provided and a child's neck becomes entangled in
the free-standing loop.

Roman Blinds: Strangulations can occur when a child places
his/her neck between the exposed inner cord and the fabric on the
backside of the blind or when a child pulls the cord out and
wraps it around his/her neck.  An additional hazard exists when
the Roman blind has a continuous looped bead chain that if not
attached to the wall or floor, which poses a strangulation hazard
to children.

Roll-up Blinds Strangulations can occur if the lifting loops
slide off the side of the blind and a child's neck becomes
entangled on the free-standing loop or if a child places his/her
neck between the lifting loop and the roll-up blind material.

Roman Blinds: CPSC and IKEA received a new report of a 1 "-year
old boy in Lowell, Massachusetts who suffered a near
strangulation in February 28, 2010.  On April 4, 2008, a 1-year
old girl in Greenwich, Conn. became entangled in the inner cord
of an IKEA Roman blind and strangled.  CPSC and IKEA also
received a report of a 2-year old boy who suffered a near
strangulation.  The last two incidents prompted previous recalls.

Roll-up Blinds: No injuries or incidents have been reported.

Roller Blinds: No injuries or incidents have been reported.

This recall involves roller blinds that do not have a tension
device attached to the bead chain, all Roman blinds and all roll-
up blinds.  Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10261.html

The recalled products were manufactured in India, Estonia, China,
and Poland and sold through IKEA stores nationwide from January
1998 through June 2009 for between $5 and $55.

Consumers should immediately stop using the roller blinds that do
not have a tension device attached to the chain, all Roman blinds
and all roll-up blinds and return them to any IKEA store for a
full refund.  In a previous recall, IKEA reminded consumers who
have roller blinds with a tension device attached to the bead
chain to make sure the tension device is installed into the wall
or floor.  If the consumer has difficulty installing the tension
device, contact IKEA for additional information.  For additional
information, contact IKEA toll-free at (888) 966-4532 anytime, or
visit the firm's website at http://www.ikea-usa.com/


LEAP WIRELESS: Court Gives Preliminary Nod to $13.75M Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
gave its preliminary approval to the settlement resolving a
consolidated securities class action lawsuit against Leap
Wireless International, Inc., $13.75 million, according to the
company's May 10, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2010.

Leap and certain current and former officers and directors, and
Leap's independent registered public accounting firm,
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, were named as defendants in a
consolidated securities class action lawsuit filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California which
consolidated several securities class action lawsuits initially
filed between September 2007 and January 2008.

Plaintiffs allege that the defendants violated Section 10(b) of
the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5, and Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act.  The consolidated complaint alleges that the
defendants made false and misleading statements about Leap's
internal controls, business and financial results, and customer
count metrics.  The claims are based primarily on the Nov. 9,
2007, announcement that the company was restating certain of its
financial statements and statements made in its Aug. 7, 2007,
second quarter 2007 earnings release.

The lawsuit seeks, among other relief, a determination that the
alleged claims may be asserted on a class-wide  basis and
unspecified damages and attorney's fees and costs.

On Jan. 9, 2009, the federal court granted defendants' motions to
dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim.  On Feb. 23,
2009, defendants were served with an amended complaint which did
not name PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP or any of Leap's outside
directors.  Leap and the remaining individual defendants moved to
dismiss the amended complaint.

The parties reached an agreement in principle to settle the class
action.  The settlement is contingent upon court approval and
provides for, among other things, dismissal of the lawsuits with
prejudice, releases in favor of the defendants, and payment to
the class of $13.75 million, including the award of attorneys'
fees to class plaintiffs' counsel.

On Feb. 18, 2010, the lead plaintiff filed a motion seeking
preliminary approval by the court of the settlement and approval
of a form of notice to potential settlement class members, which
was granted on March 24, 2010.

The district court set a settlement fairness hearing for Oct. 4,
2010.

Following preliminary approval, the entire settlement amount was
paid into an escrow account by the company's insurance carriers
pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement.

Leap -- http://www.leapwireless.com/-- provides innovative,  
high-value wireless services to a fast-growing, young and
ethnically diverse customer base. With the value of unlimited
wireless services as the foundation of its business, Leap
pioneered its Cricket(R) service. The Company and its joint
ventures operate in 35 states and the District of Columbia and
hold licenses in 35 of the top 50 U.S. markets. Through its
affordable, flat-rate service plans, Cricket offers customers a
choice of unlimited voice, text, data and mobile Web services.  
Headquartered in San Diego, Calif., Leap is traded on the NASDAQ
Global Select Market under the ticker symbol "LEAP."


LOWE'S COMPANIES: R.I. Residents Complain About Construction Work
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ABC6 News Reporter Erica Ricci reports that residents of a North
Providence, R.I, neighborhood out for answers against Lowe's
Companies, Inc., and a blasting company, are readying a class-
action lawsuit against the companies involved.

Due to nearby construction of a Lowe's store, residents are
complaining of damaged foundations, cracked sidewalks, and other
damage to their homes.  Ms. Ricci's video report is available at
http://ww.abc6.com/Global/story.asp?S=12637854#

"Sign us up on Marblehead Avenue," someone named Christine says.  
"We lost a 3 year old television, we have leaks in our basement
which were never there before, pictures fell off the wall and
more!  And the truck traffic at night is so bad, you can't
sleep."


MRV COMMS: Nov. 15 Hearing to Review $10 Mil. Investor Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs has announced, pursuant to Rule 23 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United
States District Court, Central District of California, that the
action known as Ramsey v. MRV Communications, Inc., et al., Civil
Action No.CV-08-04561 GAF (Rcx), has been certified as a class
action for settlement purposes only and that a settlement for $10
million has been proposed by the parties.  A hearing will be held
before the Honorable Gary A. Feess in Room 740 of the Roybal
Federal Building, the United States District Court for the
Central District of California, 255 East Temple Street, Los
Angeles, CA 90012, at 9:30 a.m. on November 15, 2010 to
determine: whether the proposed settlement should be approved by
the Court as fair, reasonable and adequate; whether the
Settlement Class should be certified and a class representative
and class counsel be appointed; whether the proposed Plan of
Allocation for distribution of the Settlement proceeds should be
approved; to consider the request of Lead Counsel for attorneys'
fees and reimbursement of litigation expenses; and to consider
Lead Plaintiff's application, if any, for his reasonable costs
and expenses (including lost wages) relating to his
representation of the Settlement Class.  The Court may change the
date of the hearing without providing another notice.

If you purchased the common stock of MRV Communications, Inc.
("MRV") during the period between March 31, 2003 and October 8,
2009, inclusive (the "Class Period"), and were damaged thereby
(the "Settlement Class"), your rights will be affected and you
may be entitled to share in the Net Settlement Fund.  If you have
not yet received the full printed Notice of Pendency of Class
Action and Proposed Settlement ("Notice") and a Proof of Claim
and Release form ("Proof of Claim"), you may obtain copies of
these documents by contacting the Claims Administrator at:

          MRV Communications Securities Litigation
          c/o Berdon Claims Administration LLC
          P.O. Box 9014
          Jericho, NY 11753-8914
          Telephone: 800-766-3330
          Fax: 516-931-0810
          http://www.berdonclaims.com/

Inquiries, other than requests for information about the status
of a claim, may be made to Lead Counsel at:

          Colin Holmes, Esq.
          LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
          140 Broadway
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: 888-753-2796
          http://www.labaton.com/

To participate in the proposed Settlement and be eligible to
receive a recovery, you must submit a valid Proof of Claim
postmarked no later than September 25, 2010.  To exclude yourself
from the Settlement Class, you must submit a request for
exclusion postmarked no later than November 1, 2010 pursuant to
the instructions in the Notice.  If you are a Class Member and do
not exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will be bound
by the Final Order and Judgment of the Court.  Any objections to
the Settlement must be filed with the Court and served on counsel
for the parties on or before November 1, 2010.  If you are a
Class Member and do not timely submit a valid Proof of Claim, you
will not share in the Settlement but you nevertheless will be
bound by the Final Order and Judgment of the Court.


NOVATEL WIRELESS: Class Certification Motion in "Backe" Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
The motion of the plaintiffs for class certification in the
matter Backe v. Novatel Wireless, Inc., et al., remains pending,
according to Novatel Wireless, Inc.'s  May 10, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2010.

On Sept. 15, 2008, and Sept. 18, 2008, two putative securities
class action lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of California on behalf of persons who
allegedly purchased the company's stock between Feb. 5, 2007 and
Aug. 19, 2008.

On Dec. 11, 2008, these lawsuits were consolidated into a single
action entitled Backe v. Novatel Wireless, Inc., et al., Case No.
08-CV-01689-H (RBB) (Consolidated with Case No. 08-CV-01714-H
(RBB)) (U.S.D.C., S.D. Cal.).

The plaintiffs filed the consolidated complaint on behalf of
persons who allegedly purchased our stock between Feb. 27, 2007
and Nov. 10, 2008.

The consolidated complaint names the company and certain of its
current and former officers as defendants.  The consolidated
complaint alleges generally that the company issued materially
false and misleading statements during the relevant time period
regarding the strength of its products and market share, its
financial results and its internal controls.

The plaintiffs are seeking an unspecified amount of damages and
costs.  The court has denied defendants' motions to dismiss.

In April 2010, the court heard the lead plaintiffs' motion for
class certification, and a ruling on that motion is forthcoming.

Discovery in this case is ongoing.

Novatel Wireless, Inc. -- http://www.novatelwireless.com/-- is a  
leader in the design and development of innovative wireless
broadband access solutions based on 3G and 4G wireless
technologies. Novatel Wireless' Intelligent Mobile Hotspot
products, software, USB modems and embedded modules enable high-
speed wireless Internet access on leading wireless data networks.  
The company delivers specialized wireless solutions to carriers,
distributors, OEMs and vertical markets worldwide.  Headquartered
in San Diego, California, Novatel Wireless is listed on NASDAQ:
NVTL.


NUTRACEA: D. Ariz. Preliminarily Approves Shareholder Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Arizona has
granted preliminary approval of a $1.5 million settlement of the
securities class action lawsuit against NutraCea and certain
former officers and directors.  The lawsuit is pending in United
States District Court for the District of Arizona and the same
claims were also filed in the United States Bankruptcy Court for
the District of Arizona.  The settlement provides full and
complete settlement for all claims against all defendants.

The settlement remains subject to approval by the Bankruptcy
Court and final approval by the District Court.  A hearing on
final approval of the settlement by the District Court is
scheduled for October 1, 2010.

W. John Short, Chairman and CEO, commented, "The court's
preliminary approval is an important step in finalizing the
settlement of the shareholder class action lawsuit.  We are
optimistic that this lawsuit will be fully resolved at the
October 1 final approval hearing, but as we all know, until the
court's decision has been rendered there can be no assurance that
the settlement will become final. In the meantime, our team at
NutraCea is focused on growing our company for the benefit of our
customers, creditors, employees and shareholders and we look
forward to the final resolution of this lawsuit."

Anyone who purchased NutraCea shares between April 2, 2007 and
February 23, 2009 may be entitled to a share of the settlement.  
Class members will receive a notice setting forth more details
about the settlement, including how to submit a claim form.

                          About NutraCea

NutraCea -- http://www.NutraCea.com/-- is a world leader in  
production and utilization of stabilized rice bran. NutraCea
holds many patents for stabilized rice bran (SRB) production
technology and proprietary products derived from SRB. NutraCea's
proprietary technology enables the creation of food and nutrition
products to be unlocked from rice bran, normally a waste by-
product of standard rice processing.


PALM INC: Inks Settlement of Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Palm, Inc., and the other defendants in a Delaware putative
stockholder class action lawsuit have entered into a memorandum
of understanding with the plaintiff to settle the lawsuit, which
was filed on May 5, 2010 in connection with the proposed
acquisition of Palm by Hewlett-Packard Company.

As part of the settlement, Palm filed definitive additional proxy
materials with the Securities and Exchange Commission to disclose
the settlement and to supplement the disclosures in Palm's
definitive proxy statement filed in connection with the
acquisition on May 26, 2010.  For further information, please
refer to those definitive additional proxy materials and the
other information filed by Palm with the SEC in connection with
the proposed acquisition, which are available at
http://www.sec.gov/or by going to Palm's Investor Relations page  
on its corporate Web site at http://www.palm.com/

Palm, Inc. creates intuitive and powerful mobile experiences that
enable consumers and businesses to connect to their information
in more useful and usable ways. The company's groundbreaking
Palm(R) webOS(TM) platform, designed exclusively for mobile
application, introduces true multitasking and Palm Synergy(TM),
which brings your information from the many places it resides
into a single, more comprehensive view of your life.  


PAYPAL INC: Accused of Closing Accounts for Unfounded Reasons
-------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Dinzeo at Courthouse News Service reports that online
retailers claim in a federal class action that PayPal closed
their accounts and held onto their money for six months, offering
only the vague and unfounded excuse of suspicious account
activity.
Lead plaintiff Moises Zepeda says he logged onto his PayPal
account, which he uses for his business selling gift cards
through eBay, and found a notification telling him his access had
been limited.

To reinstate the account, he faxed proof of ownership of the last
gift card he sold on eBay, but soon after, PayPal informed him
through email that his account was being closed because of issues
with security, Mr. Zepeda says.

The email stated: "'For the safety and security of the PayPal
network, we often review accounts for potential risks.  After
reviewing your account, we have decided to close it because of
security issues,'" Mr. Zepeda says.

PayPal told him in that message that he would have to wait 180
days before he could receive information on how collect the money
in his account, Mr. Zepeda says.  He claims he would not have
used PayPal for his business had he known it would seize his
money and hold it.

He demands restitution, compensatory and special damages for
breach of contract and fiduciary duty.  

A copy of the Complaint in Zepeda v. Paypal, Inc., Case No.
10-cv-02500 (N.D. Calif.), is available at:
     
     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/06/10/PayPal.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian S. Kabateck, Esq.
          Richard L. Kellner, Esq.
          Alfredo Torrijos,Esq.
          KABATECK BROWN KELLNER LLP
          644 South Figueroa St.
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: 213-217-5000


PRICELINE.COM INC: Class Certified in County of Monroe's Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida
granted class certification in the matter County of
Monroe, Florida v. Priceline.com, Inc. et. al., according to
priceline.com Inc.'s May 10, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March
31, 2010.

A number of cities and counties have filed class actions or
putative class actions on behalf of themselves and other
allegedly similarly situated cities and counties within the same
respective state against the company and other defendants,
including, among others, Lowestfare.com LLC and Travelweb LLC,
both of which are subsidiaries of the company.

Each complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants
violated each jurisdiction's respective hotel occupancy tax
ordinance with respect to the charges and remittance of amounts
to cover taxes under each ordinance.  Each complaint typically
seeks compensatory damages, disgorgement, penalties available by
law, attorneys' fees and other relief.

On Jan. 12, 2009, the County filed a purported class action
complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida.  In addition to claims with respect to the application
of the Tourist Development Tax, the complaint also asserted
claims for conversion, unjust enrichment and injunctive relief.

On March 30, 2009, the Court dismissed the action because a
scheduling report had not been submitted to the Court.  
Thereafter, on April 16, 2009, the plaintiff filed another
complaint making the same substantive allegations made in its
previous complaint.  On April 24, 2009, defendants moved to
dismiss.  The court granted in part, and denied in part,
defendants' motion to dismiss on Dec. 17, 2009 by dismissing the
plaintiff's claim for injunctive relief.

On Dec. 31, 2009, the defendants answered the amended complaint.

On Jan. 4, 2010, plaintiff filed a motion for class
certification.

Defendants filed an opposition to class certification on Jan. 14,
2010; and plaintiff's reply was filed on Jan. 22, 2010.  

The court granted class certification on March 15, 2010.

Several Florida counties, including Bay, Orange, Palm Beach, Lee,
Leon, Walton, St. James, Flagler, Gulf, Pasco, Wakulla and
Volusia counties have so far opted out of the Monroe class
action.  The opt-out period expires on May 24, 2010.  The
mediation deadline is June 11, 2010, and the trial date is
July 19, 2010.

The parties are currently conducting discovery.

priceline.com Inc. -- http://www.priceline.com/-- is an online  
travel company that offers its customers a range of travel
services, including airline tickets, hotel rooms, car rentals,
vacation packages, cruises and destination services.


PRICELINE.COM INC: Oral Arguments in "Lawrence" Set for July 27
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Common Pleas of Lawrence County, Pennsylvania, has
scheduled oral argument on the defendants' preliminary objections
to an Amended Complaint filed by the County of Lawrence, for July
27, 2010, according to priceline.com Inc.'s May 10, 2010, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

A number of cities and counties have filed class actions or
putative class actions on behalf of themselves and other
allegedly similarly situated cities and counties within the same
respective state against the company and other defendants,
including, among others, Lowestfare.com LLC and Travelweb LLC,
both of which are subsidiaries of the company.

Each complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants
violated each jurisdiction's respective hotel occupancy tax
ordinance with respect to the charges and remittance of amounts
to cover taxes under each ordinance.  Each complaint typically
seeks compensatory damages, disgorgement, penalties available by
law, attorneys' fees and other relief.

On Sept. 9, 2009, the County of Lawrence, Pennsylvania filed a
complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania styled County of Lawrence v. Hotels.com, L.P., et
al.

On Nov. 17, 2009, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the federal
case, but subsequently filed another complaint, on Nov. 20, 2009,
in the Court of Common Pleas of Lawrence County, Pennsylvania,
seeking declaratory and monetary damages relief, as well as
alleging violations of the Pennsylvania hotel occupancy tax code,
conversion and unjust enrichment.

The defendants' response to the complaint is due March 9, 2010.

Defendants filed preliminary objections to the complaint on March
9, 2010.

The plaintiff then filed an amended complaint on March 26, 2010.  
Defendants filed preliminary objections to the amended complaint
on April 15, 2010.

The Court has scheduled oral argument on Defendants' preliminary
objections to the Amended Complaint for July 27, 2010.

priceline.com Inc. -- http://www.priceline.com/-- is an online  
travel company that offers its customers a range of travel
services, including airline tickets, hotel rooms, car rentals,
vacation packages, cruises and destination services.


PRICELINE.COM INC: Court Okays Pine Bluff's Motion to Reconsider
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Arkansas, granted the
plaintiff's motion to reconsider the dismissal of the matter Pine
Bluff Advertising and Promotion Commission, Jefferson County, AR,
et al. v. Hotels.com, LP, et al., according to priceline.com
Inc.'s May 10, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

A number of cities and counties have filed class actions or
putative class actions on behalf of themselves and other
allegedly similarly situated cities and counties within the same
respective state against the company and other defendants,
including, among others, Lowestfare.com LLC and Travelweb LLC,
both of which are subsidiaries of the company.

Each complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants
violated each jurisdiction's respective hotel occupancy tax
ordinance with respect to the charges and remittance of amounts
to cover taxes under each ordinance.  Each complaint typically
seeks compensatory damages, disgorgement, penalties available by
law, attorneys' fees and other relief.

On Sept. 30, 2009, plaintiffs served the complaint.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on Dec. 4,
2009.

On Jan. 19, 2010, the court granted defendants' motion based on
plaintiffs' failure to timely file an opposition.

The plaintiff thereafter filed an opposition to the motion to
dismiss on Jan. 22, 2010, and requested that the court reconsider
its dismissal of the action.

The court granted plaintiff's motion to reconsider on Feb. 19,
2010, and the motion to dismiss is currently pending.

priceline.com Inc. -- http://www.priceline.com/-- is an online  
travel company that offers its customers a range of travel
services, including airline tickets, hotel rooms, car rentals,
vacation packages, cruises and destination services.


PRICELINE.COM INC: Appeal in Lyndhurst Suit Remains Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
The appeal of the plaintiffs on the dismissal of the action
styled The Township of Lyndhurst, New Jersey v. priceline.com
Incorporated, et al., remains pending in the U.S. Circuit Court
of Appeal for the Third Circuit, according to priceline.com
Inc.'s May 10, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

A number of cities and counties have filed class actions or
putative class actions on behalf of themselves and other
allegedly similarly situated cities and counties within the same
respective state against the company and other defendants,
including, among others, Lowestfare.com LLC and Travelweb LLC,
both of which are subsidiaries of the company.

Each complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants
violated each jurisdiction's respective hotel occupancy tax
ordinance with respect to the charges and remittance of amounts
to cover taxes under each ordinance.  Each complaint typically
seeks compensatory damages, disgorgement, penalties available by
law, attorneys' fees and other relief.

On March 18, 2009, the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey granted defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint
with prejudice on the grounds that plaintiff lacked standing to
bring its claims.

On April 9, 2009, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeal for the Third Circuit.

On July 6, 2009, plaintiff filed its appellate brief.

The defendants' answering brief was filed on Aug. 5, 2009, and
the Township's reply brief was filed on Aug. 19, 2009.

The Court of Appeal had tentatively scheduled oral argument for
June 10, 2010.

priceline.com Inc. -- http://www.priceline.com/-- is an online  
travel company that offers its customers a range of travel
services, including airline tickets, hotel rooms, car rentals,
vacation packages, cruises and destination services.


PRICELINE.COM INC: Parties in "Genesee" Conducting Discovery
------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in the matter County of Genesee, Mich., et al. v.
Hotels.com LP, et al., are still in the process of conducting
discovery.

A number of cities and counties have filed class actions or
putative class actions on behalf of themselves and other
allegedly similarly situated cities and counties within the same
respective state against the company and other defendants,
including, among others, Lowestfare.com LLC and Travelweb LLC,
both of which are subsidiaries of the company.

Each complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants
violated each jurisdiction's respective hotel occupancy tax
ordinance with respect to the charges and remittance of amounts
to cover taxes under each ordinance.  Each complaint typically
seeks compensatory damages, disgorgement, penalties available by
law, attorneys' fees and other relief.

On Aug. 31, 2009, the court denied defendants' motion to dismiss
the complaint.

On Sept. 21, 2009, defendants answered the complaint.

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

priceline.com Inc. -- http://www.priceline.com/-- is an online  
travel company that offers its customers a range of travel
services, including airline tickets, hotel rooms, car rentals,
vacation packages, cruises and destination services.


PRICELINE.COM INC: Parties in Nassau Suit Conducting Discovery
--------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in the matter styled County of Nassau, New York v.
Hotels.com, LP, et al., are currently conducting discovery
specific to class certification issues.

A number of cities and counties have filed class actions or
putative class actions on behalf of themselves and other
allegedly similarly situated cities and counties within the same
respective state against the company and other defendants,
including, among others, Lowestfare.com LLC and Travelweb LLC,
both of which are subsidiaries of the company.

Each complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants
violated each jurisdiction's respective hotel occupancy tax
ordinance with respect to the charges and remittance of amounts
to cover taxes under each ordinance.  Each complaint typically
seeks compensatory damages, disgorgement, penalties available by
law, attorneys' fees and other relief.

On Aug. 17, 2007, the court granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss the complaint for the County of Nassau's failure to
exhaust its mandatory administrative procedures for tax
collection.

On Sept. 12, 2007, the County of Nassau filed a notice of appeal
of that order.

On Aug. 11, 2009, the Second Circuit vacated the lower court's
order dismissing the complaint, and remanded with instructions to
consider whether the complaint meets specified jurisdictional
requirements.

On Sept. 10, 2009, the Second Circuit denied the defendants'
petition for rehearing.

The parties are currently conducting discovery specific to class
certification issues.

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

priceline.com Inc. -- http://www.priceline.com/-- is an online  
travel company that offers its customers a range of travel
services, including airline tickets, hotel rooms, car rentals,
vacation packages, cruises and destination services.


PRICELINE.COM INC: Parties in Rome Suit in Mediation
----------------------------------------------------
The parties in the matter City of Rome, Georgia, et. al, v.
Hotels.com, L.P., et. al., are presently engaging in mediation,
according to priceline.com Inc.'s May 10, 2010, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2010.

A number of cities and counties have filed class actions or
putative class actions on behalf of themselves and other
allegedly similarly situated cities and counties within the same
respective state against the company and other defendants,
including, among others, Lowestfare.com LLC and Travelweb LLC,
both of which are subsidiaries of the company.

Each complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants
violated each jurisdiction's respective hotel occupancy tax
ordinance with respect to the charges and remittance of amounts
to cover taxes under each ordinance.  Each complaint typically
seeks compensatory damages, disgorgement, penalties available by
law, attorneys' fees and other relief.

The court, on July 10, 2009, lifted the stay it had entered to
require plaintiffs to pursue administrative remedies.  

In lifting the stay, the court relied on recent Georgia Supreme
Court rulings that the administrative process in Georgia can be
exhausted when a municipality issues a notice of assessment.  
Thereafter, the parties agreed to continue the stay of the
litigation, except for limited discovery that would allow the
parties to engage in mediation of the case.

A mediation was scheduled for May 17, 2010.

priceline.com Inc. -- http://www.priceline.com/-- is an online  
travel company that offers its customers a range of travel
services, including airline tickets, hotel rooms, car rentals,
vacation packages, cruises and destination services.


PRICELINE.COM INC: Discovery in Gallup Suit Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------
The parties in the matter City of Gallup, New Mexico v.
Hotels.com, L.P., et al., are presently undergoing discovery,
according to priceline.com Inc.'s May 10, 2010, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2010.

A number of cities and counties have filed class actions or
putative class actions on behalf of themselves and other
allegedly similarly situated cities and counties within the same
respective state against the company and other defendants,
including, among others, Lowestfare.com LLC and Travelweb LLC,
both of which are subsidiaries of the company.

Each complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants
violated each jurisdiction's respective hotel occupancy tax
ordinance with respect to the charges and remittance of amounts
to cover taxes under each ordinance.  Each complaint typically
seeks compensatory damages, disgorgement, penalties available by
law, attorneys' fees and other relief.

On Jan. 8, 2009, plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification.  Briefing on plaintiffs' class certification
motion was completed on April 30, 2009.

Also on Jan. 8, 2009, plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to
amend the complaint.  The court granted that motion on Jan. 16,
2009.

On Feb. 2, 2009, defendants answered the First Amended Complaint.

On July 7, 2009 the court entered an order certifying a class.

On Aug. 27, 2009, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Tenth Circuit entered an order denying defendants' petition to
appeal the order certifying a class.

On Sept. 22, 2009, plaintiffs filed a motion for partial summary
judgment.

Defendants' opposition to the motion for partial summary judgment
is due on Nov. 13, 2009.

The court has since stayed discovery in the case pending its
decision on the motion for partial summary judgment.

The parties scheduled a mediation for March 3, 2010.

On March 1, 2010, the court denied plaintiffs' motion for summary
judgment.  On March 9, 2010, plaintiffs moved for reconsideration
of the court's denial of plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment.

Defendants' opposed plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration on
March 26, 2010.  The parties are conducting discovery on
plaintiffs remaining claims.

priceline.com Inc. -- http://www.priceline.com/-- is an online  
travel company that offers its customers a range of travel
services, including airline tickets, hotel rooms, car rentals,
vacation packages, cruises and destination services.


PRICELINE.COM INC: To Appeal Jury's Verdict in San Antonio Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
priceline.com Inc., intends to file an appeal to the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on the jury's verdict that the
company and the other defendant on-line travel companies in a
class action lawsuit control hotels under the local hotel
occupancy tax ordinances and are, therefore, responsible for
collecting and remitting local hotel occupancy taxes.

A number of cities and counties have filed class actions or
putative class actions on behalf of themselves and other
allegedly similarly situated cities and counties within the same
respective state against the company and other defendants,
including, among others,  Lowestfare.com LLC and Travelweb LLC,
both of which are subsidiaries of the company.

Each complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants
violated each jurisdiction's respective hotel occupancy tax
ordinance with respect to the charges and remittance of amounts
to cover taxes under each ordinance.  Each complaint typically
seeks compensatory damages, disgorgement, penalties available by
law, attorneys' fees and other relief.

A class action lawsuit styled City of San Antonio, Texas v.
Hotels.com, L.P., et al., was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Texas, San Antonio Division, brought
by the City of San Antonio on behalf of itself and a class of 172
Texas municipalities against the company and other on-line travel
companies.

On Oct. 30, 2009, priceline.com received a jury verdict in the
case.

The jury's verdict found that the company and the other on-line
travel companies that are defendants in the lawsuit control
hotels under the local hotel occupancy tax ordinances and are,
therefore, responsible for collecting and remitting local hotel
occupancy taxes.  The jury rejected the City of San Antonio's
claim for conversion - essentially, that the company and the
other on-line travel companies had collected a tax and "pocketed"
the tax dollars - and for punitive damages.

The court previously had granted plaintiffs' motion for partial
summary judgment on Sept. 28, 2009, on a number of defendants'
affirmative defenses, including laches, waiver, estoppel and
statute of limitations, but denied summary judgment on all
remaining issues.

The final amount of the judgment against the company has not been
determined.

The jury found that the company and its wholly-owned subsidiary,
Travelweb LLC, owed the City of San Antonio and the 172 Texas
municipalities that make up the class approximately $2.0 million
for historical damages through May of 2009.  In further
proceedings, the Court will determine, among other things,
whether the occupancy tax ordinance applies to the company's
service fee and the amount of penalties, interest, and attorneys'
fees, which could be significant.

The company recorded a charge to general and administrative
expenses in the amount of $3.7 million related to this judgment
in the three and nine months ended September 30, 2009.

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

priceline.com Inc. -- http://www.priceline.com/-- is an online  
travel company that offers its customers a range of travel
services, including airline tickets, hotel rooms, car rentals,
vacation packages, cruises and destination services.


PRYM CONSUMER: Recalls 12,000 Dritz Electric Scissors
-----------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Prym Consumer USA, of Spartanburg, S.C., announced a voluntary
recall of about 12,000 Dritz Quick Cut(TM) Electric Scissors.  
Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless
otherwise instructed.

The electric scissors can overheat, posing fire and burn hazards.

Prym Consumer USA has received two reports of the electric
scissors igniting causing minor property damage.  No injuries
have been reported.

This recall involves the electric scissors are white and blue,
about 10" long and include an AC adaptor.  "Dritz" is written on
the handle on the blue grip.  Pictures of the recalled products
are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10262.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold through
Jo-Ann Fabric and Craft Stores and other craft stores nationwide
from September 2009 through February 2010 for about $50.

Return the scissors to store where purchased or mail directly to
Prym Consumer USA for a refund.  If mailing to Prym, please
include the product, your complete name, mailing address and
phone number in the package and mail to Prym Consumer USA Recall
Center, 950 Brisack Road, Spartanburg, SC 29303.  For additional
information, contact the firm at 800-255-7796 Monday through
Friday 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Eastern Time, by e-mail at
customer.service@prym-consumer-usa.com or on the firm's website
at http://www.prym-consumer-usa.com/


PULASKI COUNTY: Arkansas Teachers Sue to Halt Contract Changes
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Lawson at the Maumelle Monitor reports that a group of five
teachers in the Pulaski County Special School District has filed
a class action lawsuit in Pulaski County Circuit Court against
the board on contract issues.

Last month, the school board voted to withdraw recognition of the
Pulaski Association of Classroom Teachers and to terminate
contracts with the district's 1,200 teachers.

The suit represents about half the district's teachers.

It was filed by Judy Stockrahm, a teacher at Oak Grove Elementary
School; Cheryl Carpenter and Ben Belton, teachers at North
Pulaski High School; Loveida Ingram, a teacher at Jacksonville
High School; and Brenda Robinson, a teacher at Landmark
Elementary School. The five said they represent the teachers who
requested a May 17 hearing before the board on their dismissal.

"Plaintiffs contend that the district is illegally altering the
district's personnel policies . . . by failing to follow the
proper procedures for making changes to those contracts," the
attorney for the teachers:

          Clayton R. Blackstock, Esq.
          MITCHELL, BLACKSTOCK, BARNES, ET AL.
          1010 West Third Street
          Little Rock, AR 72201
          Telephone: 501-378-7870

wrote in the lawsuit filed Friday.  

"Plaintiffs seek an order from this court declaring that the
procedures the district is attempting to use to alter the
contracts . . . are in violation of state law and the district's
own policy agreements," the suit continued.

"Plaintiffs seek immediate declaratory relief . . . because
numerous personnel policy provisions of the Professional
Negotiations Agreement impact the planning and preparation for
the 2010-11 school year, such as teacher assignments, class
schedules and student attendance times, and that preparation and
planning is being done by the district in violation of the
Professional Negotiations Agreement," the lawsuit states.

Blackstock also said the district was incorrect in using the
state's Teacher Fair Dismissal Act and its provisions for
notifying teachers that their contracts were being recommended
for nonrenewal as a way to switch from a union-backed contract to
a contract based on board-approved policies.

The case was assigned to Circuit Judge Timothy Fox, who has heard
two previous lawsuits between PACT and PCSSD.


REDBOX: St. Clair Cty. Court Denies Motion to Dismiss Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Amelia Flood at The St. Clair Record reports that a nationwide
class action suit over late fees charged by DVD rental kiosk
operator Redbox will continue.

St. Clair County Circuit Judge Patrick Young denied a motion by
Redbox to dismiss the suit filed by lead plaintiff Laurie Piechur
last year.

The class has yet to be certified and could include claims from
class members in states from California to Wisconsin.

Piechur claims the company is guilty of unjust enrichment and
violates state consumer fraud statutes by charging a $1 late fee
for every day a DVD is not returned to its kiosks.

The charge kicks in after a set time a day after a DVD is rented.

Piechur's suit seeks damages in excess of $350,000 and attorney's
fees.

Young also denied a summary judgment move filed by Piechur that
would have applied Illinois law to the case, calling it premature
as discovery has just begun in the suit.

Young signed the order May 27.

He gave both parties until July 16 to respond to certain
discovery requests.

The order also gave Redbox until the same date to answer the
plaintiff's current complaint.

Redbox had moved to dismiss the suit in March, arguing that its
fees were spelled out for potential renters and that Piechur and
others could not claim to have been unaware of them.

In the motion for partial summary judgment, the plaintiff
contended that Illinois law should apply to the suit because it
is spelled out in Redbox's own terms of use.

In its response, Redbox contended the partial summary judgment
could not be heard until discovery had commenced in the case.

Redbox had previously taken the case to federal court.

The federal court remanded it back to St. Clair County in
February.

Eric Brandfonbrener, Jonathan Buck and Robert Sprague represent
Redbox.

Piechur and the class are represented by Thomas Maag, Jeffrey
Millar and Thomas Keefe Jr.

The case is St. Clair case number 09-L-562.


RHINO TOYS: Recalls 5,500 Beado Handheld Bead Play Toys
-------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Rhino Toys Inc., of Santa Cruz, Calif., announced a voluntary
recall of about 5,500 Beado handheld bead play toys.  Consumers
should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise
instructed.

The toys' plastic wires can detach from the hubs due to
insufficient adhesive, allowing the beads to slide off.  The
loose beads pose a choking hazard to young children.

No injuries or incidents have been reported.

This recall involves the Beado hand-held beaded play toy with
model number 1501 and date code 02910 04323A.  The product
measures six inches in diameter and is composed of four blue
plastic "hubs", six white plastic "wires" and twelve multi-
colored beads that slide along the wires.  The model number and
date code are printed on the bottom of the packaging and the date
code is also inside of the blue hubs.  Beados that have a date
code different than 02910 or have a date code of 02910 and an
inspection sticker on the bottom of the packaging and a black
mark by the date code inside the blue hub are not included in
this recall.   Pictures of the recalled products are available
at http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10260.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold through
specialty toy and juvenile retailers from March 2010 through May
2010 for about $12.

Consumers should immediately stop using this recalled toy and
return it to the store where it was purchased to receive a full
refund or a replacement Beado hand-held beaded toy.  For
additional information, please contact Rhino Toys toll free at
(877) 887-4433 between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m., Pacific Time,
Monday through Friday, or visit the firm's website at
http://www.rhinotoys.com/


SINOENERGY CORP: Skywide Merger Class Action Lawsuits Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sinoenergy Corporation (Nasdaq: SNEN) disclosed last week that
that the fourth and final class action lawsuit, which was brought
by Stephen Trecaso and Linda Watts in the Supreme Court of the
State of New York, Nassau County, arising from the Company's
proposed merger with Skywide Capital Management Limited was
dismissed on June 7, 2010.  The Company has previously reported
the dismissal of the other three class action lawsuits, which
were brought in the Eighth Judicial District Count in the State
of Nevada in and for Clark County.  The dismissals of all actions
were made pursuant to a settlement agreement, which was reported
in the Company's Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

The economic terms of the proposed merger were not changed as a
result of the settlement, the Company denied all of the
allegations made in the complaints and the settlement agreement
expressly provided that the Company was not at fault and the
Company does not admit that there was any basis for the
allegations contained in the complaint.

                         About Sinoenergy

Sinoenergy -- http://www.sinoenergycorporation.com/-- is a  
developer and operator of retail CNG stations as well as a
manufacturer of CNG transport truck trailers, CNG station
equipment, and natural gas fuel conversion kits for automobiles,
in China. In addition to its CNG related products and services,
the Company designs and manufactures a wide variety of customized
pressure containers for use in the petroleum and chemical
industries.


SUPERGAS: Israeli Supreme Court Rejects Gas Cartel Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Nurit Roth at Haaretz.com reports that the Israel's Supreme Court
has refused to approve a settlement reached between the parties
in a class action suit by customers of the country's four
distributors of gas for cooking and heating. The suit followed
the conviction of the companies on charges of forming an illegal
cartel.

After Attorney General Yehuda Weinstein, representing the state,
voiced strong objections to the proposed settlement, Justice
Asher Dan Grunis said: "It would be good for both sides to try,
in cooperation with the representative of the attorney general,
to reach a different compromise." The state is required to weigh
in on consumer cases of this kind.


"The agreement does not benefit the [plaintiffs], it does not
provide any real compensation and does not serve the interests
behind the suit," Weinstein wrote in an opinion submitted earlier
this week. He called the proposed settlement inappropriate and
unfair.

The suit was filed in 2003, but the matter goes back to 1993,
when Supergas, Paz Gas, Amisragas and Dorgas began dividing the
market among themselves and preventing competition. The criminal
case against the members of the cartel was initiated by the
Antitrust Authority.

The compromise agreement in the class action was previously
rejected by Judge Nurit Ahituv of the Tel Aviv District Court,
who said she did not see how the settlement served the interests
of the victims of the cartel. Both sides appealed the lower
court's decision to the Supreme Court.

What's the big deal?

So what was in the rejected settlement? NIS 90,000 for the lead
plaintiff and NIS 1.44 million - plus VAT - for their lawyers.
And the people on whose behalf the class action was filed, the
residential and business customers who were harmed by the cartel?
Well, residential - but not business - customers who signed up to
receive service from one of the gas companies in either 1994 or
1995, but not before or after, were to receive a gas detection
device. Installation and service not included.

In his written opinion, Weinstein questioned how many of those
harmed were interested in having the device, as well as its
efficacy, and noted the exclusion of commercial customers.

The attorney general also said that the amount stipulated in the
agreement for the attorneys greatly exceeded the relative benefit
they achieved for their clients. Weinstein recommended
distributing some of that money as compensation to those who were
harmed by the cartel.


SYGENTA CROP: Says Plaintiffs Can't Prove Claim in Atrazine Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Amelia Flood at The Madison Record reports that Syngenta Crop
Protection Inc. asked County Circuit Judge Barbara Crowder on
Thursday to dismiss a proposed class action, arguing the
plaintiffs have failed to allege how levels of its atrazine
violate standing law and how those levels can be tied back to the
company.

If atrazine levels were found to be under what is allowed by law,
the plaintiffs would have no case, Syngenta argued.

In a separate motion, Syngenta -- a defendant in a series of
class actions brought by attorney Stephen Tillery -- also argued
to dismiss or stay the suit filed by lead plaintiff Holiday
Shores Sanitary District pending the outcome of a recently filed
federal case over similar water contamination claims.

Holiday Shores and several other Illinois water providers allege
in the suits that Syngenta and a number of other atrazine makers
and distributors have contaminated their drinking water supplies.

The plaintiffs contend that atrazine, a common weed killer, runs
off farm fields into their water supplies.

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

In its second amended complaint, Holiday Shores doesn't allege
any concrete levels of atrazine in their water supplies, Syngenta
attorney Kurt Reeg said in the hearing before Crowder.

Reeg pointed to the un-pled levels of atrazine in the plaintiffs'
water supplies as a weakness in their case.

"They never claim their levels exceed the current law," Reeg
said. "It'd be nice if they'd make the allegations so the levels
can be determined so the court can make sense of what this case
is about."

He continued saying that the plaintiffs had also not alleged any
incurred filtering expenses and that they were asking for damages
based on "mere conjecture."

Tillery responded, telling Crowder that Madison County Circuit
Judge Daniel Stack, who previously presided over the cases, had
already decided the issues.

"I don't think we need a revisit," Tillery said, also adding that
he disagreed with Reeg's claims.

Tillery: Stay would cause 'circus'

Syngenta's motion to stay or dismiss the Madison County suit is
based on a similar case Tillery filed in federal court in March.

In that case, Greenville et al v. Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc.
et al, water providers from Illinois, Ohio, Missouri and other
states allege similar water contamination claims against Syngenta
and its Swiss parent company, Syngenta AG.

Syngenta attorney Laura White argued that the federal case
involves the same general parties, has the same claims and that
it would provide a more comprehensive remedy to the Holiday
Shores plaintiffs than the five and a half year-old Madison
County suit.

"They want two bites at the apple," White said of Tillery's
federal suit.

The Dallas firm Baron & Budd is co-counsel in the federal suit.

White told Crowder that both cases involved punitive class
actions.

She dismissed arguments from the plaintiff's table that the
Holiday Shores plaintiffs and potential class members would be
excluded from the federal suit because no class has been
certified in either case as yet.

She argued that under Illinois law, when two class actions shared
as many similarities as the two Syngenta cases, the more
comprehensive case took precedence.

Tillery called Syngenta's move premature.

He cited a pending motion to dismiss the federal suit filed by
Syngenta.

He also took issue with the defense theory that the cases are
similar.

"They have more than blurred the line," Tillery said.

Tillery contended that they were almost totally dissimilar.

He pointed to the fact that only Syngenta Crop Protection Inc. is
a common defendant to both cases.

He told Crowder that the defense was trying to substitute five
common class members for named parties to make its case for
similar parties in both suits.

He also argued that the suits contain different claims.

Tillery stressed at length that the 2004 Madison County suit
should not be thrown out based on a three-month old federal suit.

"If they think they can go to Judge [J. Phil] Gilbert and ask him
to stay this, let them," Tillery said. "But this case is five and
a half years old. The plaintiffs over here are not responsible
for the plaintiffs over there."

Tillery also pointed to the impact a stay could have on the other
five cases pending over atrazine claims.

He argued that if Syngenta became a third party, discovery would
slow and become more complicated than it already has been.

"This would turn into a circus," Tillery said.

The defense countered that as its client had already produced
over two million documents, the stay would not greatly impact the
other suits.

White also dismissed Tillery's claims that the two suits are not
duplicative.

"We're supposed to pretend that these are just individual
lawsuits that have been filed, but that's not true," White
argued. "This duplication is going to go on and on and on at our
expense."

She added that if Crowder followed Tillery's theory about the
older case taking precedence, she would be starting "a race to
the courthouse."

July 1 next court date

Crowder took the cases over from Stack after he announced his
retirement last year.

Stack will retire later this year.

Tillery and Reeg conferred for a brief moment in the hallway
following the dismissal motions arguments.

They reached a tentative agreement about some discovery issues at
the heart of dueling motions to compel.

They asked Crowder to set July 1 at 10 a.m. as a date to
potentially argue any of those discovery matters that cannot be
resolved without the court.

The Syngenta atrazine suit is Madison case number 04-L-710.

The federal case, filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Illinois, is 3:10-cv-00188-JPG-PMF.


TOYOTA MOTOR: Calif. State Ct. Suits Consolidated in Los Angeles
----------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad at The National Law Journal reports that dozens
of sudden-acceleration lawsuits filed against Toyota Motor Corp.
in California's state courts will be coordinated in Los Angeles.

California Chief Justice Ronald George issued an order to that
effect on Tuesday, following a hearing on May 21 when Los Angeles
County, Calif., Superior Court Judge Carl West coordinated at
least 21 lawsuits into a single proceeding. Related federal
multidistrict litigation (MDL) encompassing more than 200
lawsuits is pending in nearby Santa Ana, Calif., which is in
Orange County.

George told Charles "Tim" McCoy, presiding judge of the Los
Angeles Superior Court, to select the judge who will hear the
coordinated proceeding.

Most of the plaintiffs lawyers who attended the recent hearing
had argued for Los Angeles.

"We have a very representative class section of citizenry in the
L.A. area, rather than in Orange County, where you have a more
conservative, more WASP-ish jury pool," said Garo Mardirossian,
managing partner of Los Angeles-based Mardirossian & Associates,
who represents the husband of a woman who died on Aug. 28 after
her Toyota accelerated to 100 miles per hour and crashed into a
median. "We would rather have a jury pool that best represents
folks in Southern California, not just what we would find in
Orange County."

Only five lawsuits have been filed in Orange County Superior
Court, he added.

George indicated that 40 lawsuits would be coordinated into the
California proceeding, nearly double the number of cases
identified during the hearing. He specified that California's 4th
District Court of Appeal would hear any appeals. That district's
jurisdiction includes Orange, Riverside and San Diego counties,
but not Los Angeles County.

Toyota's lawyer, Lisa Gilford, a partner in the Los Angeles
office of Atlanta's Alston & Bird, had argued for Santa Ana, in
part because of the MDL pending nearby. Gilford did not return a
call for comment.

"The fact that Orange County got the federal MDL should have
nothing to do with us going there," Mardirossian said. "Luckily,
Chief Justice George saw this too and kept us where we belong."


TYCOM LTD: Notice of Proposed $79 Million Shareholder Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
                  UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                     DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

________________________________
                                ) Hon. Garrett E. Brown, Jr.
                                ) Chief U.S.D.J.
IN RE TYCOM LTD. SECURITIES     )
LITIGATION                      ) Docket No. 03-CV-03540
________________________________)

TO: ALL PERSONS OR ENTITIES WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED
    SHARES OF TYCOM LTD DURING THE PERIOD JULY 26, 2000,
    THROUGH DECEMBER 17, 2001.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey, that a
hearing will be held on August 25, 2010, at 1:00 p.m., before The
Honorable Garrett E. Brown, Jr., at the Clarkson S. Fisher
Building & U.S. Courthouse, 402 East State Street, Courtroom 4E,
Trenton, New Jersey, for the purpose of determining:

     (1) whether the proposed settlement of the claims in the
         Action for the sum of $79,000,000 in cash should be
         approved by the Court as fair, reasonable and adequate
         to Members of the Class;

     (2) whether, thereafter, this Action should be dismissed
         with prejudice as to the Settling Defendants (who are
         all Defendants other than L. Dennis Kozlowski and Mark
         H. Swartz) pursuant to the terms and conditions set
         forth in the Settlement Agreement dated as of March 26,
         2010;

     (3) whether the proposed plan to distribute the settlement
         proceeds (the "Plan of Allocation") is fair, reasonable
         and adequate and therefore should be approved; and

     (4) whether the application of Lead Counsel for the payment
         of attorneys' fees and expenses incurred in connection
         with this Action and reimbursement of Lead Plaintiff's
         reasonable costs and expenses (including lost wages)
         directly related to his representation of the Class
         should be approved.  

If you purchased or acquired TyCom common stock between July 26,
2000 and December 17, 2001, your rights may be affected by this
Settlement.  If you have not received a detailed Notice of
Proposed Settlement of Class Action, Motion for Attorneys' Fees
and Settlement Fairness Hearing ("Notice") and a copy of the
Proof of Claim and Release, you may obtain copies by writing to:

          TyCom Ltd. Securities Litigation
          Claims Administrator
          c/o The Garden City Group, Inc.
          P.O. Box 9406
          Dublin, OH 43017-4506

or you can download a copy at:

          http://www.tycomsecuritieslitigation.com/

If you are a Class Member, in order to share in the distribution
of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof of Claim and
Release postmarked no later than October 1, 2010, establishing
that you are entitled to recovery.

All purchasers of TyCom common stock were given notice of the
pendency of this class action pursuant to Court Order dated May
19, 2009, and are Members of the Class certified in this Class
Action, other than those purchasers who timely filed requests for
exclusion from the Class by October 1, 2009.  All current Members
of the Class will be bound by the terms of the Settlement and
Release if and as they are approved at the above hearing.
PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING
THIS NOTICE.  If you have any questions about the Settlement, you
may contact Lead Counsel at the address listed below:

          Robert C. Finkel, Esq.          
          WOLF POPPER LLP
          845 Third Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: 1-877-370-7703
          E-mail: irrep@wolfpopper.com

               - or -

          Gregory E. Keller, Esq.
          CHITWOOD HARLEY HARNES LLP
          2300 Promenade II
          1230 Peachtree Street, N.E.
          Atlanta, GA  30309
          Telephone:
          E-mail: gkeller@chitwoodlaw.com


U.S. CONCRETE: Settles Four Suits in California for $1.6 Million
----------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Concrete, Inc., entered into a settlement agreement
resolving four consolidated class actions pending in Alameda
Superior Court (California), for $1.6 million, according to the
company's May 10, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

The class-action suits were filed between Apr. 6, 2007, and Sept.
27, 2007, on behalf of various Central Concrete Supply
Company, Inc., ready-mixed concrete and transport drivers,
alleging primarily that Central failed to provide meal and rest
breaks as required under California law.

In May 2010, the company entered into a settlement agreement for
approximately $1.6 million related to four consolidated class
actions pending in Alameda Superior Court (California), which is
subject to approval by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District
of Delaware.

The company previously entered into settlements with one of the
classes and a number of individual drivers.

U.S. Concrete, Inc. -- http://www.us-concrete.com/-- is a  
producer of ready-mixed concrete, precast concrete products and
concrete-related products in select markets in the United States.  
The company operates its business through its ready-
mixed concrete and concrete-related products segment, and its
precast products concrete segment.  As of March 12, 2009, the
Company had 132 fixed and 12 portable ready-mixed concrete
plants, seven precast concrete plants, one concrete block plant
and seven producing aggregates facilities (including 27 fixed
ready-mixed concrete plants and one masonry block plant operated
by its 60%-owned Michigan subsidiary).  The company operates in
two business segments: ready-mixed concrete and concrete-related
products, and precast concrete products.


UTSTARCOM INC: Inks Stipulation to Settle Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
UTStarcom, Inc., has entered into a stipulatin of settlement
resolving the matter In re UTStarcom, Inc. Securities Litigation,
according to the company's May 10, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2010.

Beginning in October 2004, several shareholder class action
lawsuits alleging federal securities violations were filed
against the company and various officers and directors of the
company.  The actions have been consolidated in U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California under the caption
In re UTStarcom, Inc. Securities Litigation, Master File No. C-
04-4908-JW (PVT).

The lead plaintiffs in the case filed a First Amended
Consolidated Complaint on July 26, 2005.  The First Amended
Complaint alleged violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, and was brought on behalf of a putative class of
shareholders who purchased the company's stock after April 16,
2003 and before Sept. 20, 2004.  On April 13, 2006, the lead
plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint adding new
allegations and extending the end of the class period to Oct. 6,
2005.  In addition to the company defendants, the plaintiffs are
also suing Softbank.  Plaintiffs' complaint seeks recovery of
damages in an unspecified amount.

On June 2, 2006, the company and the individual defendants filed
a motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint.  On March 21,
2007, the Court granted defendants' motion and dismissed
plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint.  The Court granted
plaintiffs leave to file a Third Amended Complaint, which
plaintiffs filed on May 25, 2007.

On July 13, 2007, the company and the individual defendants filed
a motion to dismiss and a motion to strike the Third Amended
Complaint.  On March 14, 2008, the Court granted defendants'
motion and dismissed plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint.  The
Court granted plaintiffs leave to file a Fourth Amended
Complaint, which plaintiffs filed on May 14, 2008.
On June 13, 2008, consistent with the Court's March 14, 2008
dismissal order, the company and the individual defendants filed
objections to the form and content of the Fourth Amended
Complaint.  On July 24, 2008, the Court overruled the objections.  
On Sept. 8, 2008, the Company and the individual defendants filed
a motion to dismiss and a motion to strike certain allegations
from the Fourth Amended Complaint.  On March 27, 2009, the Court
denied defendants' motion to dismiss and granted defendants'
motion to strike.  Discovery and motion practice are ongoing in
this litigation.  No trial date has been set.

Plaintiffs, the company and the individual defendants have signed
and filed a stipulation of settlement providing for the
settlement of the case.  Defendant Softbank is not a party to the
settlement.

The settlement is contingent on approval by the court.  Under the
terms of the settlement, the company's and individual defendants'
insurers would pay the full amount of the settlement.  A
preliminary approval hearing was scheduled for May 10, 2010.

UTStarcom, Inc. -- http://www.utstar.com/-- is a global leader  
in IP-based, end-to-end networking solutions and international
service and support.  The company sells its solutions to
operators in both emerging and established telecommunications
markets around the world.  UTStarcom enables its customers to
rapidly deploy revenue-generating access services using their
existing infrastructure, while providing a migration path to
cost-efficient, end-to-end IP networks.  Founded in 1991 and
headquartered in Alameda, California, the company has research
and development operations in the United States, China, and
India.


ZIMMER INC: Kentucky Man Files Defective Hip Replacement Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wendy R. Fleishman of the national plaintiffs' law firm Lieff
Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, and Philip Grossman of the
Louisville, Kentucky law firm of Grossman & Moore, PLLC,
announced that Mark Kevin Nunn filed a lawsuit last week against
Zimmer Inc., the nation's largest producer of orthopedic devices.  
Nunn suffered constant and devastating pain for more than 2 "
years and was forced to undergo a second hip replacement surgery
in April 2010 due to a defective hip implant manufactured and
sold by Zimmer as the Durom Cup.

The Durom Cup was first sold in the U.S. in 2006, and was
implanted in more than 12,000 patients over a two-year period.
The complaint estimates that the failure rate of the Durom Cup so
far is between 20% and 30%.  The true failure rate will
ultimately be much higher as doctors and their patients come to
realize that their implants are failing.

"The whole experience has had a major negative effect on my
quality of life," stated Nunn, age 44, of Louisville, Kentucky.
"I had such intense pain it seemed like medication was not
helpful.  The continual pain affected my relationships, my work
and every aspect of my life. I spent two and a half miserable
years in intense pain. Then I had to go through a second surgery
replacing the implant that should have been completely
unnecessary.  Zimmer should have known before it sold its implant
that it would not work."  

In July 2008, one year after Nunn received his Durom Cup, Zimmer
issued a "temporary suspension" of sales of the Durom Cup device
because of the unacceptable failure rate.

"Rather than functioning in the intended manner, the complaint
charges that the Durom Cup implant resists bone growth and
becomes loose or pops free from the hip," added Fleishman. "This
unintended result has caused severe pain to patients and forced
many, including Mr. Nunn, to undergo revision surgery to remove
the failed Durom Cup."

"Zimmer's belated suspension of sales of its defective product
was too little, too late for Mr. Nunn and countless other
patients who needed well-made artificial hip implants to restore
their ability to sit, stand and walk without excruciating pain,"
stated Grossman. "Mr. Nunn and other patients have suffered
needlessly. "

             Allegations Concerning the Zimmer Durom Cup

A "metal-on-metal" implant, such as the Durom Cup, is not
cemented or screwed in place during implantation. Instead, it was
designed to bond naturally to the patient's hip bone.

After the product was introduced in the United States, Zimmer
began receiving complaints from physicians that its Durom Cup was
failing. "Despite warnings from leading orthopedic surgeons,
Zimmer continued to aggressively market the Durom Cup in 2007 and
into 2008, blaming surgeons for the growing failure rate,"
explained Fleishman.

In July 2008, Zimmer announced that it was temporarily suspending
the sales of the Durom Cup in the United States. In its
announcement, Zimmer stated that the suspension was necessary
"while the Company updated labeling to provide more detailed
surgical technique instructions to surgeons and implements its
surgical training program in the U.S."

Zimmer denies any "evidence of a defect" with the Durom Cup and
has refused to issue a recall notice in accordance with
procedures established by the Food and Drug Administration.

The lawsuit, entitled Nunn v. Zimmer Holdings, was filed today in
federal court in Louisville, Kentucky.

                       Legal Resources for
               Zimmer Durom Cup Hip Implant Patients

Lieff Cabraser represents persons across America injured by
defective medical devices, including the Zimmer Durom Cup.

If you would like to learn more about your legal rights please
visit our Zimmer Durom Cup injuries legal information page at:

     http://www.personalinjurylawyeramerica.com/medical/zimmer-durom-hip-recall.htm

or call us toll-free at 1-800-541-7358 and ask to speak to
attorney Heather Foster. There is no charge or obligation for our
review of your case.

          CONTACT: Wendy R. Fleishman, Esq.
                   Leiff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP
                   Telephone: (212) 355-9500
                   E-mail: wfleishman@lchb.com

                        - and -  

                   H. Philip Grossman, Esq.
                   Grossmand & Moore, PLLC
                   Telephone: (502) 657-7100
                   E-mail: pgrossman@gminjurylaw.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  * * *