CAR_Public/100616.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Wednesday, June 16, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 117

                            Headlines

ADAMS GOLF: Pays $5 Mil. to Settlement Fund in Securities Suit
APPLE INC: Suit Complains About iPad Unlimited Data Service Plan
ATRINSIC INC: Pays $1 Mil. Settlement in "Allen" Class Action
AVIAT NETWORKS: Consolidated Suit in Delaware Still Pending
BEAR LAKE GOLD: Hearing on $1.3 Mil. Settlement Set for Aug. 10

BLUE CROSS: Michigan Lawsuit Seeks Better Coverage for Autism
CADBURY ADAMS: B.C. Court Upholds $6 Mil. Price-Fixing Settlement
CHEMTURA CORP: Defends Three Suits over Georgia Warehouse Fire
CHEMTURA CORP: New York Bankruptcy Court Okays Settlement Pact
DENDREON CORP: Defends Consolidated Securities Suit in Wash.

DYNEGY HOLDINGS: Tennessee Supreme Court Dismisses Suit
DYNEGY HOLDINGS: Motion to Dismiss Five Suits Pending
INTERACTIVE DATA: Being Sold for Too Little, Del. Suit Claims
INTERSECTIONS INC: Motion to Dismiss Suit in Texas Still Pending
INTERSECTIONS INC: Faces Suit over Identity Protection Services

JAVELIN PHARMACEUTICALS: Seeks Dismissal of Consolidated Suit
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Trial on Case v. Units Set for Late 2010
KENEXA CORP: Defends Securities Violations Suit in Pennsylvania
KENEXA CORP: Securities Suit Voluntarily Dismissed
KINDER MORGAN: Discovery in "Going Private" Suits Still Ongoing

LOJACK CORP: Appellate Court Affirms Certification of 3 Claims
LUFKIN INDUSTRIES: Payment of Damages in Race Bias Suit Stayed
MAKE IT WORK: Sued for Not Paying Overtime Wages
MEDIACOM CAPITAL: Final Judgment on Jury Verdict Remains Pending
MEDIACOM CAPITAL: Defends "Knight" Suit over Cable Box Rental

META FINANCIAL: Two Suits Over Certificates Remain Pending
NATURE'S SUNSHINE: Shareholder Settlement Gets Final Court Nod
NEW YORK: Sued for Denying Hearing Rights to Medicaid Applicants
PROGRESS ENERGY: Court Dismisses Nuclear Cost-Recovery Suit
STAMPS.COM: Appeal Filed in Settlement Agreement Approval

SYNOVUS FINANCIAL: Faces Consolidated Securities Suit in Georgia
TELLABS INC: Consolidated Securities Suit Still Pending in Ill.
TRIAD GUARANTY: Oral Arguments in "Phillips" Suit Set for Aug. 30
UNIVERSITY MEDICAL: Accused of Assessing Bogus "Trauma Charges"
VERTRO INC: Appeal in Consolidated Securities Suit Still Pending

WINN-DIXIE: Discovery in Florida FCRA Violations Suit Ongoing
WINN-DIXIE: Faces FLSA-Violations Suit in South Florida
WOODBURY COUNTY: Sued for Denying Rehab Services to TBI Patients

                            *********

ADAMS GOLF: Pays $5 Mil. to Settlement Fund in Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In accordance with a settlement agreement reached by Adams Golf,
Inc., on October 29, 2009, regarding a consolidated securities
class action filed in June 1999 in the U.S. District Court of the
District of Delaware, the company paid $5 million to the
settlement fund in March 2010.

The complaints alleged violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15
of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, in connection with our
initial public offering and sought rescissory or compensatory
damages in an unspecified amount.  In particular, the complaints
alleged that the company's prospectus, which became effective
July 9, 1998, was materially false and misleading.  

The court preliminarily approved the settlement, but remains
subject to a final court approval, shareholder class approval,
and appeal.   

The proposed settlement provides for a total payment to the class
of $16.5 million in cash and a payment of the first $1.25
million, after attorneys fees and costs, actually received (if
any) by the Company in connection with the Company's litigation
against its former insurance broker Thilman & Filipini, LLC, and
the Company's former insurance carrier, Zurich American Insurance
Company.  If approved, the settlement will lead to a dismissal
with prejudice of all claims against all defendants in the
litigation.  

As part of the settlement, the underwriters for the IPO have
agreed to release the Company from any indemnification
obligation.  Although defendants continue to deny plaintiffs'
allegations, the Company believes it is in the best interests of
its stockholders to proceed with this settlement, according to
the company's May 11, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2010.

Adams Golf, Inc. -- http://www.adamsgolf.com/-- incorporated in   
1987, designs, assembles, markets and distributes golf clubs for
all skill levels, including Speedline drivers and hybrid fairway
woods, Idea Tech a4 and a4 OS I-woods and irons, Idea a3 and a3
OS I-woods and irons, Idea Pro Gold I-woods and irons and Insight
Tech a4 and a4 OS drivers and hybrid-fairway woods, RPM family
drivers and fairway woods and irons, the Ovation family of
drivers, fairway woods and irons, Tom Watson signature wedges.  
In addition, under Women's Golf Unlimited the company distributes
the Lady Fairway and Square 2 brands.


APPLE INC: Suit Complains About iPad Unlimited Data Service Plan
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Apple and AT&T defrauded
consumers by promising iPad purchasers an "unlimited data service
plan," and then eliminating the plan after they had bought the
computers, a class action claims in San Jose Federal Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Weisblatt v. Apple Inc., Case No. 10-
cv-02553 (N.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/06/11/Apple.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael W. Sobol, Esq.
          Roger N. Heller, Esq.
          Allison Elgart, Esq.
          LIEF, CABRASER, HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
          Embarcadero Center West
          275 Battery St., 29th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
          Telephone: 415-956-1000


ATRINSIC INC: Pays $1 Mil. Settlement in "Allen" Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Atrinsic, Inc., paid $1 million to settle the class action
proceeding in the State of California in Allen v. Atrinsic, Inc.
f/k/a New Motion, Inc., pending in Los Angeles County Superior
Court, according to the company's May 11, 2010, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2010.

On March 10, 2010, Atrinsic received final approval of its
settlement to the Class Action. The settlement covers all of the
Company's mobile products, web sites and advertising practices
through December 2009.  

All costs of the settlement and defense were accrued for in 2008;
therefore the settlement did not impact the Company's results of
operations in 2009 and is not expected to impact the Company's
results of operations in 2010.

As a result of the State of California Settlement and final
approval of the judgment, Atrinsic has filed stays, and will file
dispositive motions, in the following actions, which it is either
directly named in or has assumed the defense of the following
cases:

   -- Baker v. Sprint Nextel Corp., Motricity, Inc., and New
      Motion, Inc. pending in Dade County Superior Court in
      Florida,  

   -- Stewart v New Motion, Inc. and Motricity, Inc., pending in
      Hennepin County District Court in Minnesota, Rynearson v.    
      Motricty, Inc, pending in King County Superior Court in
      Washington, and

   -- Walker v. Motricity, Inc., pending in Alameda County
      Superior Court in California.  

Atrinsic, Inc. -- http://www.atrinsic.com/-- formerly known as   
New Motion, Inc., is a digital advertising and marketing services
company in the United States.  Atrinsic is organized as a single
segment with two principal offerings: Transactional services and
Subscription services.

AVIAT NETWORKS: Consolidated Suit in Delaware Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Aviat Networks, Inc., fka Harris Stratex Networks, Inc.,
continues to defend itself in a consolidated class action
complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Delaware, according to the company's May 12, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended April 2, 2010.

The Company and certain of its current and former executive
officers and directors were named in a federal securities class
action complaint filed on September 15, 2008 in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Delaware by plaintiff Norfolk County
Retirement System on behalf of an alleged class of purchasers of
the Company's securities from January 29, 2007 to July 30, 2008,
including shareholders of Stratex Networks, Inc. who exchanged
shares of Stratex Networks, Inc. for the Company's shares as part
of the merger between Stratex Networks and the Microwave
Communications Division of Harris Corporation.
This action relates to the restatement of the Company's prior
financial statements.

Similar complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court of
Delaware on October 6 and October 30, 2008.  Each complaint
alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, as
well as violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of
1933 and seeks, among other relief, determinations that the
action is a proper class action, unspecified compensatory damages
and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.

The actions were consolidated on June 5, 2009, and a consolidated
class action complaint was filed on July 29, 2009.

Aviat Networks, Inc. -- http://www.aviatnetworks.com/--   
previously known as Harris Stratex Networks, Inc., is the
wireless expert in advanced IP network migration, building the
foundation for the 4G/LTE broadband future. We offer best-of-
breed transformational wireless solutions, including LTE-ready
microwave backhaul, WiMAX access and a complete portfolio of
essential service options that enable wireless public and private
telecommunications operators to deliver advanced data, voice,
video and mobility services around the world.


BEAR LAKE GOLD: Hearing on $1.3 Mil. Settlement Set for Aug. 10
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action commenced in 2009 in the Ontario Superior Court
of Justice (the "Court") against Bear Lake Gold Ltd. (the
"Company" or "BLG") and certain of its current or former officers
and directors (the "Defendants") was settled on May 12, 2010. The
action arose from the discovery by the Company in July 2009 of
inconsistencies in the exploration results for its Larder Lake
Property, and its consequent withdrawal of all such results. Gary
Henault, the plaintiff in a proposed class action sought damages
for an alleged misrepresentation.

A formal settlement agreement has been executed by the parties
(the "Settlement"). The Settlement requires approval by the
Superior Court of Justice of Ontario. The plaintiff will bring a
motion for approval of the Settlement on August 10, 2010 at 10:00
am at, Osgoode Hall, 130 Queen Street West, Toronto, Ontario (the
"Approval Motion").

If approved by the Court and not cancelled, as described below,
the Settlement will resolve the claims of all Class Members who
do not opt out of the class action, which are defined as persons
and entities who purchased common stock of BLG traded on the TSX-
V during the period from July 18, 2006 to and including July 17,
2009, and who held some or all of those shares when trading in
BLG's common stock was halted on July 17, 2009. The Defendants,
BLG's past or present parents, subsidiaries, affiliates,
officers, directors, legal representatives, heirs, predecessors,
successors and assigns, and any member of the individual
Defendants' families and any entity in which any of them has or
had a legal or de facto controlling interest ("Excluded Persons")
are not permitted to participate in the Settlement.

The Settlement provides that the Defendants will pay $1,305,000
(the "Settlement Amount") in full and final settlement of the
claims of Class Members, including legal fees, disbursements,
taxes and administration expenses in return for releases and a
dismissal of the class action. The Class Members who do not opt
out and who file a proper claim will be paid a pro rata share of
the balance of the settlement amount after payment of fees,
expenses, and taxes. The settlement may be cancelled if the
shares purchased by those who opt out exceeds 5% of the total
shares purchased by all Class Members and held at the end of the
Class Period. The Company will also implement certain corporate
governance enhancements. Mr. Bernard Boily, the Company's former
Vice President of Exploration, has agreed not to accept a
position as an officer or director of an Ontario reporting issuer
for a period of 10 years from the date of the Settlement.

The Settlement is a compromise of disputed claims and is not an
admission of liability, wrongdoing or fault on the part of any of
the Defendants, all of whom have denied, and continue to deny,
the allegations against them.

A Settlement Approval Motion Will Be Held in Ontario

The Settlement must be approved by the Court before it can be
implemented. Class Members may, but are not required to, attend
at the Approval Motion which will be held on August 10, 2010 at
10:00 a.m., at Osgoode Hall, 60 Queen Street West, Toronto,
Ontario.

If the Settlement is approved, another notice to Class Members
will be published which will provide instructions on how to make
a claim to receive compensation from the Settlement and how to
opt out of the class if the Class Member does not wish to share
in, or be bound by, the Settlement.

Class Members who approve or do not oppose the Settlement do not
need to appear at the Approval Motion or take any other action at
this time.

Class Counsel will Seek Court Approval of their Fees and
Administration Expenses

In addition to seeking the Court's approval of the Settlement,
Siskinds LLP will seek the Court's approval of its legal fees not
to exceed 25% of the Settlement Amount, plus disbursements and
applicable taxes ("Class Counsel Fees") at the Approval Motion.
Siskinds will also seek the appointment of an Administrator for
the Settlement whose fees, together with any other costs relating
to approval, notification, implementation and administration of
the Settlement ("Administration Expenses"), will be paid from the
Settlement Amount. Class Counsel Fees and Administration Expenses
will be deducted from the Settlement Amount before it is
distributed to Class Members.

Terms of the Settlement Agreement

The remainder of the Settlement Amount, after deduction of Class
Counsel Fees and Administration Expenses (the "Net Settlement
Amount") will be distributed to Class Members in accordance with
the Plan of Allocation which is also subject to Court approval.

The amount of each Class Member's actual compensation from the
Net Settlement Amount will depend upon: (i) the number and the
price of BLG's securities purchased by the Class Member during
the Class Period; (ii) when the Class Member sold the BLG
securities purchased during the Class Period and the price at
which such securities were sold; (iii) whether the Class Member
continues to hold some or all of their BLG securities purchased
during the Class Period; and (iv) the total number of claims for
compensation filed with the Administrator and their value.

Copies of the Settlement and the proposed Plan of Allocation may
be found at www.classaction.ca or by contacting Siskinds at the
contact information provided below.

Participation in the Settlement May Affect Other Actions
Commenced by Class Members

If the Court approves the Settlement, all Class Members will be
bound by its terms, unless they exclude themselves from the Class
("opt out"). This means that if they do not opt out, they may
participate in the settlement by filing a proper claim but will
not be able to bring or maintain any other claim or legal
proceeding against the Defendants or any other person released by
the Settlement in relation to the matters alleged in the class
action. If the Settlement is approved, a notice containing a full
explanation of Class Members' right to opt out will be published.

Class Members May Object to the Proposed Settlement

Class Members who wish to comment on or object to the Settlement
should do so in writing. All objections should be received by
Siskinds LLP (at the address listed below) no later than July 27,
2010. Siskinds will file all such submissions with the Court. You
may attend and participate at the settlement hearing whether or
not you deliver an objection.

A written objection should include: (i) the Class Member's name,
address, telephone number, fax number (where applicable) and
email address; (ii) a brief statement outlining the nature of,
and reason for, the objection; and (iii); a statement as to
whether the objector intends to appear at the Approval Motion in
person or through a lawyer, and, if through a lawyer, the name,
address, telephone number, fax number and email address of the
lawyer.

Questions related to this Notice should NOT be addressed to the
Ontario Superior Court of Justice. Instead, for further
information, please contact:

          Michael G. Robb, Esq.
          SISKINDS LLP
          680 Waterloo Street
          London, ON N6A 3V8
          CANADA
          Telephone: 1-877-672-2121 x.2380
          E-mail: michael.robb@siskinds.com


BLUE CROSS: Michigan Lawsuit Seeks Better Coverage for Autism
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kim Kozlowski at The Detroit News reports that Donovan Johns was
3 years old when he was diagnosed with autism after his parents
noticed he struggled with speaking, expressing his needs and
interacting with others.

His condition has since improved dramatically, his parents say,
after therapies that have cost them tens of thousands of dollars.
Donovan's family was part of a class-action lawsuit against Blue
Cross Blue Shield of Michigan that led to a landmark settlement
and the state's first insurer to offer coverage for autistic
children.

But most Michigan insurers still don't cover autism therapies, a
situation many are trying to change through lawsuits and
legislation to take the financial burden off families. Services,
which can cost up to $50,000 annually, are not covered because
many insurers deem the therapies experimental. Activists counter
research shows many are proven to be effective, especially when
implemented early.

"There's a lot more to be done," said Warren resident Chris
Johns, Donovan's father. "This condition is devastating, not just
from a financial perspective but from an emotional and
relationship perspective. It just destroys families."

Autism is a neurological disorder that impairs a person's social,
emotional and communication skills. About 1-in-100 American
children have the disorder, according to federal studies,
including an estimated 14,000 in Michigan.

Though the Michigan House has passed legislation to require
insurance companies to cover the costs of therapy for autistic
children, and a bipartisan task force is conducting hearings
around the state, some autism activists believe it won't become
law. That's why attorneys are ready to file lawsuits against
Michigan's Medicaid program and other insurers to get children
therapeutic coverage.

"We're hoping that once we achieve enough of these victories that
all of the insurers will realize this therapy is mainstream and
effective and should be authorized," said Gerard Mantese, a Troy
attorney who represented the class in the suit against Blue Cross
Blue Shield and is working on litigation against other parties.
Two weeks ago, a Wayne County Circuit judge denied a motion by
Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan to dismiss a case, paving the
way for a $125,000 settlement filed by Cheryl Matthews, Mantese
said. Matthews, an Oakland County Circuit judge, alleged the
insurance company wrongly refused to pay claims totaling $38,000
for therapy for her autistic son.

The ruling comes as Blue Cross recently mailed checks totaling
$680,000 to nearly 100 families after it agreed to settle a
class-action lawsuit last year where families said they were
wrongly denied reimbursement for a program for their autistic
children. Even though the insurer still regards autism therapies
as experimental, the company changed its policy in May 2009 to
offers employers the option to buy autism coverage for their
entire group. The coverage offers 60 treatment sessions, or about
12 weeks, to families with autistic children ages 2 to 5.
"We felt there was a need out there so we moved to change our
policy," said Helen Stojic, a Blue Cross spokeswoman.

Soon after, legislation requiring insurers to pay for better
autism treatment was approved by the Michigan House but it has
not moved in the state Senate.

Activist Neil Carrick, a Westland resident, says that is not
enough. He has enlisted attorneys to sue Michigan Medicaid to pay
for services for his 4-year-old son, Zachary Stacer, who has a
form of autism and was developmentally delayed by months. After
paying thousands of dollars out-of-pocket for therapies, he says
you can hardly tell anything is wrong with his son. But that's
because he acted early, and was able to afford some services. But
that's not the case for everyone.

"The way it is right now, if something doesn't change," Carrick
said, "children are going to grow up and not get the care they
need."

Since 2001, 21 states have passed laws requiring insurers to
provide evidence based, early intervention autism therapies,
according to Autism Votes, an initiative of the advocacy group,
Autism Speaks. New Hampshire has also passed laws and is awaiting
the governor's signature. The laws, which resulted from
legislative efforts, differ by state but most all require
insurers to provide coverage of evidence-based early intervention
autism therapies.

Blue Cross Blue Shield of Minnesota began covering autism
therapies after the state's attorney general won a lawsuit filed
in 2001, said Lorri Unumb, senior policy adviser and counsel for
Autism Speaks.

The movement comes as research is demonstrating that
interventions work, Unumb said, but insurers are not including
them in their policies.

"The health insurers have no incentive to revise their plans to
reflect the current science unless someone pushes them," Unumb
said. "The time has finally come that you have enough families,
enough lawyers and activists who were willing to bring this to
the attention to the public."


CADBURY ADAMS: B.C. Court Upholds $6 Mil. Price-Fixing Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CBC News reports that the B.C. Supreme Court has issued a ruling
that could bring Canadian chocolate lovers a step closer to
compensation from the country's major candy manufacturers.

The court ruled Friday to allow a settlement agreement as part of
a class action lawsuit against Nestle Canada Inc., Hershey Canada
Inc., Mars Canada Inc., and Cadbury Adams Canada Inc.

An investigation by Canada's Competition Bureau has alleged a
conspiracy among the manufacturers to artificially inflate the
price of chocolate bars sold from 2001 to 2008.

In exchange for providing information against the other
companies, Cadbury Adams, along with its distribution company,
Itwal Ltd., offered a settlement worth nearly $6 million.

Cadbury's offer is a good deal, according to Luciana Brasil, a
Vancouver lawyer involved in the class action.

                      Settlement challenged

"We were able to negotiate a very favorable settlement," said
Brasil. "If we're able to ultimately resolve all the claims
against the other parties, then all [plaintiffs in the class
action] are going to potentially benefit."

Brasil said it's not yet clear what form that settlement will
take.

"Whether that will mean a direct financial benefit or some other
kind of benefit, we don't know . at this present moment."

The class action applies to anyone in Canada who bought chocolate
made by Nestle, Hershey and Mars between 2001 and 2008, Brasil
said.

Hershey is appealing the settlement agreement by Cadbury Adams
and the Crown.

The conspiracy allegations have yet to be proven in court.


CHEMTURA CORP: Defends Three Suits over Georgia Warehouse Fire
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chemtura Corporation defends three putative state class actions
pertaining to the fire at the company's Conyers, Georgia
warehouse on May 25, 2004, 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 company and certain of its former officers and employees were
named as defendants in five putative state class action lawsuits
filed in three counties in Georgia and one putative class action
lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia pertaining to the fire at the company's
Conyers, Georgia warehouse on May 25, 2004.

Of the five putative state class actions, two were voluntarily
dismissed by the plaintiffs, leaving three such lawsuits, all of
which are now pending in the Superior Court of Rockdale County,
Georgia.  These remaining putative state class actions, as well
as the putative class action pending in federal district court,
seek recovery for economic and non-economic damages allegedly
arising from the fire.

Punitive damages are sought in the Davis case in Rockdale County,
Georgia and in the Martin case in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Georgia.  The Martin case also
seeks a declaratory judgment to reform certain settlements, as
well as medical monitoring and injunctive relief.

Chemtura Corporation -- http://www.chemtura.com/-- manufactures  
and markets specialty chemicals, crop protection products, and
pool, spa and home care products.


CHEMTURA CORP: New York Bankruptcy Court Okays Settlement Pact
--------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York
approved a settlement agreement resolving a federal securities
class action against Chemtura Corporation, 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 company, certain of its former officers and directors
(Crompton Individual Defendants), and certain former directors of
the company's predecessor Witco Corp. are defendants in a
consolidated class action lawsuit, filed on July 20, 2004, in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, brought by
plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and a class consisting of all
purchasers or acquirers of the company's stock between October
1998 and October 2002.

The consolidated amended complaint principally alleges that the
company and the Crompton Individual Defendants caused the Company
to issue false and misleading statements that violated the
federal securities laws by reporting inflated financial results
resulting from an alleged illegal, undisclosed price-fixing
conspiracy.  The putative class includes former Witco Corp.
shareholders who acquired their securities in the Crompton-Witco
merger pursuant to a registration statement that allegedly
contained misstated financial results.

The complaint asserts claims against the company and the Crompton
Individual Defendants under Section 11 of the Securities Act of
1933, Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  Plaintiffs also assert claims
for control person liability under Section 15 of the Securities
Act of 1933 and Section 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
against the Crompton Individual Defendants. The complaint also
asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duty against certain
former directors of Witco Corp. for actions they allegedly took
as Witco Corp. directors in connection with the Crompton-Witco
merger.

The plaintiffs seek, among other things, unspecified damages,
interest, and attorneys' fees and costs.

The company and the Crompton Individual Defendants filed a motion
to dismiss the complaint on Sept. 17, 2004, and the former
directors of Witco Corp. filed a motion to dismiss the complaint
in February 2005.

On Nov. 28, 2008, the parties signed a settlement agreement.  The
Federal District Court granted preliminary approval of the
November 2008 Settlement Agreement on Dec. 12, 2008, and
scheduled a June 12, 2009, final approval hearing which hearing
was subsequently rescheduled for Nov. 11, 2009.  The November
2008 Settlement Agreement provided for payment by or on behalf of
defendants of $21 million.

On Sept. 17, 2009, the Federal District Court entered an order
cancelling the final approval hearing of the November 2008
Settlement Agreement due to the automatic stay resulting from
Chapter 11 cases.  The Federal District Court also denied on Dec.
31, 2009, the motions to dismiss the complaint filed by the
company, the Crompton Individual Defendants and the former
directors of Witco Corp.  The motions to dismiss were denied
without prejudice to renew following resolution of the Chapter 11
cases.

In October 2009, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern
District of New York issued an Order authorizing the company to
enter into a settlement stipulation requiring the return of $9
million that the company transferred to the plaintiffs prior to
its Chapter 11 filing in connection with the November 2008
Settlement Agreement.

The company entered into such settlement stipulation, and $9
million was returned to the company.

On April 13, 2010, the parties entered into an amended settlement
agreement whereby the plaintiffs agreed to accept a total of
approximately $11 million to be paid by the company's insurer in
full satisfaction of the company's obligations pursuant to the
settlement and amended settlement agreements.  This matter will
be resolved as a settlement class action.

The settlement is subject to the approval of both the Federal
District Court and the Bankruptcy Court.  On May 4, 2010, the
Bankruptcy Court approved the settlement of the class action.

Chemtura Corporation -- http://www.chemtura.com/-- manufactures  
and markets specialty chemicals, crop protection products, and
pool, spa and home care products.


DENDREON CORP: Defends Consolidated Securities Suit in Wash.
------------------------------------------------------------
Dendreon Corp. continues to defend a securities class action suit
pending in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Washington, 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 on May 24, 2007, four proposed securities class action
suits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington, on behalf of the company's common stock,
purporting to state claims for securities law violations stemming
from the company's disclosures related to Provenge and the FDA's
actions regarding our BLA for Provenge.

The complaints seek compensatory damages, attorney's fees and
expenses.

On Oct. 4, 2007, the Court consolidated these actions under the
caption McGuire v. Dendreon Corporation, et al., and designated a
lead plaintiff.

The lead plaintiff designated the complaint filed June 6, 2007 in
McGuire, et al. v. Dendreon Corporation, et al., as the operative
complaint.

On Dec. 21, 2007, the company and individual defendants jointly
filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.

By order dated April 18, 2008, the Court granted the motion to
dismiss the complaint, holding that plaintiffs failed to plead a
claim against the company or the individual defendants, and
allowing plaintiffs thirty days to file an amended complaint.

Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on June 2, 2008, naming
Dendreon, its chief executive officer, and a senior vice
president as defendants.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on
July 2, 2008.

By order dated Dec. 5, 2008, the Court granted the motion to
dismiss the allegations against the company's chief executive
officer based on allegedly false or misleading statements and his
sale of Dendreon stock, and denied the remainder of the motion.

The Court gave plaintiffs permission to file an amended complaint
to reassert their allegations against the company's chief
executive officer, and plaintiffs filed a second amended
complaint on Jan. 5, 2009.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint
on Jan. 29, 2009.

On May 21, 2009, the Court issued an order granting in part, and
denying in part, defendants' motion to dismiss the second amended
complaint, and allowing leave to amend.

Plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint on June 8, 2009.

On June 29, 2009, defendants filed an answer to the third amended
complaint.

The parties have commenced discovery, and trial in this action
has been set for October 18, 2010.

Dendreon Corporation -- http://www.dendreon.com/-- is a  
biotechnology company focused on the discovery, development and
commercialization of therapeutics that improve cancer treatment
options for patients.  Dendreon's most advanced product candidate
is Provenge (sipuleucel-T), an active cellular immunotherapy that
has completed two Phase III trials for the treatment of
asymptomatic, metastatic, androgen-independent prostate cancer.


DYNEGY HOLDINGS: Tennessee Supreme Court Dismisses Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
The Tennessee Supreme Court has reversed the ruling of the
appellate court and dismissed a class-action lawsuit Dynegy
Holdings Inc., according to Dynegy Inc.'s May 10, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2010.

The plaintiffs claimed damages resulting from alleged process
manipulation and false reporting of natural gas prices to various
index publications in the 2000-2002 timeframe.

In February 2007, the Tennessee state court previously dismissed
a class action on defendants' motion.  Plaintiffs appealed and in
November 2007, the case was argued to the appellate court.

In October 2008, the appellate court reversed the dismissal and
remanded the case for further proceedings.  In December 2008, the
defendants applied for leave to appeal the appellate court
decision to the Tennessee Supreme Court.

In April 2010, the Tennessee Supreme Court reversed the appellate
court ruling and dismissed all of plaintiffs' claims.  

The decision is subject to appeal to the U.S. Supreme court.

Dynegy Inc., through its subsidiary, Dynegy Holdings, Inc., is
engaged in the production and selling of electric energy,
capacity and ancillary services from the fleet of 29 operating
power plants in 13 states totaling nearly 20,000 megawatt of
generating capacity.


DYNEGY HOLDINGS: Motion to Dismiss Five Suits Pending
-----------------------------------------------------
Dynegy Inc.'s motion for summary judgment in five cases claiming
damages resulting from alleged price manipulation and false
reporting of natural gas prices to various index publications
remains pending, 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 company, several of its affiliates, the company's former
joint venture affiliate and other energy companies were named as
defendants in numerous lawsuits in state and federal court.

Many of the cases have been resolved and those which remain are
pending in Nevada federal district court.

There are five remaining cases, three of which seek class
certification.

All of the cases contain similar claims that individually, and in
conjunction with other energy companies, the company engaged in
an illegal scheme to inflate natural gas prices in four states by
providing false information to natural gas index publications in
the 2000-2002 timeframe.

In November 2009, following defendants' motion for
reconsideration, the court invited defendants to renew their
motions for summary judgment, which were filed shortly
thereafter.

Now fully briefed, the company awaits an order or further
instruction from the court.  In the interim, discovery and
plaintiffs' class certification motion are stayed.

Dynegy Inc., through its subsidiary, Dynegy Holdings, Inc., is
engaged in the production and selling of electric energy,
capacity and ancillary services from the fleet of 29 operating
power plants in 13 states totaling nearly 20,000 megawatt of
generating capacity.


INTERACTIVE DATA: Being Sold for Too Little, Del. Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that directors of Interactive
Data are selling the company too cheaply through an unfair
process to Warburg Pincus, Silver Lake Technology Management, HG
Investors, Igloo Merger Corp., and Pearson DBC Holdings, for
$33.86 a share or $3.4 billion, shareholders claim in Delaware
Chancery Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Page v. Interactive Data Corporation,
et al., Case No. 5554 (Del. Ch. Ct.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/06/11/SCA.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
          David A. Rosenfeld, Esq.
          Mark S. Reich, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          58 South Service Rd., Suite 200
          Melville, NY 11747
          Telephone: 631-367-7100

               - and -

          Brian Murray, Esq.
          MURRAY, FRANK & SAILER LLP
          275 Madison Ave., Suite 801
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: 212-682-1818


INTERSECTIONS INC: Motion to Dismiss Suit in Texas Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Intersections Inc.'s motion to dismiss a putative class action
complaint remains pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Texas, 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.

On Sept. 11, 2009, a putative class action complaint was filed
against the company, Intersections Insurance Services Inc., Loeb
Holding Corp., Bank of America of America, NA, Banc of America
Insurance Services, Inc., American International Group, Inc.,
National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA, and
Global Contact Services, LLC.

The complaint alleges various claims based on telemarketing of an
accidental death and disability program.

The defendants each have filed a motion to dismiss the
plaintiff's claims, and the motions are pending.

Intersections Inc. -- http://www.intersections.com/-- is a  
leading global provider of consumer and corporate identity risk
management services.  Its premier identity theft, privacy, and
consumer solutions are designed to provide high-value
opportunities to its marketing partners, including leading
financial institutions, Fortune 100 corporations, and other
businesses.  Intersections also markets full identity theft
protection solutions under its brand, Identity Guard(R).  
Intersections' consumer identity theft protection services have
protected more than 30 million consumers.


INTERSECTIONS INC: Faces Suit over Identity Protection Services
---------------------------------------------------------------
Intersections Inc.'s faces putative class action complaint filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, 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.

On Feb. 16, 2010, a putative class action complaint was filed
against the company, Bank of America Corporation, and FIA Card
Services, N.A.

The complaint alleges various claims based on the provision of
identity protection services to the named plaintiff.

Intersections Inc. -- http://www.intersections.com/-- is a  
leading global provider of consumer and corporate identity risk
management services.  Its premier identity theft, privacy, and
consumer solutions are designed to provide high-value
opportunities to its marketing partners, including leading
financial institutions, Fortune 100 corporations, and other
businesses.  Intersections also markets full identity theft
protection solutions under its brand, Identity Guard(R).  
Intersections' consumer identity theft protection services have
protected more than 30 million consumers.


JAVELIN PHARMACEUTICALS: Seeks Dismissal of Consolidated Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Javelin Pharmaceuticals, Inc., is seeking the dismissal of a
consolidated class action lawsuit arising from its merger with
Myriad Pharmaceuticals, Inc., according to a Form 10-Q filed by
Javelin with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2010.

On January 5, 2010, Javelin was served with a complaint naming
it, certain of its directors, MPI, and MPI Merger Sub, Inc., as
defendants in a purported class action lawsuit, Schnipper v.
Watson, No. 09-5439 (Mass. Super. Ct. filed Dec. 23, 2009). The
Complaint alleges various breaches of fiduciary duty in
connection with the MPI Merger Agreement. Two other complaints,
Parrish v. Watson, No. 10-0029 (Mass. Super. Ct. filed Jan. 5,
2010) and Andrews v. Driscoll, No. 10-0049 (Mass. Super. Ct.
filed Jan. 6, 2010), making substantially similar allegations,
were filed against Javelin and certain of the other defendants
identified following the filing of the Complaint. These actions
were consolidated into a single action.  

On April 1, 2010, the Court denied plaintiffs' motion seeking
expedited discovery in the consolidated case.  The defendants
have moved to dismiss the consolidated action.  The plaintiffs
have moved for leave to amend the consolidated complaint in order
to bring additional claims relating to the proposed transaction
with Hospira Inc.; the company intends to oppose this motion.
While Javelin is unable to predict the final outcome of these
lawsuits, it believes that the allegations in both the original
consolidated complaint and the proposed amended complaint are
without merit and the claims in the original consolidated
complaint are also moot, and the company intends to vigorously
defend against these actions.

Javelin Pharmaceuticals, Inc. --
http://www.javelinpharmaceuticals.com/-- is a specialty  
pharmaceutical company that applies technologies to develop new
products and improved formulations of existing drugs that target
medical need in the pain management market.  The company's
product candidates are focused on treating an array of pain
disorders ranging from acute and episodic moderate-to-severe pain
associated with cancer pain, post-operative pain, post-trauma
pain, such as orthopedic injury pain, procedural pain and burn
pain.  The company's products include Dyloject (injectable
diclofenac), Ereska (intranasal ketamine, formerly PMI-150) and
Rylomine (intranasal morphine).


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Trial on Case v. Units Set for Late 2010
-----------------------------------------------------------
A state case against Johnson & Johnson subsidiaries has been set
for trial in late 2010, according to the Company's May 10, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended April 4, 2010.

Johnson & Johnson and several of its pharmaceutical subsidiaries,
along with numerous other pharmaceutical companies, are
defendants in a series of lawsuits in state and federal courts
involving allegations that the pricing and marketing of certain
pharmaceutical products amounted to fraudulent and otherwise
actionable conduct because, among other things, the companies
allegedly reported an inflated Average Wholesale Price (AWP) for
the drugs at issue.  Many of these cases, both federal actions
and state actions removed to federal court, have been
consolidated for pre-trial purposes in a Multi-District
Litigation (MDL) in Federal District Court in Boston,
Massachusetts.  The plaintiffs in these cases include classes of
private persons or entities that paid for any portion of the
purchase of the drugs at issue based on AWP, and state government
entities that made Medicaid payments for the drugs at issue based
on AWP.

The MDL Court identified Class 2 and Class 3 of Massachusetts-
only private insurers providing "Medi-gap" insurance coverage and
private payers for physician-administered drugs where payments
were based on Average Wholesale Price, and a national class, or
Class 1, of individuals who made co-payments for physician-
administered drugs covered by Medicare.  A trial of the two
Massachusetts-only class actions concluded before the MDL Court
in December 2006.  In June 2007, the MDL Court issued post-trial
rulings, dismissing the Johnson & Johnson defendants from the
case regarding all claims of Classes 2 and 3, and subsequently of
Class 1 as well.  Plaintiffs appealed the Class 1 judgment and,
in September 2009, the Court of Appeals vacated the judgment and
remanded for further proceedings in the District Court.  

AWP cases brought by various Attorneys General have proceeded to
trial against other manufacturers.  One state case against
certain of the Company's subsidiaries has been set for trial in
late 2010, and other state cases are likely to be set for trial
thereafter.

Johnson & Johnson -- http://www.jnj.com/-- is engaged in the  
research and development, manufacture and sale of a range of
products in the healthcare field.  The company has more than 250
operating companies.  It operates in three segments: Consumer,
Pharmaceutical, and Medical Devices and Diagnostics.


KENEXA CORP: Defends Securities Violations Suit in Pennsylvania
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kenexa Corporation defends a putative class action pending in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
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 suit was filed June 11, 2009, against Kenexa and its Chief
Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer on behalf of a
class of Kenexa's investors who purchased the company's publicly
traded securities between May 8, 2007 and Nov. 7, 2007.

The suit was filed the Building Trades United Pension Trust Fund,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and
alleges violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder and Section 20(a) of the Exchange
Act in connection with various public statements made by Kenexa.

The action seeks unspecified damages, attorneys' fees and
expenses.

Kenexa Corp. -- http://www.kenexa.com/-- provides business  
solutions for human resources.  It helps global organizations
multiply business success by identifying the best individuals for
every job and fostering optimal work environments for every
organization.  For more than 20 years, Kenexa has studied human
behavior and team dynamics in the workplace, and has developed
the software solutions, business processes and expert consulting
that help organizations impact positive business outcomes through
HR.  Kenexa is the only company that offers a comprehensive suite
of unified products and services that
support the entire employee lifecycle from pre-hire to exit.


KENEXA CORP: Securities Suit Voluntarily Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------
A putative class action against Kenexa Corporation filed on
July 16, 2009, has been voluntarily dismissed, 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 suit was filed against the company and its Chief Executive
Officer and Chief Financial Officer in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, purportedly on behalf
of a class of the company's investors who purchased its publicly
traded securities between May 8, 2007 and Nov. 7, 2007.

Kenexa Corp. -- http://www.kenexa.com/-- provides business  
solutions for human resources.  It helps global organizations
multiply business success by identifying the best individuals for
every job and fostering optimal work environments for every
organization.  For more than 20 years, Kenexa has studied human
behavior and team dynamics in the workplace, and has developed
the software solutions, business processes and expert consulting
that help organizations impact positive business outcomes through
HR.  Kenexa is the only company that offers a comprehensive suite
of unified products and services that
support the entire employee lifecycle from pre-hire to exit.


KINDER MORGAN: Discovery in "Going Private" Suits Still Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery in two consolidated suits against Kinder Morgan, Inc.,
in connection with its going private transaction is ongoing,
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 on May 29, 2006, the day after the proposal for the
company's Going Private transaction was announced, and in the
days following, eight putative Class Action lawsuits were filed
in Harris County (Houston), Texas and seven putative Class Action
lawsuits were filed in Shawnee County (Topeka), Kansas against,
among others, Kinder Morgan, Inc., its Board of Directors, the
Special Committee of the Board of Directors, and several
corporate officers.

                           Texas Actions

By order of the Harris County District Court dated June 26, 2006,
each of the eight Harris County cases were consolidated into the
Crescente v. Kinder Morgan, Inc. et al case, Cause No. 2006-
33011, in the 164th Judicial District Court, Harris County,
Texas, which challenges the proposed transaction as inadequate
and unfair to Kinder Morgan, Inc.'s public stockholders.

On September 8, 2006, interim class counsel filed their
Consolidated Petition for Breach of Fiduciary Duty and Aiding and
Abetting in which they alleged that Kinder Morgan, Inc.'s Board
of Directors and certain members of senior management breached
their fiduciary duties and the Sponsor Investors aided and
abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty in entering into
the merger agreement.  They sought, among other things, to enjoin
the merger, rescission of the merger agreement, disgorgement of
any improper profits received by the defendants, and attorneys'
fees. Defendants filed Answers to the Consolidated Petition on
October 9, 2006, denying the plaintiffs' substantive allegations
and denying that the plaintiffs are entitled to relief.

                          Kansas Actions

By order of the District Court of Shawnee County, Kansas dated
June 26, 2006, each of the seven Kansas cases were consolidated
into the Consol. Case No. 06 C 801; In Re Kinder Morgan, Inc.
Shareholder Litigation; in the District Court of Shawnee County,
Kansas, Division 12.  On August 28, 2006, the plaintiffs filed
their Consolidated and Amended Class Action Petition in which
they alleged that Kinder Morgan's Board of Directors and certain
members of senior management breached their fiduciary duties and
the Sponsor Investors aided and abetted the alleged breaches of
fiduciary duty in entering into the merger agreement.  They
sought, among other things, to enjoin the stockholder vote on the
merger agreement and any action taken to effect the acquisition
of Kinder Morgan and its assets by the buyout group, damages,
disgorgement of any improper profits received by the defendants,
and attorney's fees.

In late 2006, the Kansas and Texas Courts appointed the Honorable
Joseph T. Walsh to serve as Special Master in both consolidated
cases "to control all of the pretrial proceedings in both the
Kansas and Texas Class Actions arising out of the proposed
private offer to purchase the stock of the public shareholders of
Kinder Morgan, Inc."  On November 21, 2006, the plaintiffs in In
Re Kinder Morgan, Inc. Shareholder Litigation filed a Third
Amended Class Action Petition with Special Master Walsh.  This
Petition was later filed under seal with the Kansas District
Court on December 27, 2006.

Following extensive expedited discovery, the Plaintiffs in both
consolidated actions filed an application for a preliminary
injunction to prevent the holding of a special meeting of
shareholders for the purposes of voting on the proposed merger,
which was scheduled for December 19, 2006.

On December 18, 2006, Special Master Walsh issued a Report and
Recommendation concluding, among other things, that "plaintiffs
have failed to demonstrate the probability of ultimate success on
the merits of their claims in this joint litigation."
Accordingly, the Special Master concluded that the plaintiffs
were "not entitled to injunctive relief to prevent the holding of
the special meeting of Kinder Morgan, Inc. shareholders scheduled
for December 19, 2006."

Plaintiffs moved for class certification in January 2008.

In August, September and October 2008, the Plaintiffs in both
consolidated cases voluntarily dismissed without prejudice the
claims against those Kinder Morgan, Inc. directors who did not
participate in the buyout (including the dismissal of the members
of the special committee of the board of directors), Kinder
Morgan, Inc. and Knight Acquisition, Inc.  In addition, on
November 19, 2008, by agreement of the parties, the Texas trial
court issued an order staying all proceedings in the Texas
actions until such time as a final judgment will be issued in the
Kansas actions.  The effect of this stay is that the consolidated
matters will proceed only in the Kansas trial court.

In February 2009, the parties submitted an agreed upon order
which has been entered by the Kansas trial court certifying a
class consisting of "All holders of Kinder Morgan, Inc. common
stock, during the period of August 28, 2006, through May 30,
2007, and their transferees, successors and assigns.  Excluded
from the class are defendants, members of their immediate
families or trusts for the benefit of defendants or their
immediate family members, and any majority-owned affiliates of
any defendant."  

The parties agreed that the certification and definition of the
above class was subject to revision and without prejudice to
defendants' right to seek decertification of the class or
modification of the class definition.

The parties are currently engaged in consolidated discovery in
these matters.

Kinder Morgan, Inc., together with its consolidated subsidiaries,
is one of the largest energy transportation and storage companies
in North America.  Kinder Morgan, Inc. owns the general partner
and significant limited partner interests in Kinder Morgan Energy
Partners, L.P. (NYSE: KMP), one of the largest publicly traded
pipeline limited partnerships in the United States with an
enterprise value in excess of $20 billion.  The company operates
or owns an interest in more than 35,000 miles of pipelines that
transport products such as natural gas, gasoline, crude oil and
CO2, and over 170 terminals that store petroleum products and
chemicals and handle bulk materials like coal and petroleum coke.  
The company has both regulated and non-regulated operations.


LOJACK CORP: Appellate Court Affirms Certification of 3 Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
In a May 10, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010, LoJack
Corporation said that the California State Appellate Court
affirmed class certification with respect to three claims filed
by an employee alleging labor code violations.

On April 5, 2006, a suit was filed against LoJack Corporation in
the United States District Court for the Central District of
California by an employee alleging violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the California Labor Code and the California
Business & Professions Code, and seeking class action status. The
plaintiff contends that the company improperly credited break
time and overtime pay, and seeks unspecified monetary and
injunctive relief. In September 2007, the United States District
Court for the Central District of California dismissed the
plaintiff's federal law claims which represented the largest part
of the company's potential exposure. The plaintiff appealed the
District Court's decision and, on August 21, 2009, the Ninth
Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment
except as to the claim for compensation for the required
postliminary data transmission, which was vacated. The plaintiff
filed a petition for rehearing to the Ninth Circuit and on
March 2, 2010 the Ninth Circuit rendered its decision. The Ninth
Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment
except as to (i) the claim for compensation for commuting under
state law and (ii) the required postliminary data transmission,
which were vacated. The company's petition for rehearing to the
Ninth Circuit was denied.

Due to the dismissal of the plaintiff's claims in federal court,
in November 2007, the plaintiff also filed state law claims in
California State Court. In January 2008, the company removed the
state law claims to the United States District Court for the
Central District of California. The plaintiff filed a motion to
remand the case back to California State Court and that motion
was subsequently granted. The plaintiff's motion for class
certification and the company's motion for summary judgment and
opposition to class certification were heard on April 16, 2009.
In June 2009, the California State Court granted the plaintiff's
claims for class certification with respect to 9 claims. The
court denied certification with respect to 5 of the claims and
did not rule on the company's motion for summary judgment. The
company appealed this decision and a hearing took place on
March 18, 2010. On March 26, 2010, the California State Appellate
Court denied certification respect to six claims and affirmed
certification with respect to three claims, including missed meal
and rest breaks.

LoJack Corporation -- http://www.lojack.com/-- is a global  
provider of technology products and services for the tracking and
recovery of stolen mobile assets.  LoJack's integration with law
enforcement agencies, its technology and wireless network provide
a means for the tracking and recovery of stolen vehicles,
motorcycles and construction equipment. LoJack operates through
three segments: domestic, international and Boomerang.  Under the
domestic segment, LoJack develops and markets a variety of
products designed to track and recover stolen vehicles,
construction equipment, motorcycles, cargo and hazardous
materials.  Through the international segment, its licensed
stolen vehicle recovery technology is operational in 32 countries
and territories worldwide.  Revenue from the Boomerang segment is
derived primarily from the sale and installation of Boomerang
Espion, Boomerang Espion Alert, Boomerang, Boomerang2 and
BoomerangXpress Units.  In April 2008, it acquired the assets of
LSC Locator Systems Corp.


LUFKIN INDUSTRIES: Payment of Damages in Race Bias Suit Stayed
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas has
granted Lufkin Industries, Inc.'s motion to stay the payment of
damages as final judgment in a class action complaint alleging
race discrimination pending a decision on appeals filed,
according to a Form 10-Q filed by the company with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2010.

On March 7, 1997, a class action complaint was filed against
Lufkin Industries, Inc., in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Texas by an employee and a former employee of
the Company who alleged race discrimination in employment.
Certification hearings were conducted in Beaumont, Texas in
February 1998 and in Lufkin, Texas in August 1998. In April 1999,
the District Court issued a decision that certified a class for
this case, which included all black employees employed by the
Company from March 6, 1994, to the present. The case was
administratively closed from 2001 to 2003 while the parties
unsuccessfully attempted mediation. Trial for this case began in
December 2003, and after the close of plaintiff's evidence, the
court adjourned and did not complete the trial until October
2004. Although plaintiff's class certification encompassed a wide
variety of employment practices, plaintiffs presented only
disparate impact claims relating to discrimination in initial
assignments and promotions at trial.

On January 13, 2005, the District Court entered its decision
finding that the Company discriminated against African-American
employees in initial assignments and promotions. The District
Court also concluded that the discrimination resulted in a
shortfall in income for those employees and ordered that the
Company pay those employees back pay to remedy such shortfall,
together with pre-judgment interest in the amount of 5%. On
August 29, 2005, the District Court determined that the back pay
award for the class of affected employees was $3.4 million
(including interest to January 1, 2005) and provided a formula
for attorney fees that the Company estimates will result in a
total not to exceed $2.5 million. In addition to back pay with
interest, the District Court (i) enjoined and ordered the Company
to cease and desist all racially biased assignment and promotion
practices and (ii) ordered the Company to pay court costs and
expenses.

The Company reviewed this decision with its outside counsel and
on September 19, 2005, appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. On April 3, 2007, the Company
appeared before the appellate court in New Orleans for oral
argument in this case. The appellate court subsequently issued a
decision on Friday, February 29, 2008 that reversed and vacated
the plaintiff's claim regarding the initial assignment of black
employees into the Foundry Division. The court also denied
plaintiff's appeal for class certification of a class disparate
treatment claim. Plaintiff's claim on the issue of the Company's
promotional practices was affirmed but the back pay award was
vacated and remanded for recomputation in accordance with the
opinion.  The District Court's injunction was vacated and
remanded with instructions to enter appropriate and specific
injunctive relief. Finally, the issue of plaintiff's attorney's
fees was remanded to the District Court for further consideration
in accordance with prevailing authority.  

On December 5, 2008, the U.S. District Court Judge Clark held a
hearing in Beaumont, Texas during which he reviewed the 5th U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals class action decision and informed the
parties that he intended to implement the decision in order to
conclude this litigation. At the conclusion of the hearing Judge
Clark ordered the parties to submit positions regarding the
issues of attorney fees, a damage award and injunctive relief.
Subsequently, the Company reviewed the plaintiff's submissions
which described the formula and underlying assumptions that
supported their positions on attorney fees and damages. After
careful review of the plaintiff's submission to the court the
Company continued to have significant differences regarding legal
issues that materially impacted the plaintiff's requests. As a
result of these different results, the court requested further
evidence from the parties regarding their positions in order to
render a final decision.  The judge reviewed both parties
arguments regarding legal fees, and awarded the plaintiffs an
interim fee, but at a reduced level from the plaintiffs original
request. The Company and the plaintiffs reconciled the majority
of the differences and the damage calculations which also lowered
the originally requested amounts of the plaintiffs on those
matters.  Due to the resolution of certain legal proceedings on
damages during first half of 2009 and the District Court awarding
the plaintiffs an interim award of attorney fees and cost
totaling $5.8 million, the Company recorded an additional
provision of $5.0 million in the first half of 2009 above the
$6.0 million recorded in fourth quarter of 2008. The plaintiffs
filed an appeal of the District Court's interim award of attorney
fees with the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Fifth
Circuit subsequently dismissed these appeals on August 28, 2009
on the basis that an appealable final judgment in this case had
not been issued.  The court commented that this issue can be
reviewed with an appeal of final judgment.

On January 15, 2010, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Texas notified the Company that it had entered a
final judgment related to the Company's ongoing class-action
lawsuit. The Court ordered the Company to pay the plaintiffs $3.3
million in damages, $2.2 million in pre-judgment interest and
0.41% interest for any post-judgment interest. The Company had
previously estimated the total liability for damages and interest
to be approximately $5.2 million. The Court also ordered the
plaintiffs to submit a request for legal fees and expenses from
January 1, 2009 through the date of the final judgment. On
January 29, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a motion with the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Texas for a
supplemental award of $0.7 million for attorney's fees, costs and
expenses incurred between January 1, 2009 and
January 15, 2010, as allowed in the final judgment issued by the
Court on January 15, 2010, related to the Company's ongoing
class-action lawsuit. The Company recorded provisions for these
judgments in 2009.

On January 15, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with
the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals of the District Court's
final judgment. On January 21, 2010, The Company filed a notice
of cross-appeal with the same court.  In addition, the Company
filed a motion with the District Court to stay the payment of
damages referenced in the District Court's final judgment pending
the outcome of the Fifth Circuit's decision on both parties'
appeals. The District Court granted this motion to stay.

Lufkin Industries, Inc. sells and services oil field pumping
units, power transmission products, foundry castings and highway
trailers throughout the world. The Company has vertically
integrated all vital technologies required to design,
manufacture and market its products.


MAKE IT WORK: Sued for Not Paying Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------
Jay Samora, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v.
Make It Work, Inc., Case No. 2010-00379331 (Calif. Super. Ct.,
Orange Cty. June 8, 2010), accuses the computer repair company of
failing to pay overtime wages, failing to pay the minimum wage
for each hour worked, failing to pay all wages due upon
termination, failing to provide itemized wage statements, and
unfair business practices in violation of the Calif. Bus. & Prof.
Code.

Mr. Samora was employed as a "Neighborhood Technology Consultant"
by Make It Work from July 2008 through the present date.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew F. Archbold, Esq.
          David D. Deason, Esq.
          DEASON & ARCHBOLD
          3300 Irvine Avenue, Suite 245
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Telephone: (949) 794-9560
          E-mail: matthew@yourlaborlawyers.com
                  david@yourlaborlawyers.com

               - and -

          Steven M. Barnhill, Esq.
          Maxim Vaynerov, Esq.
          8200 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 400
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone: (310) 943-8989

               - and -

          John M. Norton, Esq.
          MATTHEW NORTON & ASSOCIATES
          444 W. Ocean Blvd., Suite 800
          Long Beach, CA 90802
          Telephone: (562) 624-2894


MEDIACOM CAPITAL: Final Judgment on Jury Verdict Remains Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
The final judgment of the Circuit Court of Clay County, Missouri,
on a jury rendered verdict in favor of Gary and Janice Ogg
against Mediacom Capital Corp., remains pending.

The company was named as a defendant in a putative class action,
captioned Gary Ogg and Janice Ogg v. Mediacom LLC, pending in the
Circuit Court of Clay County, Missouri, originally filed in April
2001.

The lawsuit alleges that the company, in areas where there was no
cable franchise failed to obtain permission from landowners to
place Mediacom's fiber interconnection cable notwithstanding the
possession of agreements or permission from other third parties.

While the parties continue to contest liability, there also
remains a dispute as to the proper measure of damages.

Based on a report by their experts, the plaintiffs claim
compensatory damages of approximately $14.5 million.  Legal fees,
prejudgment interest, potential punitive damages and other costs
could increase that estimate to approximately $26.0 million.

Before trial, the plaintiffs proposed an alternative damage
theory of $42.0 million in compensatory damages.

Notwithstanding the verdict in the trial described below, the
company remains unable to reasonably determine the amount of
Mediacom's final liability in this lawsuit.  Prior to trial, the
company's experts estimated its liability to be within the range
of approximately $0.1 million to $2.3 million.  This estimate did
not include any estimate of damages for prejudgment interest,
attorneys' fees or punitive damages.

On March 9, 2009, a jury trial commenced solely for the claim of
Gary and Janice Ogg, the designated class representatives.

On March 18, 2009, the jury rendered a verdict in favor of Gary
and Janice Ogg setting compensatory damages of $8,863 and
punitive damages of $35,000.

The Court did not enter a final judgment on this verdict and
therefore the amount of the verdict cannot at this time be
judicially collected.

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.

Mediacom Capital Corp. -- http://www.mediacomcc.com/-- is  
engaged in provision of products and services, including video
services, such as video-on-demand (VOD), high-definition
television (HD or HDTV) and digital video recorders (DVR); high-
speed data (HSD), also known as high-speed Internet access or
cable modem service; and phone service.  The company is a wholly-
owned subsidiary of Mediacom Communications Corporation.


MEDIACOM CAPITAL: Defends "Knight" Suit over Cable Box Rental
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mediacom Capital Corp. defends a purported class action entitled
Jim Knight v. Mediacom Communications Corp., 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 suit was filed on March 5, 2010, in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York.

The complaint asserts that the potential class is comprised of
all persons who purchased premium cable services from Mediacom
and rented a cable box distributed by Mediacom.  The plaintiff
alleges that Mediacom improperly "tied" the rental of cable boxes
to the provision of premium cable services in violation of
Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act.  The plaintiff also
alleges a claim for unjust enrichment and seeks injunctive relief
and unspecified damages.

MCC was served with the complaint on April 16, 2010.

Mediacom Capital Corp. -- http://www.mediacomcc.com/-- is  
engaged in provision of products and services, including video
services, such as video-on-demand (VOD), high-definition
television (HD or HDTV) and digital video recorders (DVR); high-
speed data (HSD), also known as high-speed Internet access or
cable modem service; and phone service.  The company is a wholly-
owned subsidiary of Mediacom Communications Corporation.


META FINANCIAL: Two Suits Over Certificates Remain Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Meta Financial Group, Inc., continues to defend itself in two
class action cases involving the sale of purported MetaBank
certificates of deposit, according to the company's May 11, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

Lawsuits against MetaBank involving the sale of purported
MetaBank certificates of deposit continue to be addressed.  
Specifically, these cases involve the sale of fraudulent
certificates of deposit using MetaBank's name and standard form
of certificate of deposit.  Those certificates of deposits were
apparently sold by a former MetaBank employee to various
financial institutions through an independent broker.  

Since its filing of Form 10-K for the year ended September 30,
2009, the matter of Methodist Hospitals of Dallas v. MetaBank and
Meta Financial Group, Inc., filed in the 95th Judicial District
Court of Dallas County, TX, Cause No. 08-06994, has been settled
for a payment and the matter dismissed with prejudice.  

In all, nine cases have been filed, and of those nine, two have
been dismissed, and three have been settled for payments that the
Company deemed reasonable under the circumstances, including the
costs of litigation.  

The Company is vigorously defending the four remaining actions.  
Two of the cases are class action cases although to date no class
has been certified.  The remaining two cases share similar fact
patterns as each Plaintiff seeks recovery of $99,000 and other
specified damages, in connection with a fraudulent CD.

Meta Financial Group, Inc. -- http://www.bankmeta.com/-- is a   
holding company.  The company through banking subsidiaries
MetaBank and MetaBank West Central (MetaBank WC), provides a
range of financial services.  The principal business of MetaBank
consists of attracting retail deposits from the general public
and investing those funds primarily in one- to four-family
residential mortgage loans, commercial and multi-family real
estate, agricultural operating and real estate, construction,
consumer and commercial business loans primarily in MetaBank's
market area.  The company operates in areas, including the Iowa
counties of Adair, Buena Vista, Dallas, Guthrie, Pocahontas, Polk
and Sac, and the South Dakota counties of Brookings, Lincoln and
Minnehaha.  The company also has a wholly owned subsidiary, First
Midwest Financial Capital Trust. The MetaBank has four market
areas and the Meta Payment Systems division: Northwest Iowa,
Brookings, Central Iowa, and Sioux Empire.
  

NATURE'S SUNSHINE: Shareholder Settlement Gets Final Court Nod
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Utah has
entered final approval of a stipulation of settlement relating to
a shareholder class action filed in 2006 against Nature's
Sunshine Products, Inc., and certain present and former officer
and directors, 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 Stipulation of Settlement obtained preliminary court approval
on October 8, 2009.  On February 10, 2010, the day after it held
the final approval hearing, the Court formally entered an Order
and Final Judgment on the Stipulation dated February 9, 2010,
approving the proposed plan of allocation of the settlement
proceeds, the application for an award of attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of costs and expenses by the settlement class
counsel, and the application for incentive awards to the
settlement class representatives.

Among other things, the Final Judgment also included findings by
the Court that notice of the action and of the proposed
settlement had been properly given to the class members and that
no one had opted out of the class or objected to any of the terms
of the Stipulation.  Furthermore, the Final Judgment provided
that the Company and the individual defendants were released from
all of the Released Claims, as defined by the Stipulation, and
that the Consolidated Complaint was dismissed with prejudice.

There was no appeal of the Final Judgment within 30 days
following the entry of the Final Judgment.  As a result, the case
is now formally concluded and the Claims Administrator is
proceeding with distribution of the settlement proceeds in
accordance with the Stipulation.

Nature's Sunshine Products, Inc. - http://www.natr.com/--  
manufactures and markets through direct sales encapsulated and
tableted herbal products, high quality natural vitamins, and
other complementary products.  In addition to the United States,
the company has operations in Japan, Mexico, Central America,
South Korea, Canada, Dominican Republic, Venezuela, Ecuador,
Peru, the United Kingdom, Columbia, Brazil, Thailand, Israel,
Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia, the Philippines, Australia, Hong
Kong, Taiwan, Russia, Ukraine, Latvia, Lithuania, Kazakhstan,
Mongolia, Belarus, China, Poland, Germany, Austria, Norway,
Sweden, the Czech Republic and the Netherlands.  The company also
has exclusive distribution agreements with selected companies in
Argentina, Australia, Chile, New Zealand, and Norway.


NEW YORK: Sued for Denying Hearing Rights to Medicaid Applicants
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that the New York State
Department of Health denies hearings to people whose home health
care benefits are reduced, a class action claims in Brooklyn
Federal Court.
     
A copy of the Complaint in Bernam, et al. v. Daines, et al., Case
No. 10-cv-02658 (E.D.N.Y.) (Trager, J.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/06/11/HlthCrBklyn.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Yisroel Schulman, Esq.
          Jane Greengold Stevens, Esq.
          Caryn Lederer, Esq.
          Jennifer Magida, Esq.
          Benjamin Taylor, Esq.
          NEW YORK LEGAL ASSISTANCE GROUP
          450 West 33rd St., 11th Floor
          New York, NY 10001
          Telephone: 212-613-5000


PROGRESS ENERGY: Court Dismisses Nuclear Cost-Recovery Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit against Florida Power Corporation (PEF) relating to
PEF's nuclear cost-recovery has been dismissed by the court,
according to Progress Energy, 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 Feb. 8, 2010, a lawsuit was filed against PEF in state circuit
court in Sumter County, Fla., alleging that the Florida nuclear
cost-recovery statute (Section 366.93, Florida Statutes) violates
the Florida Constitution, and seeking a refund of all monies
collected by PEF pursuant to that statute with interest.

The complaint also requested that the court grant class action
status to the plaintiffs.

On April 6, 2010, PEF filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.  
The trial judge issued an order on May 3, 2010, dismissing the
complaint.

Progress Energy, Inc. -- http://www.progress-energy.com/-- is a  
holding company primarily engaged in the regulated electric
utility business.  The company's segments are Carolina Power &
Light Company (PEC) and Florida Power Corporation (PEF), both of
which are primarily engaged in the generation, transmission,
distribution and sale of electricity.  The Corporate and Other
segment primarily includes amounts applicable to the activities
of the company and Progress Energy Service Company (PESC) and
other miscellaneous non-regulated businesses.  The Utilities have
more than 22,000 megawatts of regulated electric generation
capacity and serves approximately 3.1 million retail electric
customers, as well as other load-serving entities.  At Dec. 31,
2009, PEC had a total summer generating capacity (including
jointly owned capacity) of 12,585 megawatts.  At Dec. 31, 2009,
PEF had a total summer generating capacity (including jointly
owned capacity) of 10,013 megawatts.


STAMPS.COM: Appeal Filed in Settlement Agreement Approval
---------------------------------------------------------
An appeal has been filed on the approval of the proposed
settlement relating to purported class-action lawsuits filed
against Stamps.com Inc., 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.

In 2001, the company was named, together with certain of its
current and former board members and officers, as a defendant
in several purported class-action lawsuits, filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The lawsuits allege violations of the Securities Act and the
Exchange Act in connection with the company's initial public
offering and a secondary offering of the company's common stock.

Plaintiffs seek damages and statutory compensation, including
interest, costs and expenses (including attorneys' fees).

In 2003, the company reached a proposed settlement that would not
have required it to make any payments, which was ultimately
terminated in 2007 after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit determined that the class could not be certified as
defined.

Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint and proposed an alternative
class definition in related litigation.

In 2009, the company approved a new proposed settlement which has
been documented and filed with the court for its review and
approval.  As with the company's previously proposed settlement,
this proposed settlement would not require the Company to make
any payments.

The proposed settlement was preliminarily approved by the court
in June 2009.

In October 2009, the court approved a settlement of this action,
which does not require the company to make any payments.
The court approval has been appealed.

Stamps.com Inc. -- http://www.stamps.com/-- is a provider of  
Internet-based postage solutions.  Its customers use the
company's service to mail and ship a variety of mail pieces,
including postcards, envelopes, flats, and packages, using a
range of United States Postal Service (the USPS) mail classes
including First Class Mail, Priority Mail, Express Mail, Media
Mail, Parcel Post, and others.  The company's customers include
home businesses, small businesses, corporations, and
individuals.  It is an USPS-licensed vendor that offers personal
computer (PC) Postage in a software-only business model.


SYNOVUS FINANCIAL: Faces Consolidated Securities Suit in Georgia
----------------------------------------------------------------
Synovus Financial Corp. is facing a consolidated class action in
Georgia relating to securities fraud, 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.

On July 7, 2009, the City of Pompano Beach General Employees'
Retirement System filed suit against Synovus, and certain of
Synovus' current and former officers, in the United States
District Court, Northern District of Georgia (Civil Action File
No. 1 09-CV-1811) alleging, among other things, that Synovus and
the named individual defendants misrepresented or failed to
disclose material facts that artificially inflated Synovus' stock
price in violation of the federal securities laws, including
purported exposure to Synovus' Sea Island lending relationship
and the impact of real estate values as a threat to Synovus'
credit, capital position, and business, and failed to adequately
and timely record losses for impaired loans. The plaintiffs in
the Securities Class Action seek damages in an unspecified
amount.

On November 4, 2009, a shareholder filed a putative derivative
action purportedly on behalf of Synovus in the United States
District Court, Northern District of Georgia (Civil Action File
No. 1 09-CV-3069), against certain current and/or former
directors and executive officers of Synovus. The Federal
Shareholder Derivative Lawsuit asserts that the individual
defendants violated their fiduciary duties based upon
substantially the same facts as alleged in the Securities Class
Action. The plaintiff is seeking to recover damages in an
unspecified amount and equitable and injunctive relief.

On December 1, 2009, the Court consolidated the Securities Class
Action and Federal Shareholder Derivative Lawsuit for discovery
purposes, captioned In re Synovus Financial Corp., 09-CV-1811-
JOF, holding that the two cases involve "common issues of law and
fact."

Synovus and the individual named defendants collectively intend
to vigorously defend themselves against the Securities Class
Action and Shareholder Derivative Lawsuit allegations.

Synovus Financial Corp. -- http://www.synovus.com/-- located in  
Columbus, Georgia, is a diversified financial services company
and a registered bank holding company.  Synovus Financial
provides financial services, including commercial and retail
banking, financial management, insurance, mortgage and leasing
services.


TELLABS INC: Consolidated Securities Suit Still Pending in Ill.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tellabs, Inc., continues to defend itself in a consolidated class
action complaint alleging violation of federal securities laws,
according to the company's May 11, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
April 2, 2010.

On June 18, 2002, a class action complaint was filed in the U.S.
District Court of the Northern District of Illinois against
Tellabs; Michael Birck, Chairman of the Board of Tellabs; and
Richard Notebaert, former CEO, President and Director of Tellabs.  
Thereafter, eight similar complaints were also filed in the U.S.
District Court of the Northern District of Illinois. All nine of
these actions were subsequently consolidated, and on December 3,
2002, a consolidated amended class action complaint was filed
against Tellabs, Mr. Birck, Mr. Notebaert, and certain other of
the Company's current or former officers and directors.

The consolidated amended complaint alleged that during the class
period (December 11, 2000-June 19, 2001) the defendants violated
the federal securities laws by making materially false and
misleading statements, including, among other things, allegedly
providing revenue forecasts that were false and misleading,
misrepresenting demand for the company's products, and reporting
overstated revenue for the fourth quarter 2000 in the company's
financial statements. Furthermore, certain of the individual
defendants were alleged to have violated the federal securities
laws by trading the company's securities while allegedly in
possession of material, non-public information about the company
pertaining to these matters. The consolidated amended complaint
seeks unspecified restitution, damages and other relief.

On January 17, 2003, Tellabs and the other named defendants filed
a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended class action
complaint in its entirety.  On May 19, 2003, the Court granted
the Company's motion and dismissed all counts of the consolidated
amended complaint, while affording plaintiffs an opportunity to
replead.

On July 11, 2003, plaintiffs filed a second consolidated amended
class action complaint against Tellabs, Messrs. Birck and
Notebaert, and many, although not all, of the other previously
named individual defendants, realleging claims similar to those
contained in the previously dismissed consolidated amended class
action complaint. The Company filed a second motion to dismiss on
August 22, 2003, seeking the dismissal with prejudice of all
claims alleged in the second consolidated amended class action
complaint. On February 19, 2004, the Court issued an order
granting that motion and dismissed the action with prejudice.

On March 18, 2004, the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal to the
United States Federal Court of Appeal for the Seventh Circuit,
appealing the dismissal.  The appeal was fully briefed and oral
argument was heard on January 21, 2005.  On January 25, 2006, the
Seventh Circuit issued an opinion affirming in part and reversing
in part the judgment of the district court, and remanding for
further proceedings. On February 8, 2006, defendants filed with
the Seventh Circuit a petition for rehearing with suggestion for
rehearing en banc. On April 19, 2006, the Seventh Circuit ordered
plaintiffs to file an answer to the petition for rehearing, which
was filed by the plaintiffs on May 3, 2006. On July 10, 2006, the
Seventh Circuit denied the petition for rehearing with a minor
modification to its opinion, and remanded the case to the
district court.

On September 22, 2006, defendants filed a motion in the district
court to dismiss some, but not all, of the remaining claims.

On October 3, 2006, the defendants filed with the U.S. Supreme
Court a petition for a writ of certiorari seeking to appeal the
Seventh Circuit's decision. On January 5, 2007, the defendants'
petition was granted. The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments
on March 28, 2007. On June 21, 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court
vacated the Seventh Circuit's judgment and remanded the case for
further proceedings.

On November 1, 2007, the Seventh Circuit heard oral arguments for
the remanded case.  On January 17, 2008, the Seventh Circuit
issued an opinion adhering to its earlier opinion reversing in
part the judgment of the district court, and remanded the case to
the district court for further proceedings.

On February 24, 2009, the district court granted plaintiffs'
motion for class certification.

The case is now proceeding in the district court and discovery is
ongoing.

Tellabs, Inc. -- http://www.tellabs.com/-- is engaged in   
designing and marketing equipment and services to communications
customers worldwide.  The company's products and services enable
its customers to deliver wireline and wireless voice, data and
video services to business and residential customers.  It sells
its products domestically and internationally through its field
sales force and distributors/partners.  The company's customers
are primarily communication services providers, including local
exchange carriers (LECs); national post, telephone and telegraph
(PTT) administrators, wireless service providers, multiple system
operators (MSOs), and competitive service providers (CSPs).  Its
customer base also includes distributors, original equipment
manufacturers (OEMs), system integrators and government agencies.  
The company operates in three segments: Broadband, Transport and
Services.


TRIAD GUARANTY: Oral Arguments in "Phillips" Suit Set for Aug. 30
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Triad Guaranty Inc.'s motion to dismiss the amended complaint of
James L. Phillips has been scheduled for hearing on August 30,
2010, according to the company's May 11, 2010, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2010.

On February 6, 2009, Mr. Phillips served a complaint against
Triad Guaranty Inc., Mark K. Tonnesen and Kenneth W. Jones in the
United States District Court, Middle District of North Carolina.  
The plaintiff purports to represent a class of persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of the Company
between October 26, 2006 and April 1, 2008 and the complaint
alleges violations of federal securities laws by the Company and
two of its present or former officers.  

The court appointed lead counsel for the plaintiff and an amended
complaint was filed on June 22, 2009.  

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on
August 21, 2009 and the plaintiff filed its opposition to the
motion to dismiss on October 20, 2009.  

Triad Guaranty's reply was filed on November 19, 2009.  
Triad Guaranty Inc. -- http://www.triadguaranty.com/-- is a   
holding Company.  Through its wholly owned subsidiary, Triad
Guaranty Insurance Corporation (Triad), the Company provided
private mortgage insurance coverage in the United States.  Triad
ceased issuing new commitments for mortgage guaranty insurance
coverage on July 15, 2008, and is operating the business in run-
off.  Triad no longer writes new mortgage insurance policies but
continues to service the existing policies.  Servicing existing
policies includes receiving premiums on policies that remain in
force; cancelling coverage at the insured's request; terminating
policies for non-payment of premium; working with borrowers in
default to remedy the default and/or mitigate the Company's loss,
and settling all legitimate filed claims per the Company's
contractual obligations.  Prior to the commencement of run-off on
July 15, 2008, the Company offered principally two products,
Primary and Modified Pool mortgage insurance.


UNIVERSITY MEDICAL: Accused of Assessing Bogus "Trauma Charges"
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nick Divito at Courthouse News Service reports that the
University Medical Center of Nevada netted "millions of dollars"
through bogus "trauma" charges assessed to emergency room
patients who were not treated for traumas, a class action claims
in Clark County Court.

Karla Reyes-Sandino says she was taken to the hospital after a
car crash in March.  She says a nurse evaluated her and noted
that she did not meet "Trauma Field Criteria."  Ms. Reyes-Sandino
says she was released 90 minutes later.

A month later, UMC billed her $11,830.10 for the visit, $1,370 of
which was described on the bill as "Trauma Intermd Hos," while
another $6,739 was for "Level I Trauma FAcili681."

The lawsuit accuses the hospital of assessing the bogus fees
since 2000.

"For years, UMC unlawfully billed and collected from emergency
room patients millions of dollars in 'trauma' charges when the
patients were not trauma patients," the lawsuit states.

A copy of the Complaint in Reyes-Sandino v. University of Medical
Center of Nevada, et al., Case No. A-10-618633-C (Nev. Dist. Ct.,
Clark Cty.), is available at:

     
http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/06/11/karla%20reyes%209.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jesse M. Sbaih, Esq.
          JESSE SBAIH & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
          The District at Green Valley Ranch
          170 South Green Valley Parkway, Suite 280
          Henderson, NV 89012
          Telephone: 702-896-2529
          E-mail: jsbaih@sbaihlaw.com


VERTRO INC: Appeal in Consolidated Securities Suit Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal filed by plaintiffs regarding a ruling of the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Florida granting final
judgment in favor of the defendants in a consolidated securities
suit against Vertro, Inc., remains pending, according to the
company's May 11, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2010.

In 2005, five putative securities fraud class action lawsuits
were filed against us and certain of our former officers and
directors in the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Florida.  

The complaints alleged that the Company and the individual
defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and that the individual defendants also violated Section
20(a) of the Act as "control persons" of MIVA.  Plaintiffs sought
unspecified damages and other relief alleging that, during the
putative class period, the Company made certain misleading
statements and omitted material information.

The Court granted Defendants' motion for summary judgment on
November 16, 2009, and the court entered final judgment in favor
of all Defendants on December 7, 2009.  On December 15, 2009,
Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal.

Vertro, Inc., formerly MIVA, Inc., -- http://www.miva.com/-- is   
an Internet company that owns and operates the ALOT product
portfolio.  The company operated its range of products and
services through two divisions: MIVA Direct and MIVA Media as of
Dec. 31, 2008.  MIVA Direct offers home page, desktop application
and Internet browser toolbar products under the ALOT brand. The
ALOT Home Page, ALOT Desktop and ALOT Toolbar are designed to
make the Internet easy for consumers by providing direct access
to affinity content and search results.  The products generate
approximately two million Internet searches per day. MIVA Media
connected buyers and sellers online by displaying advertisements
in response to consumer search or browsing activity on select
Internet properties.  Prior to the MIVA Media Sale, MIVA Media
was an auction based pay-per-click advertising network that was
operated across North America and in Europe.  On March 12, 2009,
Adknowledge, Inc. acquired MIVA Media, the media division of the
company.


WINN-DIXIE: Discovery in Florida FCRA Violations Suit Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is underway in a putative class action lawsuit against
Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., alleging violations of the federal Fair
Credit Reporting Act, 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.

On Aug. 21, 2009, the company was served with a putative class
action lawsuit filed by two former employees in the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Florida against Winn-Dixie
Stores, Inc., alleging company-wide violations of the FCRA
related to the company's background check procedures.

The company denies all allegations raised in the lawsuit, has
answered the complaint and has filed motions asserting various
defenses to the claims.

Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. -- http://www.winn-dixie.com/-- is one  
of the nation's largest food retailers.  Founded in 1925, the
company is headquartered in Jacksonville, FL.  The company
currently operates 515 retail grocery locations, including more
than 400 in-store pharmacies, in Florida, Alabama, Louisiana,
Georgia, and Mississippi.


WINN-DIXIE: Faces FLSA-Violations Suit in South Florida
-------------------------------------------------------
Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., faces a purported collective action
alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standard Act, 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.

On March 19, 2010, the company was served with a purported
collective action lawsuit filed by two former employees in the
U.S. District for the Southern District of Florida against Winn-
Dixie Stores, Inc. alleging violations of the FLSA related to
unpaid overtime wages.  The company denies all allegations raised
in the lawsuit and will file an answer to the complaint
accordingly.

Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. -- http://www.winn-dixie.com/-- is one  
of the nation's largest food retailers.  Founded in 1925, the
company is headquartered in Jacksonville, FL.  The company
currently operates 515 retail grocery locations, including more
than 400 in-store pharmacies, in Florida, Alabama, Louisiana,
Georgia, and Mississippi.


WOODBURY COUNTY: Sued for Denying Rehab Services to TBI Patients
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Woodbury County, Iowa,
unfairly denied rehab services to nine people with traumatic
brain injuries, Opportunities Unlimited, a nonprofit that offers
the services, claims in Cedar Rapids Federal Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Opportunities Unlimited v. Woodbury
County, Iowa, et al., Case No. 10-cv-04052 (N.D. Iowa), is
available at:
          
     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/06/11/HealthCare.pdf   

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeana L. Goosmann, Esq.
          Anthony L. Osborn, Esq.
          GOOSMANN LAW FIRM, P.L.C.
          701 Pierce St., Suite 200
          Sioux City, IA 51101
          Telephone: 712-226-4000
          E-mail: anthony@goosmannlaw.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  * * *