CAR_Public/100618.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Friday, June 18, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 119

                            Headlines

ACA FINANCIAL: Copia Bondholder Class Action Suit is Dismissed
AKRON BEACON: Retiree Suit Complains About Changes in Benefits
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Sued for Imposing Surcharge on Retailers
ANGELS BASEBALL: Wheelchair-Bound Fan Sues for Discrimination
APAC CUSTOMER: Awaits Approval of $4MM FLSA Action Settlement

APPLIED MICRO: Awaits Ruling on Appeal of Settlement Order
ARAMARK CORP: Wage Violation Settlement Still Pending With Court
AROTECH CORP: Awaits Approval of $2.9 Million Settlement
ATS MEDICAL: Medtronic Merger Prompts Filing of 3 Class Actions
AUTHENTIDATE HOLDING: 2nd Cir. Affirms Dismissal Order in Part

AVAYA INC: Awaits Approval of MOU Over Tenovis Germany Purchase
BELL MICROPRODUCTS: Faces Suits Over Proposed Avnet Merger
BIDZ.COM INC: Awaits Court Decision on Dismissal Motion
BIOSANTE PHARMACEUTICALS: Approval of Settlement Pending
BLOCKBUSTER INC: Lampone Drops Consumer Claims

BMW NORTH AMERICA: Settles N.J. Bridgestone Tire Wear Litigation
BP PLC: Fla. RICO Suit Claims Bush Administration Was Manipulated
BSQUARE CORP: Notices of Appeal Filed vs. Settlement Approval
CELERA CORPORATION: Securities Fraud Suit Filed in N.D. Calif.
CELERA CORPORATION: Says Securities Fraud Suit Has No Merit

CENTURY ALUMINUM: Case Management Conference Continued to Sept. 3
CHEYNE FINANCE: S.D.N.Y. Won't Certify SVP Liquidation Class
CHICOLOGY: Recalls 6,200 Roll-Up Blinds
COMTECH TELECOMMS: Pompano's Consolidation Motion Still Pending
CONSOL ENERGY: Accused, with EQT Corp., of Stealing Natural Gas

CRATE AND BARREL: Recalls 5,490 Decorative Candles in a Pot
CROMPTON CORP: Notice of Modification to Class Action Settlement
DEX ONE: Securities Class Action Suits Still Pending in Delaware
DEX ONE: Still Faces ERISA Class Action Lawsuit in Illinois
DRESS BARN: Settlement Agreement Submitted to Delaware Court

DRESS BARN: Wage & Hour Suit Against Tween in Preliminary Stages
DRESS BARN: Tween Agrees to Settle California Suit
DYNAMEX INC: Certification Hearing Scheduled for July 19
GAMING PARTNERS: Kaplan's Appeal on Dismissal Still Pending
GENTA INC: Collins Plaintiffs' Appeal on Dismissal Still Pending

GSI GROUP: Approval of Settlement Agreement Remains Pending
HUFFY CORP: Fairness Hearing Scheduled for Oct. 8, 2010
INTERNATIONAL GAME: Motion to Consolidate Cases Still Pending
KADANT INC: Pursues Alternative Dispute Solution on Class Suits
LABRANCHE & CO: Appellate Court Denies Reconsideration Motion

LIMITED BRANDS: Defends Suit by IBEW Local 697 in Ohio
LIVEDEAL INC: 2008 Consumer Fraud Class Suit Still Ongoing
LORAL SPACE: Appeal to Summary Judgment in "Beleson" Withdrawn
LORAL SPACE: Objections to Settlement in "Christ" Suit Withdrawn
MARYLAND: Ground Lease Holder Class Certified by Trial Court

MILLIPORE CORP: Proposed Merck Acquisition Results in 2 Actions
NORTHWEST MASSAGE: Accused in Wash. Suit of Negligent Hiring
OTTAWA COUNTY: Mich. County Settles Marriage License Litigation
PACIFIC CAPITAL: Paskowitz's Appeal on Dismissal Still Pending
PACIFIC CAPITAL: Calif. Court Dismisses Jurkowitz & Shotke Suits

PAMRAPO BANCORP: NJ Court Dissolves Injunction vs. BCB Merger
PFIZER INC: Reaches Agreement to Settle Viagra-Related Claims
PFIZER INC: Faces Securities Class Action in New York
POSTROCK ENERGY: Agrees to Settle "Friedman" & "Jents" Lawsuits
PROTECTION ONE: 3 Class Action Lawsuits Filed in Del. & Kansas

PT INDOSAT: Tangerang Court Says Class Action Suit Unacceptable
RHI ENTERTAINMENT: Seeks to Dismiss Shareholder Class Action
SCORES HOLDING: Continues to Defend 3rd Amended Complaint in NY
SCOTTS MIRACLE: Inks Confidential Settlement of Michigan Lawsuit
SEARS HOLDINGS: Madison Cty. Lawnmower Case Moved to S.D. Ill.

SONY COMPUTER: 7th "Removal of OS Option" in PS3 Suit Filed
SUNOPTA: Will Seek Final Court Approval of $11MM Settlement
SWK HOLDINGS: Appeals on Consolidated Suit Settlement Pending
TALECRIS BIOTHERAPEUTICS: Being Sold for Too Little, Suit Claims
TIM HORTONS: Canadian Court to Hear Class Certification Nov. 29

UNION CARBIDE: Interview with Lead Counsel to Bhopal Survivors
UNITED COMPONENTS: Discovery in Aftermarket Filters Suit Ongoing
UNITED STATES: Deadline in Cobell Indian Suit Extended to July 9
USANA HEALTH: Continues to Defend Nevada Distributors' Lawsuit
UTI WORLDWIDE: Freight Forwarding Services Lawsuit Still Pending

VAXGEN INC: Merger Fails; Plaintiffs Move to Dismiss Complaint
VERIZON WIRELESS: 3d Cir. Reinstates FACTA Settlement Pact
VESTIN REALTY: July 9 Hearing on Post-Judgment Settlement Set
WAL-MART STORES: Appeal to "Braun/Hummel" Judgment Still Pending
WAL-MART STORES: Calif. Court Stays Proceedings in "Dukes" Suit

WELLS REAL: Parties' Summary Judgment Motions Still Pending
YTB INT'L: Sued in Madison Cty., Ill., for Alleged Pyramid Scheme

* Garden City Promotes Stephen Cirami to Senior Vice President

                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Everest Has $595.8MM Gross Reserves at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sealed Air Unit Still Party to Thundersky Claim
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sealed Air Corp. Party to Cryovac Deal Actions
ASBESTOS UPDATE: J. C. Penney Estimates $50MM Liability at May 1
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Todd Shipyards Corp. Has 565 Claims at March 28

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeal Court Affirms Dismissal of McDowell Case
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fla. Court Reverses Ruling in Caraffa's Lawsuit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Court Reverses Ruling in Walton Lawsuit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Court Upholds Ruling in Bechtel Lawsuit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ind. Court Affirms Board Ruling in Joiner Claim

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Supreme Court Rules on Mt. Sinai Asbestos Issue
ASBESTOS UPDATE: James Hardie Files Lawsuit v. Queensland Gov't.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mt. Vernon Schools Get $70T Grant for Abatement
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Metolius School Fined $33T for Safety Breaches
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cleanup at Asheville High in N.C. to Cost $22T

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Intervention Sought to Remove Asbestos in Mass.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chicago Conference to Focus on Bankruptcy Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cleanup at Ex-Texaco Center in Fishkill Ongoing
ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA OKs Asbestos Mitigation at Bayview Shipyard
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bolton Local's Death Linked to Hazard Exposure

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Speedy Excavating Charged for Disposal Breaches
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeal Court Affirms Dismissal of Greb's Claim
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ala. Court OKs Denial of Owens-Illinois Motions
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tex. Court OKs Order of Removal in Hoelzer Case
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeals Court Affirms Ruling in Shepard Lawsuit

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pierson Remand Bid OK'd in Heerema Marine Claim
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Moves to Dismiss Bush, Chrichlow Actions
ASBESTOS UPDATE: PPG Industries Sees Strong Results in 2nd Qtr.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hunt's Case v. 60 Firms Filed May 14 in Kanawha
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Demolition, Cleanup of Pa. Building Costs $250T

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Watford RAF Operator's Death Linked to Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Willmore, Costello Cases Pending in Supreme Ct.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pa. Court Reverses Dismissal of Simikian Action
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeals Court OKs Board Ruling in Taylor Action
ASBESTOS UPDATE: N.Y. Supreme Court Modifies Order in Kim's Case

                            *********

ACA FINANCIAL: Copia Bondholder Class Action Suit is Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Huffman at the Napa Valley Register reports that a  
class-action lawsuit filed on behalf of Copia bondholders has
been dismissed in U.S. District Court in Sacramento.

In June, 2009, Copia creditor William George, representing Copia
Claims, LCC., had sued Copia bond insurer ACA Financial Guaranty
Corporation and two banks involved with Napa's bankrupt center
for food, wine and the arts

Copia Claims charged that the 1999 bonds funding the 12-acre
center in Napa's Oxbow District were fraudulently transferred
from one set of bondholders to another during a 2007 refinance.
Copia Claims alleged violations of federal securities laws. The
suit also questioned a $71 million deposit transferred to an
escrow account for the 1999 bondholders.

On June 10, Federal District Court Judge Garland Burrell Jr.
ruled against allegations of securities fraud, but did not
exclude the possibility of an amended complaint.  

At the time of the ruling, the remaining defendants in the class-
action suit included Copia bond sponsor California Infrastructure
and Economic Development Bank (I-Bank) and Orrick, Herrington &
Sutcliffe, the law firm involved in the bond issuance.

Attorney Bill McGrane, representing William George of Copia
Claims, said about the decision, "We intend to amend the
complaint."

"We're pleased," Kevin Muck, attorney for Orrick, Herrington &
Sutcliffe, said. "We certainly agree with the court's decision."
"This is a setback for Copia Claims, but the decision leaves the
door open for them to continue the lawsuit," John MacConaghy, an
attorney who worked on the Copia bankruptcy case, said.

Ray Brooks, the CEO of ACA Financial Guaranty Corporation, which
is Copia's bond insurer and current owner of the First Street
property, could not be reached for this story.

In November 2009, representatives for ACA listed the former Copia
building and the surrounding property for either lease or
purchase for an unnamed price. A buyer has yet to be announced
and the property remains vacant.


AKRON BEACON: Retiree Suit Complains About Changes in Benefits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kim Wendel at WKYC-TV reports that Akron Beacon Journal retiree
John Olesky Jr. filed a class-action lawsuit in federal court
this week against the ABJ and its owner, Canadian media mogul
David Holmes Black.

Olesky Jr., of Tallmadge, filed the lawsuit -- the second of two
lawsuits filed regarding broken retiree-benefits promises --
alleging that in 2006, ABJ broke its promises to retirees and one
of their unions, according to his attorney Subodh Chandra.

Olesky Jr. belonged to the Northeast Ohio Newspaper Guild Local
1.

Chandra said that Olesky Jr., along with other retirees, were
promised when they retired that they would receive low-cost
prescription-drug benefits for themselves and their spouses for
the rest of their lives.

The lawsuit alleges that, immediately after Black took control of
ABJ, ABJ breached its promises and replaced retirees low-cost
benefits with high-cost plans.

On May 13, in the other lawsuit that was filed before this one,
U.S. District Court Judge David Dowd issued a preliminary
injunction against ABJ and Black, ordering them to restore
prescription-drug benefits to retirees from another union, the
Communications Workers of America Local 14514.

ABJ and Black are appealing Dowd's ruling.

The lawsuit filed today seeks the same kind of injunction for
retirees from Ohio Newspaper Guild Local 1, damages and
attorneys' fees.

ABJ Vice President and Editor Bruce Winges referred all comment
to the ABJ attorney Brett K. Bacon, with Frantz Ward LLP.

"We haven't seen (today's lawsuit) but this is about the kind of
coverage, not the absence of coverage," Bacon tells Channel 3.

"We have complied with (Dowd's) order in the first lawsuit and
would, even though we have not seen it, likely do the same for
this lawsuit," Bacon added.

Bacon said ABJ is "trying to figure out, in today's economic
marketplace, how we can get them coverage."


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Sued for Imposing Surcharge on Retailers
----------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Leonard at Courthouse News Service reports that in an
antitrust class action against American Express, the National
Supermarkets Association claims its members have to raise prices
across the board because of a surcharge that AmEx imposes on
retailers.  The group of 400 independent grocers claims AmEx's
surcharge is illegal.

If a customer puts $100 worth of products on an American Express
credit card, and the "merchant discount fee" is 2 percent,
American Express bills the customer for $100 and pays the
merchant only $98.

"By ensuring that the consumer neither knows nor cares how
expensive her payment product is to the merchant, and thus has no
incentive to switch to an alternative payment form, or a
competitor of American Express, the anti-steering rules serve to
entrench American Express' position of monopoly power in the U.S.
markets for American Express payment card services, among other
markets," according to the federal complaint.

The National Supermarkets Association claims that American
Express' merchant reference guide prohibits merchants from
encouraging customers to use a different form of payment than
American Express, making the credit-card company "largely
impervious to price-based competition."

"If the merchant were free to pass along the discount fee
directly to the Amex card user via a discrete surcharge, the card
member [sic] could decide for herself if she wants to incur the
costs necessary to fund these perks," according to the complaint.  
"While an affluent shopper who is 200 points shy of a free trip
to Hawaii may not balk at an extra $2 on her check-out ticket,
the cash-payer and on-line debit user will be relieved of the
obligation to subsidize that particular junket."

After Discover, Visa and MasterCard bent to class actions in the
past 5 years, they rescinded their surcharges and prohibitions
against merchant steering, the trade group claims.

"If merchants were able to steer transactions to payment forms
other than American Express, they would realize significant
savings," according to the complaint.  "In a competitive
marketplace, those savings will be passed along to all consumers
in the form of lower prices for all."

The supermarket group claims that since it cannot give customers
an incentive to choose a different form of payment, its members
must raise prices for everyone.

All customers are forced "to subsidize all of the costly
perquisites enjoyed by card members using Amex-branded payment
card products, including frequent flier miles, rental car
insurance, free gifts and even cash-back rewards," according to
the complaint.

The association sued American Express and American Express Travel
Related Services, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief.  

The National Supermarkets Association is represented by:

          Noah Shube, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF NOAH SHUBE
          434 Broadway
          New York, NY 10013-2563
          Telephone: 212-274-8638


ANGELS BASEBALL: Wheelchair-Bound Fan Sues for Discrimination
-------------------------------------------------------------
Spencer Kornhaber at OCWeekly.com reports that J. Paul Charlebois
says that he wanted to watch a Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim's
game from the home stadium's club level, the swanky tier with box
seats and waiter service. But he's wheelchair bound, and he says
that when he asked for wheelchair accessible seating, he was told
there were only two such seats on the entire level -- and they
were already taken.

So he's suing.

According to the law office that's representing him, the only
solution that Angels employees had for Charlebois was to offer to
carry him to and from a general-admission seat.

The class-action suit, filed in the US District Court (Central
District of California, Southern Division) this week, alleges
violations of the Unruh Civil Rights Act, the Americans with
Disabilities Act and the California's Business & Professions
Code. Both Angels Baseball LP and the City of Anaheim, which sunk
lots of money into a renovation of the stadium, are named as
defendants. It seeks injunctive relief, presumably in the form of
more wheelchair accommodation in the most lux region of the
stadium.

"It seem amazing to me that in a whole section of a baseball
stadium, there would only be two wheelchair accessible seats,"
says Charlebois' lawyer V. James De Simone.

A spokesperson for the city of Anaheim said that they hadn't yet
received copy of the suit.  Tim Mead, VP of Communications from
the Angels, says he hasn't seen the complaint either.  "We work
very tirelessly to take care of all the diverse needs of our
fans, all fans," he says.  "This ballpark and certainly our
history shows that."

Here's the press release from the firm:

     "Today, J. Paul Charlebois, a baseball fan who is confined
to a wheelchair, filed a Class Action Lawsuit in the United
States District Court of the Central District of California
against Angels Baseball LP and the City of Anaheim. Mr.
Charlebois alleges that the Stadium fails to provide basic
accommodations to disabled persons in its premier Club Level, the
only section that includes amenities such as in-seat waiter and
waitress food and beverage services. Remarkably, in the Club
Level consisting of thousands of seats and luxury boxes, there
are only two wheelchair accessible seats on the entire level.

     "In July 2009, when Mr. Charlebois attempted to access his
seat in the Club Level section, he was informed that there were
no available wheelchair accessible seats in the entire section,
as the only two seats were already taken. The Angels employee's
only solution was that Mr. Charlebois, a grown man, could be
carried to and from a general admission seat. Defendants have
refused to rectify this situation and instead continue to
relocate those to inferior sections who chose not to be carried.

     "The lawsuit, Case No. CV10853-AG(ANX), alleges that Angels
Baseball and the City of Anaheim, who invested at least $30
million in renovating the Stadium in 1998-1999, fail to provide
adequate wheelchair accessible seating on the Club Level,
discriminate against individuals on the basis of their
disability, fail to comply with facilities requirements
contingent upon receiving state funding, and maintain unfair
business practices in violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act, California Civil Rights laws, and California's
Business & Professions Code. The Action seeks certification of a
plaintiff class of wheelchair bound baseball fans and an order
from the Court to compel Defendants to both provide sufficient
wheelchair accessible seating and to better train its staff.

     "The lawsuit states, 'By bringing this action for injunctive
and declaratory relief, Plaintiff seeks justice for himself and
other wheel chair bound patrons of Angels Stadium by requiring
Angeles Baseball and the City of Anaheim to comply with federal
and California law requiring equal access for individuals with
disabilities.'

     "V. James DeSimone of Schonbrun DeSimone Seplow Harris &
Hoffman, LLP, the attorneys representing Mr. Charlebois stated:
'It is outrageous that Angels Stadium, which underwent a costly
renovation in 1999, deliberately ignored its obligation to
wheelchair bound patrons by limiting them to a quota of two
accessible seats in the only area of the Stadium that provides
waiter and waitress services.'"


APAC CUSTOMER: Awaits Approval of $4MM FLSA Action Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
APAC Customer Services, Inc., is awaiting approval from the
United States District Court for the Western District of
Wisconsin of its settlement of a collective action under the Fair
Labor Standards Act, 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 4, 2010.

On May 27, 2009, a purported collective/class action complaint
captioned Tiffany Sharpe, et al. v. APAC Customer Services, Inc.,
was filed in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Wisconsin.  On behalf of the plaintiff, a non-exempt
call center employee, and other similarly situated individuals,
the complaint asserted violations under the Federal Fair Labor
Standards Act related to overtime compensation and wage records.  
The complaint also asserted violations under Wisconsin Wage
Payment and Overtime Compensation Laws based upon the same
alleged facts.  The complaint purported to allege claims as a
nationwide collective action under federal law, as well as a
class action under Wisconsin state law.  The complaint sought
various forms of relief, including injunctive relief, unpaid
overtime wages, liquidated damages, interest, and attorneys' fees
and costs.  

On January 8, 2010, the court entered an order which
conditionally certified the case as a collective action under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

In March 2010, the Company entered into an agreement to resolve
the collective action.  Under the terms of the agreement, which
is subject to final definitive documentation and court approval,
the Company agreed to pay a maximum amount of $4 million to
resolve claims by eligible class members, including payments to
class members and payments for plaintiff attorneys' fees.  

As a result, the Company has recorded a charge of $2.4 million
for the thirteen weeks ended April 4, 2010, which represents its
estimate of the costs to be incurred for attorneys' fees and
claims, based on expected opt-in rates for claimants in similar
actions.  The final amount which will ultimately be paid by the
Company under the agreement will be determined based on the
participation from eligible class members.

The Company denied and continues to deny the allegations in the
complaint and contends that its policies and practices regarding
compensation were proper and in compliance with the law at all
times.  The Company denies all liability and wrongdoing in this
case, but has chosen to settle this lawsuit in order to avoid the
distraction and additional legal expenses that would otherwise be
incurred.

APAC Customer Services, Inc. --
http://www.apaccustomerservices.com/-- is a provider of customer  
care services and solutions to market leaders in the healthcare,
business services, communications, publishing, travel and
entertainment and financial services industries.  As of December
28, 2008, the Company operated 13 customer care centers in the
United States, two of which are client-owned facilities and four
off-shore customer care centers in the Philippines.  As of
December 28, 2008, the domestic operations consisted of
approximately 4,700 workstations and the off-shore operations
consisted of approximately 3,300 workstations.  The Company
provides service through multiple communication channels,
including telephone, Internet, email, fax, mail correspondence
and automated response generated through technology.


APPLIED MICRO: Awaits Ruling on Appeal of Settlement Order
----------------------------------------------------------
Applied Micro Circuits Corporation is awaiting the decision on
appeals filed in connection with the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York's order granting final approval of
a settlement in "IPO laddering cases," according to the company's
May 12, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended March 31, 2010.

The Company acquired JNI Corporation in October 2003.  In
November 2001, a class action lawsuit was filed against JNI and
the underwriters of its initial and secondary public offerings of
common stock in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York, case no. 01 Civ 10740 (SAS).

The complaint alleges that defendants violated the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, in connection with JNI's public
offerings.  This lawsuit is among more than 300 class action
lawsuits pending in this District Court that have come to be
known as the "IPO laddering cases."  In re Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation, No. 21 MC 92 (SAS), a settlement
has been reached in all of the cases.

On October 6, 2009, the Court issued an order granting final
approval of the settlement and dismissing the case.  The Court
subsequently issued a final judgment.  Several appeals of the
settlement and judgment were filed between October 29 and
November 4, 2009.  Should the settlement be overturned on appeal
and the final approval vacated, the Company's liability, if any,
could not be reasonably estimated at this time, the Company said.

Applied Micro Circuits Corp. provides semiconductors and printed
circuit board assemblies for the communications and storage
markets. The Company is headquartered in Sunnyvale, Calif.


ARAMARK CORP: Wage Violation Settlement Still Pending With Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
ARAMARK Corp. is awaiting approval from the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California of a memorandum of
understanding settling a class action alleging violations of the
California wage and hours laws, according to the company's
May 12, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange for the quarter ended April 2, 2010.

On July 29, 2009, Genaro Zendejas Morales, a former employee of
the Company, and Ricky Silva and Cristian Sanchez, current
employees of ARAMARK Sports, LLC, filed a proposed class action
complaint against the Company, ARAMARK Sports, Inc., and ARAMARK
Sports, LLC in the United States District Court, Central District
of California.

The complaint, as filed, purports to assert class claims that
defendants did not pay all monies due under California wage and
hour laws.  The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified monetary
damages and injunctive relief.

The parties have executed a memorandum of understanding for a
full settlement of the matter.  The settlement is conditioned on
final approval by the court.  

ARAMARK Corp. -- http://www.aramark.com/-- is a leader in  
professional services, providing award-winning food services,
facilities management, and uniform and career apparel to health
care institutions, universities and school districts, stadiums
and arenas, and businesses around the world.


AROTECH CORP: Awaits Approval of $2.9 Million Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------
Arotech Corporation is awaiting approval from the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of New York of the $2.9 million
settlement resolving a consolidated class action complaint,
according to the company's May 12, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2010.

In May 2007, two purported class action complaints were filed in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New
York against the company and certain officers and directors.  
These two cases were consolidated in June 2007.

In January 2010, the company reached an agreement with lead
plaintiffs to settle the Class Action Complaint.  Under the terms
of the proposed settlement, the lawsuit will be dismissed with
prejudice, and the company we and all its current and former
officers and directors named in the complaint will receive a full
and complete release of all claims asserted against them in the
litigation, as well as any related claims that could have been
asserted.  The claims will be settled for $2.9 million.  The
monetary payment for this settlement will be funded entirely from
insurance proceeds.  

The hearing with respect to court approval of this settlement was
held on May 6, 2010, and the parties are awaiting a decision in
respect of the approval.

Arotech Corporation -- http://www.arotech.com/-- is a defense  
and security products and services company, engaged in three
business areas: armoring for military and non-military air and
ground vehicles; simulation for military, law enforcement and
commercial markets, and batteries and charging systems for the
military.  The company operates primarily through its 100%-owned
subsidiaries, which it has organized into three divisions:
Training and Simulation Division, Armor Division and Battery and
Power Systems Division.


ATS MEDICAL: Medtronic Merger Prompts Filing of 3 Class Actions
---------------------------------------------------------------
ATS Medical Inc. was slapped with three class action complaints
in connection with its proposed merger with Medtronic, Inc.,
according to the company's May 13, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
April 3, 2010.

In May 2010, one class action complaint was filed, and the
Company received notice of two other class action complaints,
each concerning the proposed Merger with Medtronic, Inc.  These
class actions were instituted against the Company, its board of
directors, chief financial officer, Medtronic and/or Pilgrim
Merger Corporation, a wholly owned subsidiary of Medtronic.  

The complaints generally allege breach of fiduciary duty by the
members of the Company's board of directors arising out of the
attempt to sell the Company by (i) means of unfair process with
preclusive deal protection devices and at an unfair price of
$4.00 in cash for each share of the Company's common stock
resulting in a failure to maximize shareholder value; and (ii)
through materially inadequate disclosures and material omissions
in the preliminary proxy statement.  The complaints also allege
that each defendant aided and abetted the alleged breach of
fiduciary duties.

The complaints seek damages and an accounting to the plaintiffs
for any special benefits wrongly received by the defendants, as
well as injunctive relief to prevent the consummation of the
proposed merger, or in the event that the merger is consummated,
then rescission or rescissory damages.

Minneapolis-based ATS Medical Inc. develops, manufactures, and
markets medical devices primarily for use by cardiovascular or
cardiothoracic surgeons during cardiac surgery.


AUTHENTIDATE HOLDING: 2nd Cir. Affirms Dismissal Order in Part
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued an order
affirming in part and vacating and remanding in part a ruling
dismissing a second amended complaint in a consolidated class
action, according to Authentidate Holding Corp.'s May 13, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

Between June and August 2005, six purported shareholder class
actions were filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York against the company and certain of
its current and former directors and former officers. Plaintiffs
in those actions alleged that defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Sections 11
and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. The securities law claims
were based on the allegations that the company failed to disclose
that its August 2002 agreement with the USPS contained certain
performance metrics, and that the USPS could cancel the agreement
if it did not meet these metrics; that it did not disclose
complete and accurate information as to its performance under,
and efforts to renegotiate, the USPS agreement; and that when it
did disclose that the USPS might cancel the agreement, the market
price of its stock declined.

On October 5, 2005 the Court consolidated the class actions under
the caption In re Authentidate Holding Corp. Securities
Litigation., C.A. No. 05 Civ. 5323 (LTS), and appointed the
Illinois State Board of Investment as lead plaintiff under the
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act. The plaintiff filed an
amended consolidated complaint on January 3, 2006, which asserted
the same claims as the prior complaints and also alleged that
Authentidate violated the federal securities laws by
misrepresenting that it possessed certain patentable technology.

On July 14, 2006, the Court dismissed the amended complaint in
its entirety; certain claims were dismissed with prejudice and
plaintiff was given leave to replead those claims which were not
dismissed with prejudice.

In August 2006, plaintiff filed a second amended complaint, which
did not assert any claims relating to the company's patents or
under the Securities Act of 1933, but which otherwise was
substantially similar to the prior complaint. The second amended
complaint sought unspecified monetary damages. The company moved
to dismiss the second amended complaint on November 13, 2006.

On March 26, 2009, the S.D.N.Y. dismissed, with prejudice, the
second amended complaint. The lead plaintiff filed an appeal and
a hearing in the case was held before the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit on February 3, 2010. On March 16, 2010,
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued an order
affirming in part and vacating and remanding in part the March
2009 decision of the S.D.N.Y. which had granted the company's
motion to dismiss these claims with prejudice.

Authentidate Holding Corp. -- http://www.authentidate.com/is a  
worldwide provider of secure Health Information Exchange and
workflow management services.  The Company's software and web-
based services enable healthcare organizations and other
enterprises to increase revenues, improve productivity and
reduce costs by eliminating paper and manual work steps from
clinical, administrative and other processes and enhancing
compliance with regulatory requirements.  The web-based services
are delivered as Software as a Service (Saas) to customers.
These solutions incorporate rules-based electronic forms,
intelligent routing, transaction management, electronic
signatures, identity credentialing, content authentication and
automated audit trails.  Both web and fax based communications
are integrated into automated and trusted workflow solutions.
The Company has offices in the United States and Germany.  In
the United States, Authentidate offers its patent pending
content authentication technology in the form of the United
States Postal Service(R) Electronic Postmark(R) (EPM).


AVAYA INC: Awaits Approval of MOU Over Tenovis Germany Purchase
---------------------------------------------------------------
Avaya, Inc., is awaiting the approval of its memorandum of
understanding to settle a class action suit over its purchase of
Tenovis Germany GmbH, according to the company's May 13, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

In April and May of 2005, purported class action lawsuits were
filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey
against Avaya and certain of its officers, alleging violations of
the federal securities laws.  The actions purport to be filed on
behalf of purchasers of Avaya common stock during the period from
October 5, 2004, the date of the Company's signing of the
agreement to acquire Tenovis Germany GmbH, through April 19,
2005, when the Company's common stock was traded on the New York
Stock Exchange.

The complaints, which are substantially similar to one another,
allege, among other things, that the plaintiffs were injured by
reason of certain allegedly false and misleading statements made
by Avaya relating to the cost of the integration of Tenovis
Germany GmbH, which was acquired in December 2004, the disruption
caused by changes in the delivery of the Company's products to
the market and reductions in the demand for Avaya products in the
U.S., and that based on the foregoing Avaya had no basis to
project its stated revenue goals for fiscal 2005.  The complaints
seek compensatory damages plus interest and attorneys' fees.

In August 2005, the court entered an order identifying a lead
plaintiff and lead plaintiff's counsel.  A consolidated amended
complaint was filed in October 2005.  Pursuant to a scheduling
order issued by the District Court, defendants filed their motion
to dismiss the consolidated complaint in December 2005.  In
September 2006, the District Court granted defendants' motion to
dismiss the case in its entirety and with prejudice, which was
appealed by the plaintiffs.

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision in April
2009, affirming in part and reversing in part, the District
Court's decision.  Although the appeals court's decision
dismissed most of plaintiffs' claims, a portion of the complaint
alleging that one of the defendants in March 2005 made a
misleading statement about price competition has been remanded to
the District Court for further proceeding.  The court thus
limited the class period to the time of March 3, 2005 to
April 19, 2005.

The parties have entered into a memorandum of understanding and
proposed settlement agreement to resolve this matter.  It is
anticipated that they will submit to the court the proposed
settlement agreement for preliminary approval.  If the court
grants approval, the parties will seek final approval of the
settlement which will dispose of this case.  However, there can
be no guarantees that the court will approve the settlement or
that another party will not object to the fairness of the
settlement, which may impact the terms of the settlement or the
decision of the parties to settle the case at all.

Avaya, Inc. -- http://www.avaya.com/-- is a supplier of  
communications systems and software for enterprise customers.


BELL MICROPRODUCTS: Faces Suits Over Proposed Avnet Merger
----------------------------------------------------------
Bell Microproducts Inc. faces a number of putative class actions
in connection with its proposed merger with Avnet, Inc.,
according to the company's June 3, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2010.

After the public announcement of the company's proposed merger
with Avnet, between March 30, 2010 and May 6, 2010, a number of
putative class actions were filed by alleged shareholders of the
company in the Superior Court for the State of California, County
of Santa Clara.  Those cases are:

     -- Sashi K. Gutpa v. Bell Microproducts Inc. et al.,
        Case No. 110-CV-168002;

     -- Edward Wheeler v. Bell Microproducts Inc. et al.,
        Case No. 110-CV-168160;

     -- Simon Hung v. Bell Microproducts Inc. et al.,
        Case No. 110-CV-168304;

     -- Moshe Piller v. Bell Microproducts Inc. et al.,
        Case No. 110-CV-168292;

     -- Shaun Quinney v. Bell Microproducts Inc. et al.,
        Case No. 110-CV-168634;

     -- Stephan M. Jackson v. W. Donald Bell et al.,
        Case No. 110-CV-168841;

     -- Robert Josepayt v. W. Donald Bell et al.,
        Case No. 110-CV-168842;

     -- Raymond VJ Schrag Esq. Trustee for Trust Under Will
        Susan Schleger v. W. Donald Bell et al., Case No.
        110-CV-168852; and

     -- John R. Campbell v. W. Donald Bell et al.,
        Case No. 110-CV-171341.

On April 1, 2010, a similar case, John R. Campbell v. W. Donald
Bell et al., Case No. Civ. 493632, was filed in the Superior
Court for the State of California, County of San Mateo.  
Subsequently, the plaintiff in this case has sought to dismiss
this action, and re-filed this lawsuit in the Superior Court for
the State of California, County of Santa Clara.

Further, an individual federal shareholder securities suit, Zwang
v. W. Donald Bell et al., Case No. CV-10-1994, was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on
May 7, 2010.

In addition to asserting claims against the company, the
plaintiffs in these actions have also named as defendants in one
or more of the complaints members of our board of directors,
certain of our executive officers and our former board members,
as well as Avnet, Inc. and AVT Acquisition Corp.

The plaintiffs in these actions allege, among other things, that
the consideration being offered in the merger is inadequate and
that the directors breached their fiduciary duties by agreeing to
the merger and permitting certain terms to be included in the
merger agreement, including the termination fee and provisions
relating to possible competing proposals.  The plaintiffs also
allege that we and/or Avnet and AVT Acquisition aided and abetted
the individual defendants in their actions.

In the Campbell action, the plaintiff also alleges that our
directors approved the merger agreement and the related
transactions in order to extinguish their liability in a
derivative action previously filed by the plaintiff described
below.  The plaintiff also alleges that because the derivative
action will be extinguished before defendants are compelled to
compensate us for the alleged damages they caused, the
consideration being paid in connection with the merger is too
low.

In the Campbell and Zwang actions, plaintiffs also allege that
the preliminarily proxy statement filed by the company on April
12, 2010 was materially false and misleading in violation of
defendants' fiduciary duty of candor and/or Section 14(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Each action seeks, among other things, unspecified monetary
damages, including payment of the plaintiff's expenses and
attorney fees.  A number of the actions also seek an injunction
prohibiting completion of the merger on the agreed upon terms and
rescission of the merger agreement.

The company has not yet filed responses to any of these lawsuits.  
Additional or amended putative class actions with similar claims
relating to the merger may be filed against the company, its
directors, Avnet and/or AVT Acquisition.

Bell Microproducts Inc. -- http://www.bellmicro.com/-- is an  
international, value-added distributor of a wide range of high-
tech products, solutions and services, including storage systems,
servers, software, computer components and peripherals, as well
as maintenance and professional services.


BIDZ.COM INC: Awaits Court Decision on Dismissal Motion
-------------------------------------------------------
Bidz.com, Inc., is awaiting a decision from the United States
District Court for the Central District of California on its
motion to dismiss a consolidated securities class action lawsuit,
according to the company's May 13, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2010.

In May and June, 2009, the Company and certain of its officers
were named as defendants in three parallel class actions
complaints filed in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California: (i) Ramon Gomez v. Bidz.com,
Inc., et al., cv09-3216 (CBM) (C.D. Cal.; filed on May 7, 2009),
(ii) James Mitchell v. Bidz.com, Inc., et al., cv09-03671 (CBM)
(C.D. Cal.; filed on May 22, 2009), and (iii) Mark Walczyk v.
Bidz.com, Inc., et al., cv09-0397 (CBM) (C.D. Cal.; filed on June
3, 2009)).

On July 30, 2009, the Court ordered the cases to be consolidated
and appointed Roland Pomfret as the lead plaintiff.  The lawsuits
purport to represent the class of shareholders who purchased the
Company's common stock between August 13, 2007 and November 27,
2007.  The complaints charge the Company and certain of its
officers and directors with violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The complaints allege that the company failed to disclose
unethical and fraudulent business practices that were alleged in
a November 26, 2007 report by Citron Research (Stocklemon.com),
that the company did not have controls in place to prevent "shill
bidding" and that the company uses unreliable or false appraisal
prices on its merchandise.  The court granted the plaintiffs'
request to appoint Roland Pomfret as lead plaintiff, and a
consolidated complaint was filed on October 13, 2009.

In addition to the allegations in the original complaint, the
consolidated complaint alleges that the defendants failed to
correctly account for and disclose in detail its co-op marketing
contributions and minimum gross profit guarantees.  On March 20,
2010, the Court took under submission the Company's Motion to
Dismiss the case and has not yet rendered a decision.  The
company believes that the lawsuits are meritless and intend to
defend the cases vigorously.

Bidz.com -- http://www.bidz.com/-- founded in 1998, is a leading  
online retailer of jewelry. Bidz offers its products through a
live auction format as well as a fixed price online retail store,
Buyz.com.  Bidz.com's auctions are also available in Arabic,
German and Spanish.  Bidz also operates Modnique --
http://www.modnique.com/-- a division of Bidz.com, an exclusive  
private sale shopping site for members-only, offering authentic
premium brand name merchandise.  Modnique offers its members
exclusive access to 24-72 hour sales events on designer apparel,
accessories, shoes, and houseware and much more at price points
up to 85% below traditional retail prices.


BIOSANTE PHARMACEUTICALS: Approval of Settlement Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Biosante Pharmaceuticals, Inc., is awaiting final approval of its
settlement to resolve a consolidated class action complaint filed
in California, according to Biosante's May 14, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2010.  

On July 1, 2009, a putative shareholder class action lawsuit
concerning the Company's then proposed merger with Cell Genesys
was filed in California Superior Court in San Mateo County naming
Cell Genesys, its officers and directors, and the Company as
defendants.  On July 6, 2009, a second putative shareholder class
action lawsuit naming the same parties and containing essentially
identical allegations was filed in California Superior Court in
San Mateo County.  On July 8, 2009, a third putative shareholder
class action lawsuit was filed in California Superior Court in
San Mateo County, which also named the same parties and contained
essentially identical allegations as the two prior lawsuits.  

On July 15, 2009, the Court consolidated these three lawsuits
into one action and appointed interim lead counsel.  On August
13, 2009, plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action complaint
alleging that defendants breached their fiduciary duties and
aided and abetted the breach of fiduciary duties owed to Cell
Genesys stockholders in connection with the then proposed merger,
including by failing to engage in a fair sales process, failing
to obtain a fair price for the sale of Cell Genesys, and failing
to provide Cell Genesys stockholders with material information
regarding the merger.  Plaintiffs sought an order certifying the
lawsuit as a class action, injunctive relief to enjoin the merger
or, in the event the then pending merger was completed, a
rescission of the merger or rescissory damages.  Plaintiffs
further sought an accounting for all damages and an award of
attorneys' fees and costs.

Solely to avoid the costs, risks and uncertainties inherent in
litigation, on September 18, 2009, the Company and Cell Genesys
entered into a memorandum of understanding with plaintiffs'
counsel in the San Mateo County action pursuant to which the
Company, Cell Genesys, the other named defendants and the
plaintiffs agreed to settle the lawsuits subject to court
approval. If the Court approves the settlement, the lawsuits will
be dismissed with prejudice.  

Pursuant to the memorandum of understanding, Cell Genesys agreed
to pay to plaintiffs' counsel an amount not more than $240,000 as
is approved by Court order for plaintiffs' attorneys' fees, costs
and expenses in the San Mateo County action and to make
additional disclosures in a current report on Form 8-K, without
admitting in any way that the certain disclosures are material or
otherwise required by law.  Cell Genesys filed the Form 8-K on
September 21, 2009.  

Pursuant to the memorandum of understanding, plaintiffs' counsel
conducted confirmatory discovery to confirm the fairness and
adequacy of the settlement.  The parties filed a stipulation of
settlement with the Court and moved the Court for preliminary
approval of the settlement, which was granted.  

Pursuant to the Preliminary Approval Order of Class Action
Settlement dated April 1, 2010, notice of the settlement was
provided to all persons or entities of record who bought or held
shares of Cell Genesys common stock between June 30, 2009, and
October 14, 2009.  The Court set a hearing to consider final
approval of the settlement on June 9, 2010.  At the June 9, 2010
hearing, the Court will consider any properly asserted objections
to the settlement and rule whether final judgment will be entered
under the terms of the parties stipulated settlement and all
claims dismissed with prejudice.  The Company assumed Cell
Genesys's rights and obligations relative to this lawsuit as a
result of its merger with Cell Genesys, and accordingly has
recorded a liability of $240,000 for the potential settlement.  

Biosante Pharmaceuticals, Inc. -- http://www.biosantepharma.com/  
-- is a specialty pharmaceutical company focused on developing
products for female sexual health, menopause, contraception and
male hypogonadism.  The company primary products include gel
formulations of testosterone and estradiol.  It is also engaged
in the development of its calcium phosphate nanotechnology (CaP),
primarily for aesthetic medicine, vaccines and drug delivery. The
Company's principal products include LibiGel, Bio-T-Gel and Pill-
Plus.  The company's CaP products in development include BioLook,
BioVant, BioOral and BioAir. In October 2009, BioSante
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Cell Genesys, Inc. announced the
completion of the merger of Cell Genesys, Inc. with and into
BioSante Pharmaceuticals, Inc., with BioSante Pharmaceuticals,
Inc., as the surviving company.  Pursuant to the merger, BioSante
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. has acquired all of the outstanding shares
of Cell Genesys, Inc.


BLOCKBUSTER INC: Lampone Drops Consumer Claims
----------------------------------------------
Nicholas Lampone dismissed his consumer claims against
Blockbuster, Inc., according to the company's May 14, 2010, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended April 4, 2010.

On May 20, 2009, Nicholas Lampone filed a putative class action
in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, California alleging
Blockbuster's "no late fees" program is a breach of contract and
violates California's consumer protection and unfair competition
statutes prohibiting unfair, unlawful and deceptive business
practices. Plaintiff sought class certification, restitution,
injunctive relief, general damages, special damages, compensatory
damages, punitive damages, equitable relief, attorneys' fees,
interest, and costs.

Blockbuster removed the case to the United States District Court
for the Central District of California.  On April 22, 2010,
plaintiff Lampone dismissed his claims with prejudice.

Blockbuster Inc. -- http://www.blockbuster.com/-- is a leading  
global provider of rental and retail movie and game
entertainment. The company provides customers with convenient
access to media entertainment anywhere, any way they want it --
whether in-store, by-mail, through vending kiosks or digitally to
their homes and mobile devices. With a highly recognized brand
and a library of more than 125,000 movie and game titles,
Blockbuster leverages its multichannel presence to serve nearly
47 million global customers annually.


BMW NORTH AMERICA: Settles N.J. Bridgestone Tire Wear Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Liza Barth at ConsumerReports.org reports that BMW and
Bridgestone have settled a class-action lawsuit stemming from
problems with the run-flat tires in 2006 and 2007 BMW 3 Series
models. The issue concerns the factory-installed Bridgestone
Turanza EL42 run-flat tires that exhibited irregular wear causing
excessive road noise and needed to be replaced early (before
30,000 miles) due to premature or irregular wear. The suit argues
that BMW and Bridgestone should've been aware of the defects.
Both companies have denied the problem.

The agreement, which was accepted in New Jersey federal court,
ends a 2008 class-action lawsuit and awards members of the
settlement class a full refund for the purchase of replacement
tires if they were needed before 10,000 miles. If the tire wear
occurred beyond 10,000 miles up through 30,000 miles, the
reimbursement amount will be reduced to 50 percent or less.

According to Automotive News, Bridgestone estimates the potential
class at about 125,000 owners. Claim forms for reimbursement can
be submitted by November 8, 2010.

Additional information concerning Careccio, et al. v. BMW of
North America, LLC, et al., Case No. 08-cv-0269 (D. N.J.)
(Hayden, J.), is available at:

          http://www.gilardi.com/BMW-BridgestoneRFT/


BP PLC: Fla. RICO Suit Claims Bush Administration Was Manipulated
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kris Wernowsky at the Pensacola News Journal reports that a newly
filed federal lawsuit in Pensacola accuses BP of manipulating
government agencies during the Bush administration to relax
regulatory oversight of offshore drilling and oil operations in
the United States.

It's that relaxation of the rules that allowed BP to run afoul of
safeguards that could have prevented the April 20 explosion
aboard the Deepwater Horizon oil rig, the civil lawsuit claims.
Eleven workers aboard the rig, located off the coast of
Louisiana, were killed in the blast.

"In the greedy interest of billions of dollars in offshore
drilling profits, BP chose to misrepresent its capability to
respond and prevent impact to the environment, the public and the
plaintiffs, and concealed its incapacity to response," the suit
says.

It refers to "an ecological Armageddon that could literally
destroy the marine and coastal environment and way of life for
generation of Americans."

The suit is filed under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act, or RICO, which is designed to combat organized
crime networks and the mafia.

It lists Pensacola Beach developer and property owner Robert
Rinke as a plaintiff and BP, its North American subsidiaries and
BP CEO Tony Hayward as defendants.

The conspiracy of deregulation and shallow oversight lowered the
value of Rinke's property and other home and condominium owners'
properties along the Gulf Coast, the suit says.

"If you consider why we are where we are with this catastrophe,
it's because we allowed the oil industry to dictate what we were
supposed to do rather than us dictating what they are supposed to
do," attorney Mike Papantonio said. "An agency charged with
safeguarding all of us became captive and simply an extension of
the petroleum industry."

BP spokeswoman Lucia Bustamante that she cannot comment on
pending litigation.

                         Novel Approach

The RICO suit joins some 200 filed in state and federal courts.
In a separate class-action suit, the Levin Papantonio firm also
represents a swath of businesses and individuals, including beach
rental owners, shrimpers and fishermen, against BP and its
partners in the drilling operation.

The RICO tactic is relatively novel among the numerous legal
challenges, Stetson University civil law professor Michael Allen
said.

"It's quite unusual to say that the (criminal) enterprise is
created between private industry and the government," he said.
"I'm not sure RICO sweeps that broadly and I am not sure what
legally this action will bring to the table considering all of
the other actions out there."

The RICO suit shines a light on a years-old controversy involving
the Minerals Management Service, the branch of the U.S.
Department of Interior that oversees both the regulation of
drilling operations and the collection of lease fees for oil
operations on public lands and in public waters.

In 2008, the Inspector General's Office uncovered a cozy
relationship between MMS and the oil industry that included
industry officials hosting sex and drug parties for government
workers whose duty was to regulate the drilling. Industry
officials also showered their own regulators with lavish gifts,
vacations, tickets to sporting events and parties.

"Since 2000, the relationship between the oil companies and the
MMS agency that regulates their offshore drilling has been
characterized as an incestuous revolving door," the lawsuit says.

The suit also references a 2000 retreat for government officials
hosted by former Vice President Dick Cheney with the goal of
drafting a national energy policy.

The meeting, which is now referred to the "Cheney Energy Task
Force," was attended by a number of oil executives, including
BP's regional president Bob Malone, the lawsuit alleges.

"Upon information and belief, part of BP's agenda at the meetings
included installing oil industry appointments to MMS and other
agencies so that BP could fraudulently cut corners on safeguards
for offshore drilling projects," the lawsuit claims.

Those rolled-back safety standards are at the heart of the
Deepwater Horizon explosion, a 2005 explosion at BP's Texas City
Refinery and the 2007 release of 200,000 gallons of crude oil
into the Alaskan wilderness, the suit says.

                           Finger-Pointing

Republican lawmakers like Florida's Sen. George LeMieux and U.S.
Rep. Jeff Miller have said the finger-pointing at the Bush
administration is unfair.

They've noted that Obama hasn't remedied the problems within the
MMS and that his campaign benefited from BP donations.

"You have Democrats and Republicans who have taken contributions
from the oil industry in the past," Miller said. "It was the
Obama administration that permitted this well to go to its
permanent status."

But Papantonio, a liberal pundit on cable TV talk programs and on
blogs, casts the blame on the previous administration.

"The only way that happened was because there was a concerted
effort to take all of the teeth out of regulations," he said.


BSQUARE CORP: Notices of Appeal Filed vs. Settlement Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------
Certain objectors filed a petition with the Second Circuit Court
of Appeals seeking permission to appeal the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York's final order approving a
settlement of shareholder class action lawsuits filed against
BSQUARE Corporation, according to the company's May 13, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

In summer and early fall 2001, four shareholder class action
lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York against the Company, certain of the
Company's current and former officers and directors, and the
underwriters of the Company's initial public offering.  The
complaints were consolidated into a single action and a
Consolidated Amended Complaint, which was filed on April 19,
2002.

The operative complaint alleged violations of the Securities Act
of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The suit
purported to be a class action filed on behalf of purchasers of
the Company's common stock during the period from October 19,
1999 to December 6, 2000.  The plaintiffs alleged that the
Underwriter Defendants agreed to allocate stock in the Company's
initial public offering to certain investors in exchange for
excessive and undisclosed commissions and agreements by those
investors to make additional purchases of stock in the
aftermarket at pre-determined prices.

The plaintiffs alleged that the prospectus for the Company's
initial public offering was false and misleading in violation of
the securities laws because the Company did not disclose these
arrangements.  The action sought damages in an unspecified
amount.

On December 5, 2006, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals vacated
a decision by the district court granting class certification in
six of the coordinated cases, which are intended to serve as
test, or "focus" cases.  The plaintiffs selected these six cases,
which do not include the Company.  On April 6, 2007, the Second
Circuit denied a petition for rehearing filed by the plaintiffs,
but noted that the plaintiffs could ask the district court to
certify more narrow classes than those that were rejected.

The parties in the approximately 300 coordinated cases, including
the parties in the Company's case, reached a settlement in early
2009.  As part of the settlement, the insurers for the issuer
defendants will make the entire settlement payment on behalf of
the issuers, including the Company.  On October 5, 2009, the
district court granted final approval of the settlement.

Three objectors filed a petition to the Second Circuit seeking
permission to appeal the district court's final approval order on
the basis that the settlement class is broader than the class
previously rejected by the Second Circuit in its December 5, 2006
order vacating the district court's order certifying classes in
the focus cases.  Six notices of appeal have also been filed,
including one notice filed by the group of objectors that filed
the petition to appeal.  

Following the district court's final approval of the settlement,
the Company determined that it is unlikely that the Company will
be liable for any damages that will not be paid for by the
Company's insurance carriers, even if any appeals are successful.  
As a result, it was determined that an accrued legal fees
liability of $534,000 was no longer probable.  Consequently, this
liability was reversed, which resulted in a reduction of selling,
general and administrative expense during 2009.  

BSQUARE Corporation -- http://www.bsquare.com/-- provides  
software and engineering services to companies that develop smart
devices and to companies that assist others in developing smart
devices. A smart device is a device that has a display, runs an
operating system (e.g., Microsoft Windows CE) and may be
connected to a network via a wired or wireless connection.  
Founded in 1994, Bsquare is headquartered in Bellevue,
Washington, and has offices throughout North America, Europe, and
Asia.


CELERA CORPORATION: Securities Fraud Suit Filed in N.D. Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Washtenaw County Employees' Retirement System, individually and
on behalf of others similarly situated v. Celera Corporation, et
al., Case No. 10-cv-02604 (N.D. Calif. June 14, 2010), accuses
Celera of making false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business and financial results, causing Celera common
stock to trade at artificially inflated levels throughout the
Class Period (between April 24, 2008, and July 22, 2009), in
violation of the federal securities laws.  Washtenaw explains
that that Celera falsely reported its results for the third
quarter of fiscal 2008, the fiscal year ended June 30, 2008, the
third and fourth quarters of calendar 2008 and the first quarter
of 2009, by failing to properly account for Celera's bad debts,
which overstated the Company's assets and net income.  Washtenaw
says that as a direct result of Celera and the individual
defendants' later admissions about Celera's profitability and
actual business prospects, the Company's stock plummeted 64%,
from $16.23 per share on September 18, 2008, to $5.83 per share
on July 23, 2009.  Washtenaw relates that it would not have
purchased Celera common stock at the prices it paid, had it been
aware that the market prices of the stock had been artificially
inflated.

Celera, formerly a business unit of Applera Corporation, offers
personalized disease management through a combination of products
and services primarily in the United States.  

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shawn A. Williams, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          100 Pine St., Suite 2600
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 288-4545
          E-mail: shawnw@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Darren J. Robbins, Esq.
          David C. Walton, Esq.
          Catherine J. Kowalewski, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101-3301
          Telephone: (619) 231-1058
          E-mail: darrenr@rgrdlaw.com
                  davew@rgrdlaw.com
                  katek@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
          Michael Goldberg, Esq.
          GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP
          1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 201-9150
          
               - and -

          Michael J. Vanoverbeke, Esq.
          Thomas C. Michaud, Esq.
          VANOVERBEKE MICHAUD & TIMMONY, P.C.
          79 Alfred Street
          Detroit, MI 48201
          Telephone: (313) 578-1200


CELERA CORPORATION: Says Securities Fraud Suit Has No Merit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Celera Corporation says it's aware that a purported class action
lawsuit was filed against the Company and certain of its officers
and announced on June 14, 2010.  The lawsuit alleges that during
the period from April 24, 2008 through July 22, 2009, the Company
issued false and misleading statements regarding the Company's
business and financial results, and seeks unspecified damages on
behalf of an alleged class of purchasers of the Company's stock
during this period.

Celera believes that the allegations are without merit and
intends to vigorously defend the action.

                          About Celera

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


CENTURY ALUMINUM: Case Management Conference Continued to Sept. 3
-----------------------------------------------------------------
At the parties' request, the Honorable Susan Illston has agreed
to convene the Initial Case Management Conference in Plumbers and
Pipefitters Local Union No. 630 Pension-Annuity Trust Fund v.
Fontaine, et al., Case No. 09-cv-04963 (N.D. Calif.), on
September 3, 2010, at 2:30 p.m.  The lawsuit names Century
Aluminum Company as a Nominal Defendant.  A copy of Judge
Illston's order is available at:

     http://www.leagle.com/unsecure/page.htm?shortname=infdco20100615b43

The non-underwriter defendants are represented by:

          Bruce A. Ericson, Esq.
          Jeffrey Jacobi, Esq.
          PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN LLP
          50 Fremont Street
          San Francisco, CA 94105-2228
          Telephone: 415.983.1000
          E-mail: bruce.ericson@pillsburylaw.com
                  jeffrey.jacobi@pillsburylaw.com


CHEYNE FINANCE: S.D.N.Y. Won't Certify SVP Liquidation Class
------------------------------------------------------------
Three institutional investors, King County, Washington, SEI
Investments Company, and Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank, brought a
putative class action to recover losses stemming from the
liquidation of notes issued by a structured investment vehicle.  
Only the plaintiffs' claim of common law fraud survived
dismissal.  The Plaintiffs now move to certify that claim as a
class action brought on behalf of:

     all persons or entities who acquired Commercial Paper,
     Medium Term Notes or Mezzanine Capital Notes issued by
     Cheyne Finance PLC and its wholly owned subsidiaries Cheyne
     Finance LLC and Cheyne Capital Notes LLC during the period
     of October 2004 to October 2007 and who were damaged
     thereby.

The defendants argue, with considerable force, against certifying
the proposed class.  As the defendants point out, this action is
a collection of a relatively small number of sophisticated,
institutional investors that acquired one of three different
categories of Rated Notes, at different times, pursuant to
different internal requirements, and after conducting different
due diligence inquiries.

The Honorable Shira A. Scheindlin says that the plaintiffs have
not demonstrated that joinder is impracticable or that common
questions of fact or law predominate.  For theses reasons, Judge
Scheindlin says, this action is inappropriate for class
treatment.

A copy of the June 15, 2010, Opinion and Order entered in Abu
Dhabi Commercial Bank, et al. v. Morgan Stanley & Co., et al.,
Case No. 08-cv-07508 (S.D.N.Y.), is available at:

     http://www.leagle.com/unsecure/page.htm?shortname=infdco20100615b55


CHICOLOGY: Recalls 6,200 Roll-Up Blinds
---------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Chicology of Ontario, Calif., announced a voluntary recall of
about 6,200 Roll-Up Blinds.  Consumers should stop using recalled
products immediately unless otherwise instructed.

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

No injuries or incidents have been reported.

This recall involves the French Antique Gold, Zen Moss, Tropic
Ginger, and Kansas White roll-up blind models. The roll-up shades
are gold, green, tan and white and are made from natural fiber-
paper, jute, and polyester.  Pictures of the recalled products
are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10263.html

The recalled products were manufactured in Taiwan and sold
through online retailers including http://Overstock.com,
http://Bestwindowtreatments.com,http://Bedbathstore.com,
http://Unbeatablesale.com,http://Bonton.com,
http://Linensource.com,and http://Solutions.comfrom April 2006  
through March 2010.

Consumers should immediately stop using the roll-up blinds and
contact Chicology to obtain a free retrofit kit.  For additional
information, contact the company toll-free at (866) 999-6188 or
visit the company's website at http://www.chicology.com. You can  
also e-mail the company at info@chicology.com


COMTECH TELECOMMS: Pompano's Consolidation Motion Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
The motion of the plaintiffs in a purported class action lawsuit
styled Pompano Beach Police & Firefighters' Retirement System,
etc., v. Comtech Telecommunications Corp. et al. (Case No. 09-cv-
3007), to consolidate their complaint with the case styled Lawing
v. Comtech Telecommunications Corp. (Case No. 09-cv-3182),
remains pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York, according to the company's June 3, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended April 30, 2010.

The company's Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
are also named as defendants.

The Complaints, filed in July 2009, allege that the company
violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by
making materially false and misleading statements with respect to
revenue and earnings guidance for fiscal year 2009.

The plaintiffs purport to sue on behalf of purchasers of the
company's stock between Sept. 17, 2008, and March 9, 2009.

The essence of the Complaints is that the company allegedly
failed to disclose certain adverse facts that were allegedly
known to exist at the time the company issued the revenue and
earnings guidance at issue in the Complaints.

The company has, to date, only been served with a complaint by
the Pompano Beach Police and Firefighters' Retirement System.

On Sept. 10, 2009, the District Court entered a scheduling order
in the Pompano Beach lawsuit, and pursuant to that order, Pompano
Beach filed a motion seeking consolidation of the two related
actions and appointment as lead plaintiff under the procedure set
out in the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.

That motion has not yet been decided.

Comtech Telecommunications Corp. -- http://www.comtechtel.com/--  
designs, develops, produces and markets products, systems and
services for communications solutions.  The company conducts its
business through three business segments: telecommunications
transmission, mobile data communications and radio frequency (RF)
microwave amplifiers.  It sells its products to a diverse
customer base in the global commercial and government
communications markets.


CONSOL ENERGY: Accused, with EQT Corp., of Stealing Natural Gas
---------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Gilbert at the Bristol Herald Courier reports that twin
class action lawsuits filed Tuesday accuse two leading energy
corporations of stealing natural gas belonging to Southwest
Virginia landowners and attack the constitutionality of the state
law that has allowed it to happen for 20 years.

The federal lawsuits charge that the Pittsburgh-area companies
Consol Energy and EQT Corp. have illegally exploited provisions
of the 1990 Virginia Gas and Oil Act to produce a gas that
belongs exclusively to landowners, who have never been
compensated. The plaintiffs argue that they should be paid for
all of the coalbed methane gas the companies have produced from
beneath their lands, past and future.

The two lawsuits will be followed by a series of class action
complaints seeking damages against energy companies for
underpaying royalties owed to landowners in all of the gas-
producing counties of Southwest Virginia, lawyers for the
plaintiffs said.

One lawyer for the legal team that represents both classes of
plaintiffs characterized the lawsuits as "life-changing and
society-transforming."

"What we are talking about here is breathtaking thievery," said
Don Barrett, a Mississippi lawyer who is a veteran of the class
action lawsuits against tobacco companies in the 1980s and 1990s.
"The system's broken in Virginia, unlike any other place in the
country. And that's what they make courthouses for."

Asked to comment on the lawsuit, a spokeswoman for Consol e-
mailed, "Our corporate policy is not to comment on any pending
litigation."

An EQT spokesman did not respond to e-mail and phone messages
seeking comment Tuesday afternoon.

The lead plaintiff in the case against Consol and its gas-
producing subsidiary, CNX Gas Co., is Walter Short, an 81-year-
old resident of Russell County who hauled coal and ran an Army &
Navy store before retiring. Short and his siblings own all
minerals except coal on about 55 acres in Buchanan County first
purchased by their grandfather.

Robert Adair, 60, lead plaintiff in the lawsuit against EQT, is a
retired coal mine inspector for the federal Mine Safety and
Health Administration. The Tazewell, Va., resident owns mineral
rights to at least 132 acres in Dickenson County originally
bought by his grandfather.

Adair and the Shorts never agreed to lease their mineral rights,
and have never received royalties from coalbed methane, which
accounts for more than 80 percent of all natural gas produced in
Virginia.  Instead, the Virginia Gas and Oil Board determined
that they and landowners like them were in conflict with the
companies that owned their coal over the rights to coalbed
methane. The board granted conditional leases to companies like
CNX and EQT - "subject to a final legal determination of
ownership," as state law allows - and directed the gas producers
to pay a statutory one-eighth royalty into escrow accounts,
pending such a determination.

As of May, the more than 800 individual accounts in escrow
collectively held $26.2 million.

The plaintiffs contend that the Supreme Court of Virginia
resolved the ownership question in 2004, when it ruled that
landowners who owned all of their minerals except coal also owned
the rights to coalbed methane. In April, state lawmakers put that
ruling into the Code of Virginia in an effort to resolve any
lingering dispute over the gas.

Before the 2004 ruling in Harrison-Wyatt, LLC v. Ratliff, it was
a gamble for companies like CNX and EQT to produce coalbed
methane, staking their claim to the gas through their coal
holdings and leases, said Peter Glubiak, the Richmond lawyer who
won the 2004 Supreme Court ruling and who is part of the legal
team representing the Short and Adair classes.

After the high court's ruling, Glubiak said, producing coalbed
methane was no longer a gamble for CNX and EQT. "The Supreme
Court said, 'It ain't yours.' After that point, [the companies]
knew, and they were just stealing. They were stealing people's
gas."

The lawsuits ask a federal judge to declare that the plaintiffs
alone own the coalbed methane, and to order the release of their
royalties from escrow. But the one-eighth royalty that companies
have paid into escrow is only the "tail of the dog," said Larry
Moffett, a Mississippi lawyer who is the gas and oil expert on
the plaintiffs' legal team.

Even as they challenge whether companies have accurately paid the
one-eighth royalty into escrow, the plaintiffs demand to be paid
the other seven-eighths of the proceeds from coalbed methane
production as unleased mineral owners.

The lawsuits also ask a judge to declare unconstitutional the
provision of Virginia law that sets a one-eighth royalty for
landowners, like the plaintiffs, deemed to have leased their
mineral rights by the Gas and Oil Board. The one-eighth royalty
is substantially less than it would be if a lease were negotiated
in a "free, open and competitive market," the lawsuits claim.
"We think the law is unconstitutional the way it has been
applied," Barrett said, comparing the statute to literacy tests
that were found to violate the civil rights of African-American
citizens in their application.

"The way this 1990 statutory scheme has been applied, people
can't get their money," Barrett said, arguing that the law has
facilitated an "unconstitutional taking" of landowners' property.
Barrett and company maintain that a class action is the best, and
perhaps the only way for landowners to collect royalties from
coalbed methane.

"Absent a class action, many members of the class will find the
litigation costs regarding their claims so prohibitive that they
effectively would be unable to seek any redress at law," both
lawsuits state.

The plaintiffs' team, including the firms of Barrett, Moffett and
Glubiak - and the large firm of class action specialists at
Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein LLP - will front the costs
of the litigation, and absorb them if they lose. The team has
sufficiently deep resources that it will "not be money-whipped"
by Consol and EQT, Barrett said.

Their services, however, will not come free. If the plaintiffs
prevail at trial or secure a settlement, the lawyers will ask for
some percentage of the total.

Barrett, Moffett and Glubiak would not put a dollar figure on
what they expect to recover for plaintiffs, or speculate about
what percentage they should receive.

"It's a big case," Barrett said. "It's a very big case. We're
going to be all-in, and we're in for the long haul."


CRATE AND BARREL: Recalls 5,490 Decorative Candles in a Pot
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Crate and Barrel, a division of Euromarket Designs Inc., of
Northbrook, Ill., announced a voluntary recall of about 5,400
succulent plant-shaped decorative candles in a pot in the U.S.
and about 90 in Canada.

The wax in this candle melts quickly inside and overflows outside
the pot and can ignite, posing a serious burn and fire hazard to
consumers.

The firm has received one report of the wax igniting.  No
injuries or property damage were reported.

This recall involves a set of nine succulent plant-shaped green
candles in clay pots that were sold in a black container with a
SKU number of 557-806.  The SKU numbers are on the bottom of the
original packaging.  Pictures of the recalled products are
available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10264.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold through
Crate and Barrel stores and online at
http://www.crateandbarrel.comfrom February 2010 through April  
2010 for about $7.

Consumers should immediately stop using the candles and return
the product to any Crate and Barrel store for a full refund.  
Consumers who purchased the recalled candles through Crate and
Barrel's catalog or on the firm's Web site should contact Crate
and Barrel to arrange to return the candles for a full refund.  
For additional information, contact Crate and Barrel at (800)
451-8217 between 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., Central Time, Monday
through Sunday or visit the firm's website at
http://www.crateandbarrel.com


CROMPTON CORP: Notice of Modification to Class Action Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
A Federal Court has ordered that notice be given to those who
purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of Crompton
Corporation ("Crompton") during the period between October 26,
1998 and October 8, 2002, inclusive, including without limitation
all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
Crompton securities pursuant to the merger between Crompton &
Knowles Corporation and Witco Corporation and who were damaged
thereby (the "Class").

A modification to the settlement of the class action lawsuit, In
re Crompton Corp. Securities Litigation, No. 3:03 CV 1293 (EBB)
pending in the United States District Court for the District of
Connecticut (the "Lawsuit"), that may affect you has been
proposed. A proposed settlement of this Lawsuit, in the amount of
Twenty Million, Six Hundred and Fifty Thousand Dollars
($20,650,000), was publicized in early 2009. Before that
settlement was finalized, Chemtura Corporation ("Chemtura"),
Crompton's successor, filed for bankruptcy. As a result, this
Lawsuit was stayed pursuant to 11 U.S.C. section 362(a) of the
U.S. Bankruptcy Code, and, pursuant to 11 U.S.C. sections 547 and
550, the contribution to the original settlement made by the
Company was returned to it.

Lead Plaintiffs have elected to modify the settlement of the
Lawsuit and have agreed to accept the $11,357,500 Defendants paid
or caused to be paid from Chemtura's Directors & Officers
Insurance as full and final satisfaction of this Lawsuit (the
"Settlement").

Accordingly, the Lawsuit has been certified as a class action and
a settlement for Eleven Million, Three Hundred and Fifty Seven
Thousand, Five Hundred Dollars ($11,357,500) has been proposed. A
hearing will be held before the Honorable Ellen Bree Burns in the
United States District Court for the District of Connecticut at
the Richard C. Lee United States Courthouse, 141 Church Street,
New Haven, Connecticut 06510, Courtroom Three, at 10:00 a.m., on
August 17, 2010. At the hearing it will be determined whether:
(1) the settlement class conditionally certified should be
certified for all purposes; (2) the proposed Settlement and Plan
of Allocation should be approved by the Court as fair,
reasonable, and adequate; and (3) Co-Lead Counsel's application
for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses
should be approved.

Members of the Class described above, will have their rights
affected and may be entitled to share in the settlement fund.
Those who have not yet received the full printed Notice of
Modified Proposed Class Action Settlement and Rescheduling of
Fairness Hearing Due to Bankruptcy (the "Notice") and Proof of
Claim and Release form ("Proof of Claim"), may obtain copies of
these documents by visiting the settlement website at:

     http://www.CromptonSecuritiesSettlement.com/

or by contacting the Claims Administrator, Epiq Systems, at the
address and telephone number listed below.

The deadline to submit a Proof of Claim is September 24, 2010.

Those who previously submitted a Proof of Claim in connection
with the previous settlement of the Lawsuit and wish to
participate in the current Settlement, need not do anything else
at this time. As more fully described in the Notice, the deadline
for submitting objections and requests for exclusion is July 28,
2010. Class Members may still object to the Settlement or request
exclusion from the Class even if they previously submitted a
Proof of Claim in connection with the previous settlement.
Further information may be obtained by directing inquiries in
writing to the Claims Administrator, Epiq Systems, at the
following address:

          In re Crompton Corp. Securities Litigation
          c/o Epiq Systems
          Claims Administrator
          P.O. Box 4655
          Portland, OR 97208-4655
          Telephone: 866-840-0341


DEX ONE: Securities Class Action Suits Still Pending in Delaware
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dex One Corporation continues to defend itself from a series of
putative securities class actions lawsuits filed in Delaware,
according to the company's May 13, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2010.

Beginning on October 23, 2009, a series of putative securities
class action lawsuits were commenced in the United States
District Court for the District of Delaware on behalf of all
persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's
publicly traded securities between July 26, 2007 and the time the
Company filed for bankruptcy on May 28, 2009, alleging that
certain Company officers issued false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's business and financial condition and
seeking damages and equitable relief.  

The Company believes the allegations are without merit and
intends to vigorously defend any and all such actions pursued
against the Company and its current and former officers,
employees and directors.

Dex One Corporation -- http://www.DexOne.com/-- is a leading   
marketing services company that helps local businesses reach, win
and keep ready-to-buy customers.  The company's highly-skilled,
locally based marketing consultants offer a wide range of
marketing products and services that help businesses get found
more than 1.5 billion times each year by actively shopping
consumers.  The company offers local businesses personalized
marketing consulting services and exposure across a broad network
of local marketing products - including the company's "official"
print, online and mobile yellow pages and search solutions, as
well as major search engines.  



DEX ONE: Still Faces ERISA Class Action Lawsuit in Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------------
A putative ERISA class action lawsuit filed against Dex One
Corporation in Illinois remains pending, according to the
company's May 13, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2010.

On December 7, 2009, a putative ERISA class action lawsuit was
commenced in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois on behalf of certain participants in or
beneficiaries of the R.H. Donnelley 401(k) Savings Plan at any
time between July 26, 2007 and the time the lawsuit was filed and
whose plan accounts included investments in R.H. Donnelley common
stock.  The putative ERISA class action complaint contains
allegations against certain current and former Company directors,
officers and employees similar to those set forth in a putative
securities class action lawsuit in Delaware, which alleges that
certain Company officers issued false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's business and financial condition, as well
as allegations of breaches of fiduciary duties under ERISA and
seeks damages and equitable relief.

The Company believes the allegations are without merit and
intends to vigorously defend any and all such actions pursued
against the Company and its current and former officers,
employees and directors.

Dex One Corporation -- http://www.DexOne.com/-- is a leading   
marketing services company that helps local businesses reach, win
and keep ready-to-buy customers.  The company's highly-skilled,
locally based marketing consultants offer a wide range of
marketing products and services that help businesses get found
more than 1.5 billion times each year by actively shopping
consumers.  The company offers local businesses personalized
marketing consulting services and exposure across a broad network
of local marketing products - including the company's "official"
print, online and mobile yellow pages and search solutions, as
well as major search engines.  


DRESS BARN: Settlement Agreement Submitted to Delaware Court
------------------------------------------------------------
An agreement settling claims in a consolidated action over The
Dress Barn, Inc.'s merger with Tween Brands, Inc., has been
submitted to the Delaware Court of Chancery, according to the
company's June 3, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 24, 2010.

Tween Brands, the members of Tween Brands' board of directors
and, in certain of the lawsuits, Dress Barn, Dress Barn's chief
executive officer and/or Merger Sub, were named as defendants in
several purported class action lawsuits that were filed by Tween
Brands stockholders in either the Common Pleas Court of Franklin
County, Ohio or the Delaware Court of Chancery.

Plaintiff Clair Rand filed the first suit in Ohio on June 29,
2009, naming as defendants Tween Brands, its six directors, Dress
Barn, and its chief executive officer.

Plaintiff Sarah Elliott filed a similar suit in Ohio on July 8,
2009, naming as defendants only Tween Brands and its directors.  
Plaintiff Cheryl Dutiel filed a similar suit in Delaware on July
17, 2009, naming as defendants Tween Brands, its six directors,
Dress Barn, and Merger Sub.  Plaintiff Edward Hirsch filed a
similar suit in Ohio on Aug. 4, 2009, naming the same defendants
as plaintiff Dutiel.

Following the defendants' motions to stay the Ohio suits in favor
of the Delaware litigation, the three Ohio plaintiffs voluntarily
dismissed their suits and together filed a similar suit in the
Delaware Court of Chancery on Aug. 28, 2009, but did not include
Dress Barn or its chief executive officer as defendants.

Amended complaints have been filed in each of the two Delaware
actions.

The amended complaints allege, among other things, that Tween
Brands and its directors breached their fiduciary duties by
allegedly failing to obtain adequate consideration in the
proposed merger, agreeing to certain provisions in the merger
agreement, and issuing allegedly inadequate disclosure documents;
and (in the Dutiel complaint) that Dress Barn, by obtaining non-
public information about Tween Brands, aided and abetted the
Tween Brands directors' alleged breach in failing to obtain
adequate consideration for the merger.

The suits seek, among other things, to enjoin the consummation of
the merger.

The parties have engaged in initial discovery proceedings.

By letter decision dated Oct. 2, 2009, the Delaware Chancellor
consolidated the two Delaware actions and appointed lead
plaintiffs and lead counsel for plaintiffs.

All defendants and plaintiffs, through Plaintiffs' Lead Counsel,
reached an agreement in principle to settle the claims in all the
now-consolidated actions, subject to the approval of the Delaware
Court of Chancery.

Under the parties' agreement in principle:

     (i) the defendants will provide supplemental disclosures to
         stockholders, which are contained in the proxy
         statement/prospectus,

    (ii) the parties will present to the Delaware Court of
         Chancery a Stipulation of Settlement and any other
         necessary documents to obtain the prompt approval by
         the Court of the settlement and the dismissal with
         prejudice and release of all claims against all
         defendants held by the plaintiffs and class members,
         and

   (iii) plaintiffs' attorneys will make an application to the
         Court for an award of fees and expenses from
         defendants.

The settlement agreement was submitted on April 5, 2010 to the
Delaware Chancery Court.

The company anticipates that a settlement hearing will be held in
mid-June 2010.

The Dress Barn, Inc. -- http://www.dressbarn.com/-- operates  
women's apparel specialty stores, principally under the names
dressbarn, dressbarn woman and maurices.  As of July 25, 2009,
the Company operated 1,559 stores in 48 states and the District
of Columbia, including 684 dressbarn Combo stores (a combination
of its dressbarn and dressbarn woman brands), 721 maurices
stores, 120 dressbarn stores and 34 dressbarn woman stores.  Its
dressbarn stores are typically operated as Combo stores, offering
both dressbarn and larger-sized dressbarn woman merchandise.  The
Dress Barn, Inc. also operates stand-alone dressbarn and
dressbarn woman stores in certain markets. Its dressbarn brands
cater to 35 to 55 year-old women, sizes 4 to 24.  The dressbarn
stores offer in-season and casual fashion located primarily in
convenient strip shopping centers in major trading and markets
and surrounding suburban areas.  As of July 25, 2009, the company
operated 1,559 stores in 48 states and the District of Columbia.


DRESS BARN: Wage & Hour Suit Against Tween in Preliminary Stages
----------------------------------------------------------------
A wage and hour lawsuit against Tween Brands, Inc., remains in
its preliminary stages.

Tween Brands is a subsidiary of The Dress Barn, Inc.

The suit was filed on Jan. 21, 2010, in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of California.  The purported class
action alleges, among other things, that Tween Brands violated
the Fair Labor Standards Act by not properly paying its employees
for overtime and missed rest breaks.

This wage and hour lawsuit is in its preliminary stages.  Tween
Brands is investigating the claims made in the lawsuit.

No further updates were reported in The Dress Barn, Inc.'s
June 3, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 24, 2010.

The Dress Barn, Inc. -- http://www.dressbarn.com/-- operates  
women's apparel specialty stores, principally under the names
dressbarn, dressbarn woman and maurices.  As of July 25, 2009,
the Company operated 1,559 stores in 48 states and the District
of Columbia, including 684 dressbarn Combo stores (a combination
of its dressbarn and dressbarn woman brands), 721 maurices
stores, 120 dressbarn stores and 34 dressbarn woman stores.  Its
dressbarn stores are typically operated as Combo stores, offering
both dressbarn and larger-sized dressbarn woman merchandise.  The
Dress Barn, Inc. also operates stand-alone dressbarn and
dressbarn woman stores in certain markets. Its dressbarn brands
cater to 35 to 55 year-old women, sizes 4 to 24.  The dressbarn
stores offer in-season and casual fashion located primarily in
convenient strip shopping centers in major trading and markets
and surrounding suburban areas.  As of July 25, 2009, the company
operated 1,559 stores in 48 states and the District of Columbia.


DRESS BARN: Tween Agrees to Settle California Suit
--------------------------------------------------
Tween Brands, Inc., has entered into a settlement to resolve a
consolidated suit in California, according to The Dress Barn,
Inc.'s June 3, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 24, 2010.

Tween Brands is a subsidiary of Dress Barn.

Between November 2008 and October 2009, Tween Brands was sued in
three purported class action lawsuits alleging that Tween Brands'
telephone capture practice in California violated the Song-
Beverly Credit Card Act, which protects consumers from having to
provide personal information as a condition to a credit card
transaction.

All three cases were consolidated in California state court.

A mediation was held in January 2010.

The parties have agreed in principle to a settlement and have a
settlement hearing scheduled for mid-June of 2010 for preliminary
court approval.

The Dress Barn, Inc. -- http://www.dressbarn.com/-- operates  
women's apparel specialty stores, principally under the names
dressbarn, dressbarn woman and maurices.  As of July 25, 2009,
the Company operated 1,559 stores in 48 states and the District
of Columbia, including 684 dressbarn Combo stores (a combination
of its dressbarn and dressbarn woman brands), 721 maurices
stores, 120 dressbarn stores and 34 dressbarn woman stores.  Its
dressbarn stores are typically operated as Combo stores, offering
both dressbarn and larger-sized dressbarn woman merchandise.  The
Dress Barn, Inc. also operates stand-alone dressbarn and
dressbarn woman stores in certain markets. Its dressbarn brands
cater to 35 to 55 year-old women, sizes 4 to 24.  The dressbarn
stores offer in-season and casual fashion located primarily in
convenient strip shopping centers in major trading and markets
and surrounding suburban areas.  As of July 25, 2009, the company
operated 1,559 stores in 48 states and the District of Columbia.


DYNAMEX INC: Certification Hearing Scheduled for July 19
--------------------------------------------------------
A further certification hearing will be held on July 19, 2010, in
a purported labor class-action lawsuit against Dynamex, Inc.,
according to the company's June 4, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
April 30, 2010.

A company driver filed the suit on April 15, 2005.  The lawsuit
alleges that the company unlawfully misclassified its California
drivers as independent contractors, rather than as employees.

The suit asserted, as a consequence, entitlement on behalf of the
purported class claimants to overtime compensation and other
benefits under California wage and hour laws, reimbursement of
certain operating expenses, and various insurance and other
benefits and the obligation of the company to pay employer
payroll taxes under federal and state law.

The plaintiff filed a motion for class certification on Nov. 2,
2006.  A hearing was held on Dec. 12, 2006, and the court denied
this request.  The plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal on Jan. 5,
2007.

Following the exchange of briefs, an Appellate Hearing was held
in August 2008.  The Appellate Court determined that the trial
court's denial of an earlier motion by the plaintiff to compel
disclosure of the names and contact information for all members
of the putative class prejudiced the plaintiff's ability to
support his motion for class certification.

The ruling reversed the Denial of the Motion for Class
Certification and remanded the matter for additional discovery
and eventual re-hearing.

Pursuant to Order of the Court, the names and contact information
for members of the putative class were produced by
the company in January 2009.

In early February 2009, Plaintiff was permitted to file a First
Amended Complaint, which among other matters, added an
additional named Plaintiff.

Plaintiffs filed a new Motion for Class Certification in June
2009, seeking the certification of a Class with four Subclasses,
each dependent on the type of service rendered by the independent
contractor and the weight of the vehicle provided by the
independent contractor.  On July 28, 2009, the Court granted the
Motion.  The four subclasses are each subject to between four and
eight exclusions.

Plaintiffs proposed a Notice of Pendency of Class Action to be
sent to members of the Class.  The Court approved the Notice over
the Company's objections in early October.

In January 2010, the Parties agreed to a process whereby the
Court modified its earlier Order granting certification of a
Class to clarify that the earlier Order "conditionally" granted
Certification.  The Order initiated a process whereby a
questionnaire was to be sent by an impartial Class Administrator
to each potential member of the Class to gather information.

As a part of the process, the Court would dismiss from the Class
those individuals who failed to respond to the questionnaire
within the allotted time.  Incomplete or deficient questionnaires
could be cured through written or telephonic inquiry by the Class
Administrator.

As of April 30, 2010, approximately 250 questionnaires had been
returned.  A further certification hearing will be held on July
19, 2010, and a tentative trial date has been set for September
27, 2010.

Dynamex, Inc. -- http://www.dynamex.com/-- is a provider of  
same-day delivery and logistics services in the U.S. and Canada.
Through its network of business centers, the company provides
same-day, on-demand, door-to-door delivery services utilizing its
ground couriers.


GAMING PARTNERS: Kaplan's Appeal on Dismissal Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
The appeal of Robert Kaplan on the dismissal of his lawsuit
against Gaming Partners International Corporation, et al.,
remains pending, according to the company's May 13, 2010, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

On June 27, 2007, a putative class action complaint alleging
violations of federal securities laws based on alleged
misstatements and omissions by the Company, entitled Robert J.
Kaplan v. Gerard P. Charlier, Paul S. Dennis, Eric P. Endy, Alain
Thieffry, Elisabeth Carrette, Robert J. Kelly, Charles R. Henry,
Laura McAllister Cox and Gaming Partners International
Corporation was filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Nevada, under Case No. 2:07-cv-00849-LDG-GWF.
Plaintiff Kaplan has been designated by the court as "Lead
Plaintiff."

On February 12, 2008, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint,
deleting several of the above named defendants, and adding three
others. The action is now captioned Robert J. Kaplan v. Gerard P.
Charlier, Melody J. Sullivan a/k/a Melody Sullivan Yowell, David
Grimes, Charles T. McCullough, Eric P. Endy, Elisabeth Carrette
and Gaming Partners International Corporation.  

The Company engaged counsel and intends to vigorously defend
against the claims presented.  Defendants filed a Motion to
Dismiss the Complaint on April 16, 2008. Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss was thereafter granted and an Order was entered
dismissing the Amended Complaint without prejudice on
November 18, 2008.

Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint on January 9, 2009.
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint was
filed on February 27, 2009. On September 28, 2009, Defendants'
motion was granted and judgment dismissing the Second Amended
Complaint with prejudice was entered on September 29, 2009.

On October 29, 2009, Plaintiff filed his Notice of Appeal of the
Court's judgment to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. All
briefings have been concluded and the matter awaits further
action by the Court.

Gaming Partners International Corp. -- http://www.gpigaming.com/  
-- manufactures and supplies casino table game equipment.  The
Company's business activities include the manufacture and/or
supply of gaming chips, table layouts, wheels, playing cards,
dice, gaming furniture and miscellaneous table accessories,
which are used in conjunction with casino table games, such as
blackjack, poker, baccarat, craps and roulette.  It has three
subsidiaries: Gaming Partners International USA, Inc. (GPI USA),
Gaming Partners International SAS (GPI SAS) and GPI Mexicana
S.A. de C.V. (GPI Mexicana).  GPIC's products are sold to
licensed casinos primarily in the United States and Canada,
under the brand names Paulson, Bourgogne et Grasset (B&G), Bud
Jones and T-K.  The Company has existing production facilities
in Las Vegas, Nevada; San Luis Rio Colorado, Mexico, and Beaune,
France.


GENTA INC: Collins Plaintiffs' Appeal on Dismissal Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
The appeal of the plaintiffs in the matter Collins v. Warrell, on
the dismissal of their lawsuit remains pending, according to
Genta Incorporated's May 13, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March
31, 2010.

In September 2008, several stockholders, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, filed a class action complaint
against the Company, the Board of Directors, and certain of its
executive officers in Superior Court of New Jersey, captioned
Collins v. Warrell, Docket No. L-3046-08.  The complaint alleged
that in issuing convertible notes in June 2008, the Board of
Directors and certain officers breached their fiduciary duties,
and the Company aided and abetted the breach of fiduciary duty.


On March 20, 2009, the Superior Court of New Jersey granted the
Company's motion to dismiss the class action complaint and
dismissed the complaint with prejudice.  

On April 30, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with
the Appellate Division. On May 13, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a
motion for relief from judgment based on a claim of new evidence,
which was denied on June 12, 2009. The plaintiffs also asked the
Appellate Division for a temporary remand to permit the Superior
Court judge to resolve the issues of the new evidence plaintiffs
sought to raise and the Appellate Division granted the motion for
temporary remand.

Following the briefing and a hearing, the Superior Court denied
the motion for relief from judgment on August 28, 2009. Thus,
this matter proceeded in the Appellate Division. Plaintiffs'
brief before the Appellate Division was filed on October 28,
2009, and the Company's responsive brief was filed on
January 27, 2010.  The plaintiffs' reply brief was filed on March
15, 2010.

The Company is currently awaiting a decision from the Appellate
Division on this matter.  At this time, the Company cannot
estimate when the Appellate Division will rule on the appeal.

Berkeley Heights, New Jersey, Genta Incorporated (OTCBB: GETA.OB)
-- http://www.genta.com/-- is a biopharmaceutical company with a  
diversified product portfolio that is focused on delivering
innovative products for the treatment of patients with cancer.


GSI GROUP: Approval of Settlement Agreement Remains Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
The approval of a settlement agreement entered into by GSI Group,
Inc., to resolve a putative shareholder class action in
connection with the delayed filing of its financial results
remains pending, according to the company's June 4, 2010, Form 8-
K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

In December 2008, a shareholder class action complaint was filed
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts
against the company and two former officers.

The complaint asserts claims under the federal securities laws,
specifically Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act,
relating to the restatement of our financial results for 2006,
2007, and the first two quarters of 2008.

The complaint alleges that the company issued a series of false
or misleading statements to the market concerning its revenues,
earnings, and financial condition.  The plaintiffs contend that
such statements caused the company's stock price to be
artificially inflated and seek unspecified damages.

In May 2010, we reached an agreement in principle to settle the
litigation subject to confirmatory discovery and approval of the
court.

GSI Group, Inc. -- http://www.gsig.com/-- develops and delivers  
the enabling technology solutions that bring our customers'
advanced manufacturing applications to life.  The company's
leading brands include precision motion products, lasers, and
laser systems, and are used to boost efficiency and productivity
in the global medical, semiconductor, electronics, and industrial
markets.


HUFFY CORP: Fairness Hearing Scheduled for Oct. 8, 2010
-------------------------------------------------------
                    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                      SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
                      WESTERN DIVISION (DAYTON)


In re                             )
                                  )  Lead Case No. 3:05cv0028
HUFFY CORPORATION SECURITIES      )
LITIGATION                        )  CLASS ACTION
                                  )
This Document Relates To:         )  Judge Walter Herbert Rice
                                  )  Magistrate Judge Ovington
ALL ACTIONS.                      )

                            SUMMARY NOTICE

TO: ALL PERSONS AND ENTITIES WHO PURCHASED HUFFY CORPORATION
    ("HUFFY") PUBLICLY-TRADED SECURITIES DURING THE PERIOD
    BETWEEN APRIL 16, 2002 AND AUGUST 13, 2004, INCLUSIVE

YOU ARE NOTIFIED that pursuant to an Order of the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Western
Division (Dayton), a hearing will be held on October 8, 2010, at
9:00 a.m., before the Honorable Senior United States District
Judge, Walter Herbert Rice, at the United States Courthouse and
Federal Building, Room 909, 200 West Second Street, Dayton, Ohio
45402, for the purpose of determining: (1) whether the proposed
settlement of the Litigation for the sum of Eight Million Dollars
($8,000,000) in cash should be approved by the Court as fair,
reasonable, and adequate; (2) whether this Litigation should be
dismissed with prejudice against the Defendants as set forth in
the Stipulation of Settlement Agreement and Release
("Stipulation") dated May 12, 2010; (3) whether the Plan of
Allocation of settlement proceeds should be approved as fair,
reasonable, and adequate; and (4) the reasonableness of the Fee
and Expense Application of Lead Counsel, and the reimbursement of
time and expenses to Lead Plaintiffs.

If you purchased Huffy publicly-traded securities between April
16, 2002 and August 13, 2004, inclusive, your rights may be
affected by this Litigation and the settlement of this
Litigation.  If you have not received a detailed Notice of
Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class Action and a copy of
the Proof of Claim and Release, you may obtain copies by writing
to:

          Huffy Securities Litigation
          Claims Administrator
          c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC
          P.O. Box 990
          Corte Madera, CA 94976-0990

by calling toll-free telephone 1-866-246-0928, by sending an
email to classact@gilardi.com or by downloading this information
at http://www.gilardi.com/

If you are a Class Member, in order to share in the distribution
of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof of Claim and
Release postmarked no later than September 13, 2010, establishing
that you are entitled to a recovery.  You will be bound by any
judgment rendered in the Litigation unless you request to be
excluded, in writing, to the above address, by September 8, 2010.
Any objection to the settlement must be filed with the Court and
received by counsel listed below no later than September 8, 2010.

          Ellen Gusikoff Stewart, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101

               Counsel for Lead Plaintiffs

               - and -  

          D. Jeffrey Ireland, Esq.
          FARUKI IRELAND & COX P.L.L.
          500 Courthouse Plaza, S.W.
          10 North Ludlow Street
          Dayton, OH 45402

               Counsel for Defendants

               PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE
                CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING THIS NOTICE.

     Dated: June 4, 2010          BY ORDER OF THE COURT


INTERNATIONAL GAME: Motion to Consolidate Cases Still Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
A motion to consolidate two class action lawsuits, captioned
Carr, et al., v. International Game Technology, et al., and
Jordan, et al., v. International Game Technology, et al., remains
pending, according to International Game Technology's May 13,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended April 3, 2010.

On October 2, 2009, two putative class action lawsuits were filed
on behalf of participants in the Company's employee pension
plans, naming as defendants the Company, the IGT Profit Sharing
Plan Committee, and several current and former officers and
directors.  The complaints (which seek unspecified damages)
allege breaches of fiduciary duty under the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C Sections 1109 and 1132. The
complaints allege similar facts as the securities class action
lawsuit.  The complaints further allege that the defendants
breached fiduciary duties to Plan Participants by failing to
disclose material facts to Plan Participants, failing to exercise
their fiduciary duties solely in the interest of the
Participants, failing to properly manage Plan assets, failing to
diversify Plan assets, and permitting Participants to elect to
invest in Company stock.

The actions, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Nevada, are captioned Carr et al. v. International Game
Technology et al., Case No. 3:09-cv-00584, and Jordan et al. v.
International Game Technology et al., Case No. 3:09-cv-00585.

In October 2009, plaintiffs moved for consolidation of the two
actions which motion is currently pending. Defendants need not
respond until the Court rules on the consolidation motion.

International Game Technology -- https://www.igt.com/ -- is a
global gaming company specializing in the design, manufacture,
and marketing of electronic gaming equipment and systems
products.  IGT maintains an array of entertainment-inspired
gaming product lines. In addition to its United States production
facilities in Nevada, it manufactures gaming products in the
United Kingdom, and through third-party manufacturers in Japan
and China.  The company derives its revenues from the
distribution of electronic gaming equipment, systems, services
and licensing.  It operates in two segments: North America and
International. North America consists of its operations in the
United States and Canada, comprising 77% of consolidated revenues
during the fiscal year ended October 3, 2009 (fiscal 2009).  
International consists of its operations in all other
jurisdictions worldwide, comprising 23% of consolidated revenues
during fiscal 2009.  In January 2009, it acquired Progressive
Gaming International Corporation.


KADANT INC: Pursues Alternative Dispute Solution on Class Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kadant Inc. is pursuing potential alternative dispute resolution
in connection with the consumer class actions filed in the United
States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, where
Kadant is a co-defendant, 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 3, 2010.

The company was named as a co-defendant, together with Composites
LLC and another defendant, in a consumer class action lawsuit
filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts on December 27, 2007, on behalf of a putative class
of individuals who own GeoDeck(TM) decking or railing products
manufactured by Composites LLC between April 2002 and October
2003.

The complaint purported to assert, among other things, causes of
action for unfair and deceptive trade practices, fraud,
negligence, breach of warranty and unjust enrichment, and it
sought compensatory damages and punitive damages under various
state consumer protection statutes.

The District Court dismissed the complaint against all defendants
in its entirety on November 19, 2008.  On March 3, 2009, the
District Court denied the plaintiffs' post-judgment motions to
vacate the order of dismissal and amend the complaint.  The
plaintiffs appealed the District Court's denial of these motions
to the U.S. First Circuit Court of Appeals, which affirmed the
District Court's ruling on December 23, 2009.  The plaintiffs
petitioned the U. S. First Circuit Court of Appeals for a
rehearing en banc, which was denied on February 2, 2010.

The company was also named as a co-defendant in seven state class
action complaints filed on behalf of individuals who own
GeoDeck(TM) decking or railing products manufactured by
Composites LLC between April 2002 and October 2003.

On April 23, 2010, the parties to the litigation agreed to
voluntarily dismiss without prejudice the pending state class
actions, subject to a 60-day tolling agreement, while the parties
pursue potential alternative dispute resolution or other
settlement of these matters.

To date, the parties have filed dismissals in the litigation
pending in the state courts of Colorado, Connecticut,
Massachusetts, New York and New Mexico, and have anticipated that
the plaintiffs will also move to dismiss the complaints pending
in Maryland and Washington state courts, which have not been
served on the company.

The company said that there can be no assurance that the parties
to the state court matters will reach a resolution on terms
satisfactory to the parties, or that the plaintiffs will not file
new complaints in the named states or other states, following the
expiration of the 60-day tolling period.  

Kadant Inc. -- http://www.kadant.com/-- is a supplier of  
equipment used in the global papermaking and paper recycling
industries.  The company also manufactures granules made from
papermaking byproducts.  The company's operations consist of one
operating segment, Pulp and Papermaking Systems (Papermaking
Systems), and two separate product lines reported in Other
Businesses, which include Fiber-based Products and, until its
sale in April 2007, Casting Products. Its Papermaking Systems
segment develops, manufactures and markets equipment for the
global papermaking and paper recycling industries.


LABRANCHE & CO: Appellate Court Denies Reconsideration Motion
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has denied
LaBranche & Co Inc.'s motion for reconsideration of the
permission to appeal the class certification order in the matter
In re NYSE Specialists Securities Litigation.

On or about Oct. 16, 2003, through Dec. 16, 2003, four purported
class action lawsuits were brought by persons or entities who
purchased and/or sold shares of stocks of NYSE listed companies.  
The suits are:

     (1) Pirelli v. LaBranche & Co Inc., et al., No. 03 CV 8264,

     (2) Marcus v. LaBranche & Co Inc., et al., No. 03 CV 8521,

     (3) Empire v. LaBranche & Co Inc., et al., No. 03 CV 8935,
         and

     (4) California Public Employees' Retirement System
         (CalPERS) v. New York Stock Exchange, Inc., et al.,
         No. 03 CV 9968.

On March 11, 2004, a fifth action asserting similar claims,
Rosenbaum Partners, LP v. New York Stock Exchange, Inc., et al.,
No. 04 CV 2038, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York by an individual plaintiff who does
not allege to represent a class.

On May 27, 2004, the court consolidated these lawsuits under the
caption In re NYSE Specialists Securities Litigation, No. CV
8264. The court named the following lead plaintiffs: California
Public Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS) and Empire
Programs, Inc.

On Sept. 15, 2004, plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Complaint for
Violation of the Federal Securities Laws and Breach of Fiduciary
Duty alleging that they represent a class consisting of all
public investors who purchased and/or sold shares of stock listed
on the NYSE from Oct. 17, 1998, to Oct. 15, 2003.

Plaintiffs allege that the company, LaBranche & Co. LLC, Mr.
LaBranche, other NYSE specialist firms, including Bear Wagner
Specialists LLC, Fleet Specialist, Inc., SIG Specialists, Inc.,
Spear, Leeds & Kellogg Specialists LLC, Performance Specialist
Group, LLC and Van der Moolen Specialists USA, LLC, and certain
parents and affiliates of those firms, and the NYSE, violated
Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by failing to disclose alleged improper specialist
trading that was the subject of the specialist trading
investigations described above, improperly profiting on purchases
and/or sales of NYSE listed securities, and breaching and/or
aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary duty.

Section 20(a) control person claims also are alleged, including
against us, LaBranche & Co. LLC and Mr. LaBranche.
Plaintiffs seek unspecified money damages, restitution,
forfeiture of fees, commissions and other compensation, equitable
and/or injunctive relief, including an accounting and the
imposition of a constructive trust and/or asset freeze on trading
proceeds, and attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses.

On Dec. 12, 2005, motions to dismiss were granted in part and
denied in part.  The court dismissed plaintiffs' Section 10(b)
and Section 20(a) claims against all defendants for conduct that
occurred before Jan. 1, 1999, and dismissed plaintiffs' breach of
fiduciary duty claims against all defendants.  The court also
dismissed all claims against the NYSE and certain claims against
certain parents and affiliates of specialists other than
LaBranche & Co. LLC.

On Feb. 2, 2006, plaintiffs filed an Amended Consolidated
Complaint for Violation of the Federal Securities Laws and Breach
of Fiduciary Duty, adding Robert A. Martin as a plaintiff.  This
complaint is otherwise identical to plaintiffs' Consolidated
Complaint for Violation of the Federal Securities Laws and Breach
of Fiduciary Duty.

On Feb. 22, 2007, the court removed Empire Programs, Inc. as co-
lead plaintiff, leaving CalPERS as the sole lead plaintiff.

On Feb. 23, 2006, the company, LaBranche & Co. LLC, Mr. LaBranche
and the other defendants in the case filed answers to plaintiffs'
Amended Consolidated Complaint for Violation of the Federal
Securities Laws and Breach of Fiduciary Duty, denying liability
and asserting affirmative defenses.

On June 28, 2007, CalPERS moved for class certification of "[a]11
persons and entities who submitted orders (directly or through
agents) to purchase or sell NYSE-listed securities between
January 1, 1999 and October 15, 2003, which orders were listed on
the specialists' display book and subsequently disadvantaged by
defendants," and for the certification of CalPERS and Market
Street Securities Inc. as class representatives.

On Sept. 18, 2007, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit reinstated certain of the claims against the NYSE that
previously had been dismissed.

On March 14, 2009, the court granted CalPERS' motion for class
certification.

On April 13, 2009, the company, LaBranche & Co. LLC, Mr.
LaBranche and the other specialist firm defendants and their
affiliates filed a petition in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23(f), for permission to appeal the class certification order.

On Oct. 1, 2009, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
denied the petition, and, on Oct. 21, 2009, the company,
LaBranche & Co. LLC, Mr. LaBranche and the other specialist firm
defendants and their affiliates filed a motion for
reconsideration.  On Feb. 24, 2010, the Second Circuit denied
this motion for reconsideration.

On Oct. 5, 2009, CalPERS and the NYSE informed the court that
they had agreed to settle all claims against the NYSE.

On or about March 31, 2010, CalPERS and the NYSE submitted a
stipulation of settlement to the Court, not involving any money
payment by the NYSE to CalPERS.  On April 2, the Court approved
this settlement, and on April 6, 2010 the Court entered a final
judgment dismissing CalPERS's claims against the NYSE with
prejudice, 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.

LaBranche & Co Inc. is the parent of LaBranche Structured
Holdings, Inc., whose subsidiaries are market-makers in options,
exchange-traded funds and futures on various exchanges
domestically and internationally and LaBranche Financial
Services, LLC, which provides securities execution, fixed income
and brokerage services to institutional investors.


LIMITED BRANDS: Defends Suit by IBEW Local 697 in Ohio
------------------------------------------------------
Limited Brands, Inc., defends a class action captioned
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 697 Pension
Fund v. Limited Brands, Inc. et al., filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Ohio, according to the
company's June 3, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended May 1, 2010.

The suit was filed on Nov. 6, 2009, against the company and
certain of its officers on behalf of a purported class of all
persons who purchased or acquired shares of Limited Brands common
stock between Aug. 22, 2007 and Feb. 28, 2008.

Limited Brands, Inc. -- http://www.limitedbrands.com/-- is a  
specialty retailer of women's intimate and other apparel, beauty
and personal care products and accessories under various trade
names.  The company sells its merchandise through the retail
stores in the United States and Canada, which are primarily mall-
based, and through its Websites and catalogues.  As of Jan. 31,
2009, the company conducted business in two segments: Victoria's
Secret and Bath & Body Works.


LIVEDEAL INC: 2008 Consumer Fraud Class Suit Still Ongoing  
----------------------------------------------------------
Litigation of Global Education Services Inc.'s consumer fraud
class action lawsuit against LiveDeal, Inc., is still ongoing,
according to LiveDeal's May 14, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2010.  

On June 6, 2008, Global Education Services, Inc., filed a
consumer fraud class action lawsuit against the Company in King
County (Washington) Superior Court.  GES has alleged in its
complaint that the Company's use of activator checks violated the
Washington Consumer Protection Act.  GES is seeking injunctive
relief against the Company's use of the checks, as well as a
judgment in an amount equal to three times the alleged damages
sustained by GES and the members of the class.  LiveDeal has
denied the allegations.  The Court denied both parties'
dispositive motions.  

LiveDeal, Inc. -- http://www.livedeal.com/-- delivers best of   
breed local customer acquisition services for small and medium-
sized businesses combined with a classified and Internet Yellow
Pages directory platform technology to deliver an affordable way
for businesses to extend their marketing reach to local, relevant
customers via the Internet.  Through its online property,
LiveDeal delivers local search engine marketing (SEM) through its
LiveAdvisor(TM) and LiveClicks(TM) products that combine best-of-
breed technology with a strong partnership model and an inside
sales team to create an efficient platform local businesses need
to create and optimize their Internet search advertising
campaigns.  Livedeal partners with Google, Yahoo!, MSN, ASK,
Miva, Looksmart, Superpages.com and others. LiveDeal, Inc., is
headquartered in Las Vegas, Nevada.


LORAL SPACE: Appeal to Summary Judgment in "Beleson" Withdrawn
--------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Beleson and Harvey Matcovsky have withdrawn their appeal
on the summary judgment entered by the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York in favor of Bernard L.
Schwartz, according to Loral Space & Communications Inc.'s May
10, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

In August 2003, plaintiffs Robert Beleson and Harvey Matcovsky
filed a purported class action complaint against Bernard L.
Schwartz, the former Chief Executive Officer of Loral Space &
Communications Ltd. (Old Loral), in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York.

The complaint sought, among other things, damages in an
unspecified amount and reimbursement of plaintiffs' reasonable
costs and expenses.  The complaint alleged:

     (a) that Mr. Schwartz violated Section 10(b) of the
         Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
         promulgated thereunder, by making material
         misstatements or failing to state material facts about
         the company's financial condition relating to the sale
         of assets by Old Loral to Intelsat and Old Loral's
         chapter 11 filing; and

     (b) that Mr. Schwartz is secondarily liable for these
         alleged misstatements and omissions under Section 20(a)
         of the Exchange Act as an alleged "controlling person"
         of Old Loral.

The class of plaintiffs on whose behalf the lawsuit has been
asserted consists of all buyers of Old Loral common stock during
the period from June 30, 2003 through July 15, 2003, excluding
the defendant and certain persons related to or affiliated with
him.

In November 2003, three other complaints against Mr. Schwartz
with substantially similar allegations were consolidated into the
Beleson case.  The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment
in July 2008, and plaintiffs filed a cross-motion for partial
summary judgment in September 2008.

In February 2009, the court granted defendant's motion and denied
plaintiffs' cross motion.

In March 2009, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with respect
to the court's decision.

In February 2010, pursuant to a stipulation among the parties and
the plaintiffs in the suit filed by Tony Christ, the appeal,
which has been consolidated with the Christ case, was withdrawn,
provided however, that plaintiffs may reinstate the appeal on or
before May 21, 2010.

Loral Space & Communications Inc. -- http://www.loral.com/-- is  
a satellite communications company.  It owns and operates a fleet
of telecommunications satellites used to broadcast video
entertainment programming, distribute broadband data, and provide
access to Internet services and other value-added communications
services.  Loral also is a world-class leader in the design and
manufacture of satellites and satellite systems for commercial
and government applications including direct-to-home television,
broadband communications, wireless telephony, weather monitoring
and air traffic management.


LORAL SPACE: Objections to Settlement in "Christ" Suit Withdrawn
----------------------------------------------------------------
The objection of certain class members to the approved settlement
agreement in a purported class action complaint against Bernard
L. Schwartz and Richard J. Townsend has been withdrawn, according
to Loral Space & Communications Inc.'s
May 10, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.  

In November 2003, plaintiffs Tony Christ, individually and as
custodian for Brian and Katelyn Christ, Casey Crawford, Thomas
Orndorff and Marvin Rich, filed a purported class action
complaint against Bernard L. Schwartz, the former Chief Executive
Officer and Richard J. Townsend, the former Chief Financial
Officer, of Loral Space & Communications Ltd. (Old Loral), in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The complaint sought, among other things, damages in an
unspecified amount and reimbursement of plaintiffs' reasonable
costs and expenses.  The complaint alleged (a) that defendants
violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, by making material misstatements or
failing to state material facts about Old Loral's financial
condition relating to the restatement in 2003 of the financial
statements for the second and third quarters of 2002 to correct
accounting for certain general and administrative expenses and
the alleged improper accounting for a satellite transaction with
APT Satellite Company Ltd. and (b) that each of the defendants is
secondarily liable for these alleged misstatements and omissions
under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act as an alleged
"controlling person" of Old Loral.

The class of plaintiffs on whose behalf the lawsuit has been
asserted consists of all buyers of Old Loral common stock during
the period from July 31, 2002 through June 29, 2003, excluding
the defendants and certain persons related to or affiliated with
them.

In September 2008, the parties entered into an agreement to
settle the case, pursuant to which a settlement will be funded
entirely by Old Loral's directors and officers liability insurer,
and Loral will not be required to make any contribution toward
the settlement.

By order dated February 26, 2009, the court finally approved the
settlement as fair, reasonable and adequate and in the best
interests of the class.

Certain class members objected to the settlement and filed a
notice of appeal, and other class members, who together had class
period purchases valued at approximately $550,000, elected to opt
out of the class action settlement and commenced individual
lawsuits against the defendants.

In August 2009, the objecting and opt-out class members entered
into an agreement with the defendants to settle their claims,
pursuant to which a settlement will be funded entirely by Old
Loral's directors and officers liability insurer, and Loral will
not be required to make any contribution toward the settlement.

In addition, in March 2009, at the time that they filed a notice
of appeal with respect to the decision in the suit filed by
Robert Beleson and Harvey Matcovsky (Beleson), the plaintiffs in
the Beleson case also filed a notice of appeal with respect to
the court's decision approving the Christ settlement, arguing
that the Christ settlement impairs the rights of the Beleson
class.

This appeal has been consolidated with the appeal in the Beleson
case and, pursuant to a stipulation entered into in February 2010
among the parties and the plaintiffs in the Beleson case, was
withdrawn, provided, however, that the Beleson plaintiffs may
reinstate the appeal on or before May 21, 2010.

Loral Space & Communications Inc. -- http://www.loral.com/-- is  
a satellite communications company.  It owns and operates a fleet
of telecommunications satellites used to broadcast video
entertainment programming, distribute broadband data, and provide
access to Internet services and other value-added communications
services.  Loral also is a world-class leader in the design and
manufacture of satellites and satellite systems for commercial
and government applications including direct-to-home television,
broadband communications, wireless telephony, weather monitoring
and air traffic management.


MARYLAND: Ground Lease Holder Class Certified by Trial Court
------------------------------------------------------------
Andrea F. Siegel at The Baltimore Sun reports that an Anne
Arundel County, Md., judge has certified ground lease holders as
a class of plaintiffs in the legal challenge to the 2007 ground
rent reform laws, opening up the possibility that thousands of
ground lease owners could seek several hundred million dollars
from the state if they win their case.

The lawsuit claims the legislation made ground rent leases
worthless, amounting to an unconstitutional seizure of private
property for public use without compensation to the lease
holders. In addition to seeking payment from the state, the
lawsuit argues that the laws are unconstitutional.

Anne Arundel County Circuit Judge Paul F. Harris Jr. issued his
ruling creating a class on May 24.

"The significance of it is that now we speak on behalf of all of
the lease holders," said Edward J. Meehan, lawyer for the
plaintiffs who filed suit two and one-half years ago.

"We now speak for everybody, not just a few plaintiffs," he said.

Exactly how many people that might be is unclear. The number of
ground leases is unknown, but is estimated to be between 116,000
and 212,000. Their value could exceed $400 million. In these
leases, thousands of homeowners in Baltimore City and Baltimore
and Anne Arundel counties pay rent on the land beneath their
homes, unless they buy out the leases from the land owner.

Raquel Guillory, spokeswoman for the Attorney General's Office,
which is representing the state, said the office would not
comment on the pending case.

The ground rent system dates to Colonial times. Under the old
laws, a ground lease holder could eject a tenant, seize the
house, sell it and keep the proceeds if ground rent was not paid.
The General Assembly adopted new laws in the spring of 2007 in
the wake of a series of articles in The Baltimore Sun that showed
that a small group of investors had used the old laws to seize
hundreds of houses in Baltimore when pittances in rent went
unpaid.

The reform bills abolished the legal process used to seize homes,
banned the creation of new ground rents and mandated that ground
lease holders register their leases with the state by September
or lose them.

But the lawsuit maintains that the new laws created a process
that makes collecting unpaid ground rents uneconomical, turns
what was once a fairly safe investment worthless, and has the
state meddling in the contract between a lease holder and tenant.

The registry is the subject of a separate legal challenge.

In the spring, lawyers for the state, arguing that lease
situations vary, had told Harris they wanted to investigate
further to find out whether a class should be certified.

But in his five-page ruling, Harris sided with the plaintiffs. He
wrote that their general claims rely on arguing that the new laws
have "drastically lowered the value of a particular type of real
property interest."

The "case boils down to the contention that, by making it much
harder, and in fact uneconomical, for owners of ground leaseholds
to enforce, if need be, their right to collect ground rent, the
State, in enacting the statutory scheme in question, has
effectively gutted the value of ground leaseholds throughout
Maryland," Harris wrote.

All lease holders will have the opportunity to opt out of the
class.  No trial date has been set.  However, in November, three
years after the lawsuit was filed, Harris is scheduled to hear
more pretrial motions.


MILLIPORE CORP: Proposed Merck Acquisition Results in 2 Actions
---------------------------------------------------------------
Two putative shareholder class actions have been filed in
Massachusetts challenging the proposed acquisition of Millipore
Corporation by Merck KGaA, 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 3, 2010.

The lawsuits named Millipore Corporation, Merck, Sub and certain
officers and directors of Millipore as defendants.

The first case is Elliot v. Millipore Corporation, et al., No.
10-0853, filed March 2, 2010, and the second case is United Union
of Roofers, Waterproofers and Allied Workers Local Union No. 8 v.
Millipore Corporation et al., No. 10-0855 , filed March 4, 2010.

The complaints, which are similar, allege claims for breach of
fiduciary duty against the individual defendants and for aiding
and abetting a breach of fiduciary duty against the corporate
defendants.  The complaints seek equitable relief including an
order enjoining the exchange.

The complaints generally allege that the consideration offered in
the proposed transaction is inadequate and the process through
which the proposed transaction was approved was unfair.  The
plaintiff in United Union of Roofers has notified the Elliot
parties that it intends to seek consolidation of the two actions.  

Millipore is defending the lawsuit and, along with the other
defendants, it served a motion to dismiss the Elliot case on
April 26, 2010.

Millipore Corporation -- http://www.millipore.com/-- is a life  
science company. The Company's products and services are used in
life science research, drug discovery, process development and
drug manufacturing. Its Bioscience Division provides products and
technologies to life science research and development activities.
The Company's Bioprocess Division provides products and services
for pharmaceutical and biotechnology manufacturing. Millipore's
products and services are primarily used by biotechnology and
pharmaceutical companies, academic institutions and research
laboratories.


NORTHWEST MASSAGE: Accused in Wash. Suit of Negligent Hiring
------------------------------------------------------------
June Williams at Courthouse News Service reports that a massage
therapy center employed a man who was on professional probation
and barred from practicing, and he sexually molested at least two
clients, the women say in a class action in King County Court.  
The women claim The Northwest Massage Center hired John D.
Atkinson's though his massage therapy license had suspended by
the state for previous sexual misdeeds.

One of the named plaintiffs claims she "felt his fingers
penetrate her vagina with a circular motion.  At the same time,
Mr. Atkinson massaged [the plaintiff's] breasts.  Afterwards, Mr.
Atkinson said, 'I've never done this before, this is wild' and
left the room."

This plaintiff says that Mr. Atkinson's 1-year suspension and 2
years probation was a result of her complaint.  He was still on
probation and restricted from treating anyone other than his
attorney and members of her office staff when the Northwest
Massage Center scheduled him to massage the other named
plaintiff, according to the complaint.

This woman also describes Mr. Atkinson's actions, and claims that
in addition to his sexual pawing, he "grabbed her left arm, put
it between his legs near his groin, and began to massage it.  As
he was massaging, Mr. Atkinson began to breathe very heavily,
almost panting.

The women claim Northwest Massage Center and its owner, Cheryl
Grunenfelder-Garcia, knew about Mr. Atkinson's behavior and
probation but continued to employ him.  They seek damages for sex
and gender discrimination in a public accommodation and negligent
hiring and supervision.  

A copy of the Complaint in Conger, et al. v. The Northwest
Massage Center LLC, et al., Case No. 10-2-20996-4 (Wash. Super.
Ct., King Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/06/15/MassageCenter.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Thaddeus P. Martin, Esq.
          THADDEUS P. MARTIN & ASSOCIATES
          4928 109th St. SW
          Lakewood, WA 98499
          Telephone: 253-682-3420
          E-mail: tmartin@thadlaw.com

               - and -

          Beth E. Terrell, Esq.
          Jennifer Rust Murray, Esq.
          Erika L. Nusser, Esq.
          TERRELL MARSHALL & DAUDT PLLC
          3600 Fremont Ave. North
          Seattle, WA 98103
          Telephone: 206-816-6603
          E-mail: bterrell@tmdlegal.com
                  jmurray@tmdlegal.com


OTTAWA COUNTY: Mich. County Settles Marriage License Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
24 Hours News 8 reports that a class action lawsuit was settled
Tuesday when Ottawa County. Mich., agreed to revise its policy on
illegal immigrants possibly marrying legal residents.

The Mexican American Legal Defense And Educational Fund filed the
lawsuit claiming the county's marriage license policy -- which
requires you provide a social security number in order to obtain
a marriage license -- infringed on a couples' right to marry.

As part of the new settlement agreement, Ottawa County agreed to
revise its policy.  Now, anyone who wants to be married but can't
provide a Social Security number can now fill out an affidavit
stating, under oath, that he or she does not have a Social
Security number.

The Ottawa County administrator told 24 Hour News 8 they're
forwarding the final documents to federal court.


PACIFIC CAPITAL: Paskowitz's Appeal on Dismissal Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pacific Capital Bancorp continues to face a purported shareholder
action asserting a purported class action claim in California
following an appeal by the plaintiff of a dismissal order,
according to the company's May 12, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2010.

On September 4, 2009, an alleged shareholder of the Company filed
a purported shareholder action in federal district court in Los
Angeles, against the Company and all of its directors, captioned
Laurence Paskowitz SEP IRA v. Pacific Capital Bancorp, et al.
(United States District Court, Central District of California,
Case No. CV 09-6449-ODW).  The complaint alleged that the
Company's August 31, 2009 Proxy Statement, with respect to the
proposal for shareholder authorization of a reverse stock split,
contained certain allegedly false and misleading statements and
omissions regarding certain alleged risks of the reverse stock
split.  The complaint asserted claims for injunctive and
declaratory relief based on alleged proxy violations under the
federal securities laws (Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act and Rule 14a-9 there under) and under unspecified California
law.  The complaint also asserted a purported class action claim,
on behalf of a putative class of shareholders of the Company, for
monetary damages based on alleged breach of an alleged fiduciary
duty of full disclosure under California law.

On September 9, 2009, plaintiff filed an ex parte application
seeking a temporary restraining order, as well as an expedited
hearing on a preliminary injunction motion, to prevent the
Company from conducting the planned shareholder vote on the
reverse stock split proposal set for September 29, 2009.  On
September 11, 2009, the defendants filed an opposition to the ex
parte application.  On September 14, 2009 the Court denied
plaintiff's application in its entirety.  The scheduled
shareholder vote took place on September 29, 2009, and the
reverse stock split proposal was approved.

On October 8, 2009, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint in its entirety with prejudice and without leave to
amend.  On October 19, 2009, plaintiff filed opposition papers,
and on October 26, 2009, defendants filed reply papers.  On
November 6, 2009, the Court granted the Company's motion to
dismiss with leave to amend.  The plaintiff declined to amend the
complaint.  On December 6, 2009, the Court ordered Judgment be
entered dismissing the complaint with prejudice.  On December 31,
2009, plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal.  The Company believes
that the complaint and the claims asserted therein are without
merit, and is vigorously defending itself in this matter.

Pacific Capital Bancorp is the parent company of Pacific Capital
Bank, N.A., a nationally chartered bank that operates 46 branches
under the local brand names of Santa Barbara Bank & Trust, First
National Bank of Central California, South Valley National Bank,
San Benito Bank and First Bank of San Luis Obispo.


PACIFIC CAPITAL: Calif. Court Dismisses Jurkowitz & Shotke Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Central District of
California granted Pacific Capital Bancorp's motions to dismiss
purported securities class actions entitled (i) William Jurkowitz
v. Pacific Capital Bancorp, George Leis, David Porter, Sandler
O'Neill & Partners LP and Sandler O'Neill Asset Management LLC,
CV 09-06501 RGK (PLAx), and (ii) Shotke v. Pacific Capital
Bancorp, George Leis, David Porter, & Sandler O'Neill Partners
LP, CV 09-7400 (MAN), according to the company's May 12, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended
March 31, 2010.

On September 8, 2009, the Company along with two of its officers
were sued in a purported securities class action entitled William
Jurkowitz v. Pacific Capital Bancorp, George Leis, David Porter,
Sandler O'Neill & Partners LP and Sandler O'Neill Asset
Management LLC, CV 09-06501 RGK (PLAx) in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California.

The complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the 1934 Exchange Act, as well as Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, for a purported class period running from April 30,
2009 when the Company announced results for the first quarter of
2009, to July 30, 2009 when the Company announced results for the
second quarter of 2009.  The complaint alleges that the Company
and the officer defendants made knowingly false statements of
confidence regarding the adequacy of loan loss reserves taken in
the first quarter of 2009, which plaintiffs contend were proven
to be false when the Company announced second quarter results,
which included an additional $117 million reserve.

On October 30, 2009, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
Jurkowitz complaint.  On January 28, 2010, the Court granted the
Company's motion to dismiss and denied, as moot, the Plaintiff's
Motion for Appointment as Lead Counsel.

The same plaintiff firms suing the Company and its officers in
the Jurkowitz action subsequently filed a virtually identical
lawsuit entitled Shotke v. Pacific Capital Bancorp, George Leis,
David Porter, & Sandler O'Neill Partners LP, CV 09-7400 (MAN) in
the same U.S. District court.  On December 18, 2009, the Company
filed a motion to dismiss on the same grounds as its motion to
dismiss in the Jurkowitz case.  On February 22, 2010, the Court
granted the Company's motion to dismiss.

The Court entered judgment dismissing the consolidated actions of
Jurkowitz and Shotke on April 7, 2010.  Plaintiff had until
May 10, 2010, to appeal from that judgment.  The Company believes
that the claims asserted in the consolidated actions are without
merit, and will vigorously defend itself in the event an appeal
is filed.

Pacific Capital Bancorp is the parent company of Pacific Capital
Bank, N.A., a nationally chartered bank that operates 46 branches
under the local brand names of Santa Barbara Bank & Trust, First
National Bank of Central California, South Valley National Bank,
San Benito Bank and First Bank of San Luis Obispo.


PAMRAPO BANCORP: NJ Court Dissolves Injunction vs. BCB Merger
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pamrapo Bancorp Inc. can proceed with their merger with BCB
Bancorp Inc., now that an injunction stemming from a consolidated
class action lawsuit has been dissolved.

On July 8, 2009, certain stockholders filed a purported class
action lawsuit seeking relief with respect to the Merger.  

On December 8, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a motion for a
preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin the special meeting
previously scheduled for December 22, 2009, until the Company
disseminated an amendment to the respective proxy statement that
provided certain information that the plaintiffs asserted was
material.  The supplemental disclosures were made by the Company
on January 1, 2010, pursuant to an agreement with the plaintiffs,
whereby the plaintiffs agreed to withdraw their pending motion
for injunctive relief in relation to the merger (but not any
claims for money damages) provided that the Company included the
supplemental disclosures.

On February 11, 2010, the stockholders voted to approve the
Merger and adopt the Merger Agreement.

                   William Campbell's Lawsuit

On December 2, 2009, William J. Campbell, who is the largest
stockholder of the Company and was the Bank's former President
and Chief Executive Officer from 1970 until February 13, 2009,
filed a complaint in the Superior Court of New Jersey in Hudson
County against the Company, the Bank, and each of its directors.
The complaint alleged, among other things, that the Company's
directors were in breach of their fiduciary duties to
stockholders in connection with the Company's entry into the
merger agreement. Additionally, the complaint alleged that the
Company failed to disclose that Kenneth Poesl and Robert Doria,
former directors of BCB and now directors of the Company, still
own BCB stock. The complaint sought, among other things, for the
Court to award unspecified money damages to Mr. Campbell and
enjoin the defendants from consummating the transactions
contemplated by the merger agreement and to award the plaintiff
attorneys' fees and expenses incurred in bringing the lawsuit.
Mr. Campbell simultaneously filed an Order to Show Cause Seeking
Preliminary Injunction. Mr. Campbell's lawsuit was identified as
a related case to the pending, and previously mentioned,
consolidated purported class action lawsuit.

On December 16, 2009, the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery
Division entered an Order enjoining Pamrapo from conducting its
special meeting of stockholders on December 22, 2009 or otherwise
consummating the merger until further order of the court and
ordering that the special meeting be conducted on February 11,
2010.

On February 11, 2010 the stockholders voted to approve the Merger
and adopt the Merger Agreement and on February 16, 2010, the
Superior Court of New Jersey, Hudson County, Chancery Division,
entered an Order dissolving its injunction against the
consummation and closing of the merger between Pamrapo and BCB
Bancorp, Inc., according to the company's May 13, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

Pamrapo Bancorp, Inc. -- http://www.pamrapo.com/-- is a savings   
and loan holding company that operates principally through its
subsidiary, Pamrapo Savings Bank, S.L.A.


PFIZER INC: Reaches Agreement to Settle Viagra-Related Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pfizer Inc. entered into a master settlement agreement to resolve
all pending claims asserting visual injuries allegedly caused by
Viagra, according to the company's May 13, 2010, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended April 4, 2010.

A number of lawsuits, including purported class actions, have
been filed against Pfizer in various federal and state courts
alleging that Viagra causes certain types of visual injuries. In
January 2006, the federal cases were transferred for consolidated
pre-trial proceedings to a Multi-District Litigation (In re
Viagra Products Liability Litigation MDL-1724) in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Minnesota (the MDL).

In March 2010, Pfizer and the representatives of the MDL
Plaintiffs' Steering Committee entered into a master settlement
agreement providing for the settlement and dismissal of all
pending cases, whether in the MDL or elsewhere, and all pending
claims asserting visual injuries allegedly caused by Viagra. The
master settlement agreement provides for the payment by Pfizer of
an amount that is not material to Pfizer following its receipt by
June 17, 2010, of a release and stipulation of dismissal from all
of the claimants, with provision at the Company's election for a
specified reduction in the settlement amount in respect of any
claimant who does not timely provide the release and stipulation.

Pfizer Inc. is a research-based, global pharmaceutical company
that discovers, develops, manufactures, and markets medicines for
humans and animals.  The Company's products include prescription
pharmaceuticals, non-prescription self-medications, and animal
health products such as anti-infective medicines and vaccines.


PFIZER INC: Faces Securities Class Action in New York
-----------------------------------------------------
Pfizer Inc. is facing a purported class action in New York
alleging securities violations, according to the company's
May 13, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 4, 2010.

In May 2010, a purported class action was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York against
Pfizer and several of its current and former officers. The
complaint alleges that the defendants violated federal securities
laws by failing to disclose that Pfizer was engaged in off-label
marketing of certain drugs. Plaintiffs seek damages in an
unspecified amount.

Pfizer Inc. is a research-based, global pharmaceutical company
that discovers, develops, manufactures, and markets medicines for
humans and animals.  The Company's products include prescription
pharmaceuticals, non-prescription self-medications, and animal
health products such as anti-infective medicines and vaccines.


POSTROCK ENERGY: Agrees to Settle "Friedman" & "Jents" Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
PostRock Energy Corporation has agreed to settle two consolidated
class action complaints, captioned Friedman v. Quest Energy
Partners LP, et al., and Jents v. Quest Resource Corporation, et
al., according to PostRock's May 14, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2010.

Four putative class action complaints were filed in the United
States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma naming
QRCP, QELP and Quest Energy GP, LLC, the general partner of the
predecessor of QELP and certain of their then current and former
officers and directors as defendants.  The complaints were filed
by certain stockholders on behalf of themselves and other
stockholders who purchased QRCP common stock between May 2, 2005,
and August 25, 2008, and QELP common units between November 7,
2007, and August 25, 2008.

The complaints assert claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, and Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities
Act of 1933. The complaints allege that the defendants violated
the federal securities laws by issuing false and misleading
statements and concealing material facts concerning certain
unauthorized transfers of funds from subsidiaries of QRCP to
entities controlled by QRCP's former chief executive officer, Mr.
Jerry D. Cash. The complaints also allege that, as a result of
these actions, QRCP's stock price and the unit price of QELP was
artificially inflated during the class period.

On December 29, 2008, the court consolidated these complaints as
Michael Friedman, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Quest Energy Partners LP, Quest Energy GP
LLC, Quest Resource Corporation, Jerry Cash, and David E. Grose,
Case No. 08-cv-936-M, in the Western District of Oklahoma.

On September 24, 2009, the court appointed lead plaintiffs for
each of the QRCP class and the QELP class. The lead plaintiffs
must file a consolidated amended complaint within 60 days after
being appointed. On October 13, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a
motion for partial modification of the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act of 1995 discovery stay, which the
defendants opposed and which the court denied on December 15,
2009.

On November 4, 2009, the court granted the lead plaintiffs'
unopposed request to file separate consolidated amended
complaints. The court ordered that all pleadings and filings for
the QELP class be filed under Friedman v. Quest Energy Partners,
LP, et al., case no. CIV-08-936-M, and all pleadings and filings
for the QRCP class be filed under Jents v. Quest Resource
Corporation, et al., case no. CIV-08-968-M.

The QELP lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint on
November 10, 2009. The consolidated complaint names as additional
defendants David C. Lawler, Gary Pittman, Mark Stansberry,
Murrell Hall, McIntosh & Co. PLLP, and Eide Bailly LLP. The QRCP
lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint on December 7,
2009, which names Murrell, Hall, McIntosh & Co. PLLP, Eide Bailly
LLP, and various former QRCP directors as additional defendants.
On December 23, 2009, QRCP and David C. Lawler filed a motion to
dismiss the Friedman complaint, and on December 28, 2009, QELP,
QEGP, Gary Pittman and Mark Stansberry filed a motion to dismiss
the Friedman complaint. On January 21, 2010, QRCP and the
individual director defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
Jents complaint. No response to the motion to dismiss has yet
been filed in either proceeding.

On February 2, 2010, mediation was held among the parties. A
second round of the mediation was held on April 2, 2010. An
agreement to settle all of the federal securities lawsuits has
been reached in principle. The Company is awaiting preparation
and execution of a formal settlement agreement, which will be
subject to Court approval. The Company is contributing $1 million
to the proposed settlement of the lawsuits.

PostRock Energy Corporation (NASDAQ: PSTR) --
http://www.pstr.com/-- is a vertically integrated independent  
energy company engaged in the acquisition, exploration,
development, production and transportation of oil and natural gas
in the Cherokee Basin, the Appalachian Basin, and Central
Oklahoma.  PostRock has over 2,800 wells and nearly 2,200 miles
of natural gas gathering pipelines in the Cherokee Basin.  The
Company also owns and operates nearly 400 natural gas and oil
producing wells and undeveloped acreage in the Appalachian Basin
of the northeastern United States and more than 1,100 miles of
interstate natural gas transmission pipelines in Oklahoma,
Kansas, and Missouri.


PROTECTION ONE: 3 Class Action Lawsuits Filed in Del. & Kansas
--------------------------------------------------------------
Protection One, Inc., is facing three separate class action
lawsuits in Delaware and Kansas relating to its proposed merger
with Protection Holdings, LLC, according to the company's
May 13, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

On May 6, 2010, Donald Rensch, a purported stockholder of
Protection One, filed a complaint on behalf of himself and as a
putative class action on behalf of the Company's public
stockholders, against the Company, each member of the Company's
board of directors, Quadrangle Group LLC, POI Acquisition L.L.C.,
Monarch Alternative Capital LP, Protection Holdings, LLC,
Protection Acquisition Sub, Inc. and GTCR Golder Rauner II,
L.L.C. in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (Donald
Rensch v. Protection One, Inc. et al, C.A. No. 5468-VCS).  

On May 10, 2010, Trading Strategies Fund, a purported stockholder
of the Company, filed a complaint on behalf of itself and as a
putative class action on behalf of the Company's public
stockholders, against the Company, each member of the Company's
board of directors and GTCR Golder Rauner II, L.L.C. in the
district court of Douglas County, Kansas.

On May 12, 2010, The Law Offices of Mark Kotlarsky Pension Plan,
a purported stockholder of the Company, filed a complaint on
behalf of itself and as a putative class action on behalf of the
Company's public stockholders against the Company, each member of
the Company's board of directors, Quadrangle Group LLC, POI
Acquisition, L.L.C., Monarch Alternative Capital LP, Protection
Holdings, LLC, Protection Acquisition Sub, Inc. and GTCR Golder
Rauner II, L.L.C. in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware.  

These complaints allege that the defendants breached their
fiduciary duties or aided and abetted the alleged breach of
fiduciary duties in connection with the Offer and the Merger
contemplated by the Merger Agreement and alleges that the
disclosures contained in the documents filed with the United
States Securities and Exchange Commission by the Company (and
Purchaser in the case of the Rensch Complaint) are materially
misleading and omit material facts.  

None of the complaints state how many shares of Company common
stock are purportedly held by the respective plaintiffs.  The TSF
Complaint seeks, among other things, declarations that the action
brought by the complaint is properly maintainable as a class
action, that certain of the defendants have breached their
fiduciary duties to the named plaintiff and the class, that
certain of the defendants aided and abetted breaches of fiduciary
duty by other defendants, awarding of appropriate damages to the
plaintiff and other members of the class, and awarding the
plaintiff's costs, including attorneys' and experts' fees.  The
Rensch Complaint and the Pension Plan Complaint seek the same
relief, and in addition, an order enjoining the transactions
contemplated by the Merger Agreement.  

Protection One -- http://www.ProtectionOne.com/-- is one of the   
largest vertically integrated national providers of sales,
installation, monitoring, and maintenance of electronic security
systems to homes and businesses and has been recognized as one of
"America's Most Trustworthy Companies" by Forbes.com. Network
Multifamily, Protection One's wholly owned subsidiary, is the
largest security provider to the multifamily housing market.
Protection One also owns the nation's largest provider of
wholesale monitoring services, the combined operations of CMS and
Criticom International.


PT INDOSAT: Tangerang Court Says Class Action Suit Unacceptable
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Tangerang District Court has ruled that the class action
filed against PT Indosat Tbk was unacceptable because the
plaintiffs were not serious in filing the lawsuit and the
plaintiffs failed to prove their legal standing for qualification
as class representatives, according to the company's June 1,
2010, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2010.

A series of class action lawsuits were also filed against the
company and Telkomsel in the District Court of Bekasi, the
Central Jakarta District Court and the Tangerang District Court
relating to Temasek Holding's prior cross ownership of shares in
Indosat and Telkomsel, which is alleged to have caused high price
fixing of telecommunications services that harmed to the public.

On Oct. 31, 2007, a group of consumers of cellular telephones in
Indonesia filed suit in the District Court of Bekasi demanding,
among other remedies, Rp1,231.7 billion in compensation for
losses allegedly suffered.

The company is also a defendant in a similar class action suit
filed in the Tangerang District Court on Dec. 19, 2007 (Tangerang
Class Action).

The plaintiffs represent the company's customers and the
customers of Telkomsel and XL throughout Indonesia who used the
Simpati, Mentari, Kartu As, IM3, Kartu Halo, Matrix, Jempol,
Xplor, and Bebas services and are demanding compensation
amounting to Rp30,808.7 billion, among other remedies.

On April 22, 2008, the company received notification that the
company, Temasek Holdings, ST Telemedia, STT, AMH, ICLM, ICLS,
SingTel, SingTel Mobile, Telkomsel, Telkom and the Ministry of
State-Owned Enterprises, were defendants in another class action
filed in the Central Jakarta District Court (Central Jakarta
Class Action).

The plaintiffs represent customers of Telkomsel, Indosat and XL
and have asserted allegations similar to that of the Tangerang
Class Action.

The plaintiffs are demanding compensation amounting to Rp30,808.7
billion, among other remedies.

In July 2008, the company was notified that the class action in
the Bekasi District Court was revoked by the plaintiffs and the
class action in the Central Jakarta District Court was merged
with the Tangerang Class Action.

The class action suit in the Tangerang District Court was
postponed by the judges pending resolution of an appeal to the
Supreme Court by the plaintiffs from the class action filed in
Central Jakarta District Court.

On March 27, 2009, the company was informed that the Supreme
Court issued a decision on Jan. 21, 2009, revoking the Central
Jakarta District Court decision and ordering the Central Jakarta
District Court to continue with the class action.

On Dec. 22, 2009, Indosat submitted a proposal in the mediation
process asserting that no evidence of customers' loss has been
presented during STT's ownership.  At the same time, Indosat is
preparing a claim of inadequacy of representation as well as a
response to the lawsuit.

On Jan. 5, 2010, the defendants were given the right to provide
arguments regarding the legal standing of the class
representation under the Class Action Lawsuit Procedure.  On Jan.
27, 2010, the Judges ruled that that the Central Jakarta Class
Action lawsuit was unacceptable and ordered the plaintiffs and
defendants to stop the case because (i) the plaintiffs refused to
prove their legal standing and (ii) two members of the
plaintiffs' class did not qualify to stand as class
representatives.  The period for appeal having lapsed, the
decision of the Central Jakarta District Court dated Jan. 27,
2010 is now final and binding.

On March 22, 2010, the trial of the Tangerang Class Action
continued, but the plaintiffs failed to appear.

On May 3, 2010, the company submitted a demurrer and on May 24,
2010, the judges ruled that the class action filed with the
Tangerang District Court was unacceptable because the plaintiffs
were not serious in filing the lawsuit and the plaintiffs failed
to prove their legal standing for qualification as class
representatives.

PT Indosat Tbk -- http://www.indosat.com/-- is a  
telecommunication and information service provider in Indonesia
that provides cellular services (Mentari, Matrix and IM3), fixed
telecommunication services or fixed voice (IDD 001, IDD 008 and
FlatCall 01016, fixed wireless service StarOne and I-Phone).  
Indosat also provides Multimedia, Internet & Data Communication
Services (MIDI) through its subsidiary company, Indosat Mega
Media (IM2) and Lintasarta.  Indosat also provides 3.5 G with
HSDPA technology.  Indosat's shares are listed in the Indonesia
Stock Exchange (IDX:ISAT) and its American Depository Shares are
listed in the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE:IIT).


RHI ENTERTAINMENT: Seeks to Dismiss Shareholder Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
RHI Entertainment, Inc., has filed a motion to dismiss a putative
shareholder class action brought against it in New York,
according to the company's May 13, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2010.

On October 9, 2009, RHI Entertainment, Inc., and two of its
officers were named as defendants in a putative shareholder class
action filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, alleging violations of federal securities
laws by issuing a registration statement in connection with the
Company's June 2008 initial public offering that contained untrue
statements of material facts and omitted other facts necessary to
make certain statements not misleading.

The central allegation of the Lawsuit is that the registration
statement overstated the number of made-for-television (MFT)
movies and mini-series the Company expected to develop, produce
and distribute in 2008, while it failed to disclose that the
Company would not be able to complete the expected number of MFT
movies and miniseries in 2008 due to the declining state of the
credit markets, changing media technologies and other negative
factors then impacting the Company's business.  The Lawsuit seeks
unspecified damages and interest.

On May 3, 2010, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint, to which the plaintiffs have not yet responded.

RHI Entertainment, Inc. -- http://www.rhitv.com/-- develops,   
produces and distributes new made-for-television movies, mini-
series and other television programming worldwide.  The company
provides long-form television content, including domestic made-
for-television (MFT), movies and mini-series.  It also
selectively produces new episodic series programming for
television.  In addition to its development, production and
distribution of new content, it owns an library of existing long-
form television content, which the Company licenses primarily to
broadcast and cable networks worldwide.  RHI Entertainment,
Inc.'s business is comprised of the licensing of new film
production and the licensing of existing content from its film
library in territories worldwide.  Licensing rights in its film
library generate contractual accounts receivable.  The
contractual accounts receivable reflects license agreements it
has entered into with third parties for rights to its film
content in future periods.


SCORES HOLDING: Continues to Defend 3rd Amended Complaint in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
Scores Holding Company, Inc., continues to defend itself from a
class action lawsuit filed in New York alleging wage/hour
violations, according to the company's May 13, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2010.

On October 9, 2007, former Go West bartender Siri Diaz filed a
purported class action and collective action on behalf of all
tipped employees against the company and other defendants
alleging violations of federal and state wage/hour laws (Siri
Diaz et al. v. Scores Holding Company, Inc.; Go West
Entertainment, Inc. a/k/a Scores West Side; and Scores
Entertainment, Inc., a/k/a Scores East Side, Case No. 07 Civ.
8718 (Southern District of New York, Judge Richard M. Berman)).

On November 6, 2007, plaintiffs served an amended purported class
action and collective action complaint, naming dancers and
servers as additional plaintiffs and alleging the same violations
of federal and state wage/hour laws.  

On or about February 21, 2008, plaintiffs served a second amended
complaint adding two additional party defendants, but limiting
the action to persons employed in the New York Scores' clubs. The
amended complaint alleged that we and the other defendants are
"an integrated enterprise" and that we jointly employ the
plaintiffs, subjecting all of the defendants to liability for the
alleged wage/hour violations.

On behalf of the Company and the other defendants the Company
filed a motion to dismiss that portion of the Complaint that
asserted State law class action allegations; the Company also
moved to dismiss the claims of two of the named plaintiffs for
failure to appear for depositions. At the same time plaintiffs
moved for conditional certification under the federal law for a
class of the servers, bartenders and dancers; the Company opposed
that motion.

On May 9, 2008, the Court issued its decision, denying the motion
to dismiss and granting conditional certification for a class of
servers, cocktail waitresses, bartenders and dancers who have
worked at Scores East since October 2004.  On May 29, 2008, the
Company filed an answer to plaintiff's' second amended complaint.  

On or about September 5, 2009, plaintiffs served their third
amended complaint adding in two individual defendants who are
alleged to be employers under the state and federal wage claims.  

The Company disputes that it is a proper defendant in this action
and it disputes that it violated the federal and state labor
laws, and further disputes that the dancers are "employees"
subject to the federal and state wage and hour laws.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Tammy Marzigliano, Esq.
         Outten & Golden Law Firm
         3 Park Avenue, 29th Floor
         New York, NY 10016
         Phone: 212-245-1000
         Fax: 212-977-4005
         E-mail: tm@outtengolden.com

Representing the defendants is:

         Jerrold Foster Goldberg, Esq.
         Greenberg Traurig, LLP
         200 Park Avenue
         New York, NY 10166
         Phone: 212-801-9209
         Fax: 212-805-9209
         E-mail: GoldbergJ@gtlaw.com

Founded in 1981 and based in New York, Scores Holding Company,
Inc. -- http://www.scoresholding.com/-- together with its  
subsidiaries, licenses 'Scores' trademark to fine gentlemen's
nightclubs with adult entertainment in the United States. These
clubs feature topless female entertainers together with
opportunities for watching sporting events, celebrating business
transactions, and private parties.  The company licenses its
trademark to four clubs in New York, Baltimore, Chicago, and New
Orleans. It has licensing agreement with AYA International, Inc.
to use the company's trademarks in connection with its online
video chat Web site, http://www.scoreslive.com/  


SCOTTS MIRACLE: Inks Confidential Settlement of Michigan Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company entered into a confidential
settlement resolving a class action brought by Mark Baumkel
against the company and its subsidiary, according to the
company's May 13, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
April 3, 2010.

In late 2008, Scotts Miracle-Gro and its indirect subsidiary, EG
Systems, Inc., doing business as Scotts LawnService(R), were
named as defendants in a purported class action filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan relating to
the application of certain pesticide products by Scotts
LawnService(R).  In the suit, Mark Baumkel, on behalf of himself
and the purported classes, sought an unspecified amount of
damages, plus costs and attorneys' fees, for alleged claims
involving breach of contract, unjust enrichment, tort, and
violation of the State of Michigan's consumer protection act.

On September 28, 2009, the court granted the motion filed by
Scotts Miracle-Gro and EG Systems, Inc. and dismissed the suit
with prejudice.  

Since that time, Scotts Miracle-Gro, EG Systems, Inc., and Mr.
Baumkel have agreed to a confidential settlement that, among
other things, precludes an appeal of the decision.  

Based in Marysville, Ohio, The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company and its
subsidiaries manufacture, market, and sell lawn and garden care
products. The Company's customers include home centers, mass
merchandisers, warehouse clubs, large hardware chains,
independent hardware stores, nurseries, garden centers, food and
drug stores, commercial nurseries and greenhouses and specialty
crop growers.


SEARS HOLDINGS: Madison Cty. Lawnmower Case Moved to S.D. Ill.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Amelia Flood at The St. Clair Record reports that a class action
against Sears and the makers of lawnmowers has been removed to
federal court.

Defendant MTD Products Inc. filed to remove the case brought by
lead plaintiff Rhonda Lemay to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Illinois on May 13.

Lemay is leading a class of lawnmower purchasers who claim they
were misled about the horsepower of the machines.

More than 40 similar cases have been filed across the country.

The suit seeks more than $5 million in damages.

MTD removed the case alleging it falls under the "mass action"
provision of the federal Class Action Fairness Act, due to the
size of the class and the amount of damages in question.

MTD claims its move is timely because it was only served in the
2009 case last month.

A move to consolidate the Lemay case with an earlier class action
filed by lead plaintiff Andrew Stone is now in limbo.

Lemay had moved to consolidate Stone's case with her own last
year.

However, Stone fired back, moving to strike Lemay's motion,
arguing it made more sense to consolidate her suit with his.

Stone had filed his proposed class action in 2008.

Upon the case's removal in May, St. Clair County Circuit Judge
Michael O'Malley reset a status conference in the case to
October.

The case, if it returns to St. Clair County, will likely go to a
new judge as O'Malley plans to retire at the end of July.

Lemay is represented JoDee Favre and others.

MTD is represented by Jonathan Garside, John Galvin and others.

Stone is represented by Paul Weiss, Richard Burke and others.

The Lemay case is St. Clair case number 09-L-085.


SONY COMPUTER: 7th "Removal of OS Option" in PS3 Suit Filed
----------------------------------------------------------
Rick Benavides, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. Sony Computer Entertainment America Inc., et al.,
Case No.
10-cv-02612 (N.D. Calif. June 14, 2010), accuses the PlayStation
3
developer of intentionally disabling the "Other OS Function" and
other valuable additional advertised features of its PlayStation
3 video game console.  

Mr. Benavides says that Sony Computer's disablement of the "Other
OS Function" and other features of the PS3 constituted a breach
of the sales contract between Sony and its PS3 purchasers, an
unfair and deceptive business practice under California law, a
breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and
violates California consumer protection laws.

Mr. Benavides says that on March 28, 2010, Sony announced that it
would be releasing the firmware 3.21, the next system software
update for the PS3 System, on April 1, 2010, and that it will
disable the "Install Other OS" feature, due to purported
"security concerns".  PS3 owners who choose not to upgrade their
PS3 systems, however, will lose the ability to sign in to
PlayStation Network and use other network features that require
signing in to PlayStation Network, including online feature of
PS3 games and chat, playback of PS3 software titles or Blu-ray
Disc videos, and other valuable features.  Mr. Benavides relates
that Sony, prior to the March 28, 2010 announcement, had not
provided any notice that it would be disabling the additional
advertised features with the software update.

The plaintiff is represented by:

          Ralph B. Kalfayan, Esq.
          KRAUSE, KALFAYAN, BENINK & SLAVENS, LLP
          625 Broadway, Suite 635
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 232-0331


SUNOPTA: Will Seek Final Court Approval of $11MM Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
SunOpta, Inc., is planning to seek final court approval of a
settlement of claims in certain proposed class action lawsuits
against the company, according to the company's May 13, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended April 3, 2010.

The Company and certain officers and a former director were named
as defendants in proposed class action lawsuits in the United
States.  These lawsuits were filed between January 28, 2008, and
March 19, 2008, in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York.  These actions were also filed
against two Company Officers, one of whom is a director, as well
as a former director who was named in certain actions.  The
Company was alleged to have violated Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by the United States Securities and Exchange
Commission.  Additionally, the named officers and directors were
alleged to have violated Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934. The complaints alleged different proposed class
periods.  

On January 28, 2009, the Court appointed Western Washington
Laborers-Employers Pension Trust and Operating Engineers
Construction Industry and Miscellaneous Pension Fund as the lead
plaintiffs in one consolidated class action aggregating the
various class action lawsuits.  

On April 14, 2009, the lead plaintiffs filed their consolidated
and amended complaint in the U.S. District Court in the Southern
District of New York.  The new complaint included new allegations
under Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 as
well as four new individual defendants, two of whom are former
senior management employees, a current director and chairman and
a current senior employee.  The new complaint also added three
corporate defendants namely, Cleugh's Frozen Foods, Inc. and
Pacific Fruit Processors, Inc. -- each of which are now part of
the merged subsidiary, SunOpta Fruit Group, Inc. -- and Organic
Ingredients, Inc., which is now known as SunOpta Global Organic
Ingredients, Inc.

Similarly, one proposed class action lawsuit has also been filed
in Canada in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice on behalf of
shareholders who acquired securities of the Company between
May 8, 2007, and January 25, 2008 -- and further amended to cover
the period from February 23, 2007 and to January 27, 2008 --
against the Company and certain officers, alleging
misrepresentation and proposing to seek leave from the Ontario
court to bring statutory misrepresentation civil liability claims
under the Ontario Securities Act.  On August 29, 2008, the
plaintiff filed a motion to amend the claims against the Company
to include additional allegations.  The Canadian plaintiffs claim
compensatory damages of CDN$100,000 and punitive damages of
CDN$10,000 and other monetary relief.

On September 24, 2009, the Company announced that it entered into
a tentative agreement to settle all claims raised in these
proposed class action proceedings.  In return for the dismissal
of the class actions and releases from proposed class members of
settled claims against the Company and other named defendants,
the settlement agreement provides for a total cash contribution
of $11,250,000 to a settlement fund, the adoption of certain
governance enhancements to the Company's Audit Committee charter
and Internal Audit Charter and the adoption of an enhanced
information technology conversion policy.  The settlement has
been entirely funded by the Company's insurers. The settlement is
conditional upon the Courts' approval and subject to SunOpta's
option to terminate it in the event of valid opt-outs by proposed
class members that exceed a pre-agreed threshold.

Class members wishing to opt out of the settlement had until
April 12, 2010, to do so.  Based on information available to the
Company, the Company has determined that the number of class
members electing to opt-out of the settlement will not cause it
to terminate the settlement agreement.  Accordingly, the Company
intends to request final court approval of the settlement.

The Ontario Superior Court and U.S. District Court each granted
preliminary approval of the settlement agreement and, for the
purposes of the settlement only, have certified the lawsuits as
class actions.  The courts have scheduled hearings on May 3, 2010
(Canada) and May 17, 2010 (US) to determine whether they will
grant final approval of the proposed settlement agreement.  The
Canadian hearing was held as scheduled on May 3, 2010, and the
presiding judge requested time to review the final order, which
he expects to be completed in advance of the U.S. hearing on May
17, 2010.  Class members had until June 11, 2010, to file claims
related to the proposed settlement.

SunOpta Inc. -- http://www.sunopta.com/--is an operator of high-
growth ethical businesses, focusing on integrated business models
in the natural and organic food and natural health markets.  The
company has three business units: the SunOpta Foods, which
specializes in sourcing, processing and distribution of natural
and organic food products integrated from seed through packaged
products; Opta Minerals Inc. (TSX:OPM) (66.4 % owned by SunOpta),
a producer, distributor, and recycler of environmentally friendly
industrial materials; and SunOpta BioProcess Inc. which engineers
and markets proprietary steam explosion technology systems for
the bio-fuel, pulp and food processing industries.


SWK HOLDINGS: Appeals on Consolidated Suit Settlement Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Notices of appeal regarding the approval of SWK Holdings
Corporation's settlement of a consolidated securities class
action lawsuit are pending with the United States Court of Appeal
for the Second Circuit, according to the Company's
May 13, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

In July 2001, the Company, its underwriters, and certain officers
and directors were named as defendants in a securities class
action lawsuit.  This case is one of several hundred similar
cases that have been consolidated into a single action.  The
complaint alleges misstatements and omissions concerning
underwriters' compensation in connection with the Company's
initial public offering.

In February 2003, the Court denied a motion to dismiss that would
have disposed of the claims against the Company.  A settlement
proposal, which did not admit wrongdoing, had been approved by
the Company's Board of Directors and preliminarily approved by
the Court.  While the parties' request for court approval of the
settlement was pending, in December 2006 the Court of Appeals
reversed the District Court's finding that six focus cases could
be certified as class actions.

In April 2007, the Court of Appeals denied the plaintiffs'
petition for rehearing, but acknowledged that the District Court
might certify a more limited class.  At a June 26, 2007 status
conference, the Court terminated the proposed settlement as
stipulated among the parties.

Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on August 14, 2007.  

On September 27, 2007, plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification in the six focus cases, which was withdrawn on
October 10, 2008.  On November 13, 2007, defendants in the six
focus cases filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure
to state a claim, which the Court denied in March 2008.

Plaintiffs, the issuer defendants, including the Company, the
underwriter defendants, and the insurance carriers for the
defendants, engaged in mediation and settlement negotiations.  
They reached a settlement agreement, which was submitted to the
District Court for preliminary approval on April 2, 2009.  As
part of this settlement, the Company's insurance carrier agreed
to assume the Company's entire payment obligation under the terms
of the settlement.

On June 10, 2009, the District Court granted preliminary approval
of the proposed settlement agreement.  After a September 10, 2009
hearing, the District Court gave final approval to the settlement
on October 5, 2009.  Several objectors have filed notices of
appeal with the United States Court of Appeal for the Second
Circuit from the District Court's order granting final approval
of the settlement.

Although the District Court has granted final approval of the
settlement agreement, there can be no guarantee that it will not
be reversed on appeal.  The Company believes that it has
meritorious defenses to these claims. If the settlement is not
implemented and the litigation continues against the Company, the
Company would continue to defend against this action vigorously.

SWK Holdings Corporation -- http://www.swkhold.com/-- was  
formerly a provider of customer service solutions until the sale
of substantially all its assets in December 2009.  It is
currently seeking to redeploy its cash to enhance stockholder
value and are seeking, analyzing and evaluating potential
acquisition candidates.  This strategy may allow SWK Holdings to
realize future cash flow benefits from its net operating loss
carryforwards.  It was incorporated in Delaware in September 1999
under the name KANA Software, Inc. In December 2009 the Company
changed its name to SWK Holdings Corporation.


TALECRIS BIOTHERAPEUTICS: Being Sold for Too Little, Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Talecris Biotherapeutics
Holdings Corp. is selling itself too cheaply to Grifols Inc., for
$3.4 billion or a $19 share plus 0.641 shares of new, nonvoting
Grifols stock for each Talecris share, shareholders claim in
Delaware Chancery Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Laborers Local 235 Benefit Funds
v. Charpie, et al., Case No. 5562 (Del. Ch. Ct.), is available
at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/06/15/SCA.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph A. Rosenthal, Esq.
          Carmella P. Keener, Esq.
          ROSENTHAL, MONHAIT & GODDESS, P.A.
          919 N. Market St., Suite 1401
          Citizens Bank Center
          P.O. Box 1070
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: 302-656-4433
          E-mail: jrosenthal@rmgglaw.com
                  ckeener@rmgglaw.com

               - and -
               
          Joseph E. White III, Esq.
          Lester R. Hooker, Esq.
          SAXENA WHITE P.A.
          2424 North Federal Highway, Suite 257
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Telephone: 561-394-3399


TIM HORTONS: Canadian Court to Hear Class Certification Nov. 29
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice has reserved the week of
November 29, 2010, to consider class certification of a lawsuit
filed by two franchisees against Tim Hortons, Inc., and certain
of its affiliates, according to the company's May 13, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended April 4, 2010.

On June 12, 2008, a claim was filed against the Company and
certain of its affiliates in the Ontario Superior Court of
Justice by two of its franchisees, Fairview Donut Inc. and Brule
Foods Ltd., alleging, generally, that the Company's Always Fresh
baking system and expansion of lunch offerings have led to lower
franchisee profitability.  The claim, which seeks class action
certification on behalf of Canadian franchisees, asserts damages
of approximately $1.95 billion.  

The plaintiffs filed a motion for certification of the putative
class in May of 2009 and the Company filed its responding
materials as well as a motion for summary judgment in November of
2009.  Cross examinations on both sides' affidavits are being
scheduled.

The Court has reserved the week of Nov. 29, 2010 to consider
class certification.

Plaintiffs filed a motion requesting that the Company's summary
judgment motion be heard following hearing and determination of
plaintiffs' motion for certification.  It is the Company's
position that the motions should be heard together.  A hearing on
plaintiffs' motion to separate the certification and summary
judgment motions was scheduled for May 13, 2010.

The Company believes the claim is frivolous and completely
without merit, and the Company intends to oppose the
certification motion and defend the claim vigorously.

Tim Hortons Inc. -- http://www.timhortons.com/-- is a Canadian  
coffee shop known for its coffee and doughnuts. It was founded in
1964 in Hamilton, Ontario by Canadian hockey player Tim Horton
and Jim Charade, after an initial venture in hamburger
restaurants.


UNION CARBIDE: Interview with Lead Counsel to Bhopal Survivors
--------------------------------------------------------------
India's National Magazine Frontline published an interview with
Himanshu Rajan Sharma, lead counsel for Bhopal survivors seeking
compensation in Sahu, et al. v. UCC and Warren Anderson et al.,
Case No. 07-cv-_____ (S.D.N.Y.).  The full text of the interview
is available at:

          http://www.flonnet.com/stories/20100702271302800.htm


UNITED COMPONENTS: Discovery in Aftermarket Filters Suit Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is currently ongoing in connection with the amended
complaints filed by direct and indirect purchasers of aftermarket
filters against Champion Laboratories, Inc., according to United
Components Inc.'s May 14, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March
31, 2010.  
   
UCI and its wholly owned subsidiary, Champion Laboratories, Inc.,
were named as two of multiple defendants in 23 complaints
originally filed in the District of Connecticut, the District of
New Jersey, the Middle District of Tennessee and the Northern
District of Illinois alleging conspiracy violations of Section 1
of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1, related to aftermarket
oil, air, fuel and transmission filters.  Eight of the complaints
also named The Carlyle Group as a defendant, but those plaintiffs
voluntarily dismissed Carlyle from each of those actions without
prejudice.  Champion, but not UCI, was also named as a defendant
in 13 virtually identical actions originally filed in the
Northern and Southern Districts of Illinois, and the District of
New Jersey.  All of these complaints are styled as putative class
actions on behalf of all persons and entities that purchased
aftermarket filters in the U.S. directly from the defendants, or
any of their predecessors, parents, subsidiaries or affiliates,
at any time during the period from January 1, 1999 to the
present.  Each case seeks damages, including statutory treble
damages, an injunction against future violations, costs and
attorney's fees.

UCI and Champion were also named as two of multiple defendants in
17 similar complaints originally filed in the District of
Connecticut, the Northern District of California, the Northern
District of Illinois and the Southern District of New York by
plaintiffs who claim to be indirect purchasers of aftermarket
filters.  Two of the complaints also named The Carlyle Group as a
defendant, but the plaintiffs in both of those actions
voluntarily dismissed Carlyle without prejudice.  Champion, but
not UCI, was also named in 3 similar actions originally filed in
the Eastern District of Tennessee, the Northern District of
Illinois and the Southern District of California.  These
complaints allege conspiracy violations of Section 1 of the
Sherman Act and/or violations of state antitrust, consumer
protection and unfair competition law.  They are styled as
putative class actions on behalf of all persons or entities who
acquired indirectly aftermarket filters manufactured and/or
distributed by one or more of the defendants, their agents or
entities under their control, at any time between January 1, 1999
and the present; with the exception of three cases which each
allege a class period from January 1, 2002 to the present, and
one complaint which alleges a class period from the "earliest
legal permissible date" to the present.  The complaints seek
damages, including statutory treble damages, an injunction
against future violations, disgorgement of profits, costs and
attorney's fees.

On August 18, 2008, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation issued an order transferring the U.S. direct and
indirect purchaser aftermarket filters cases to the Northern
District of Illinois for coordinated and consolidated pretrial
proceedings before the Honorable Robert W. Gettleman pursuant to
28 U.S.C. Section 1407.  On November 26, 2008, all of the direct
purchaser plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint.  
This complaint names Champion as one of multiple defendants, but
it does not name United Components.  The complaint is styled as a
putative class action and alleges conspiracy violations of
Section 1 of the Sherman Act.  The direct purchaser plaintiffs
seek damages, including statutory treble damages, an injunction
against future violations, costs and attorney's fees.  On
February 2, 2009, Champion filed its answer to the direct
purchasers' Consolidated Amended Complaint.

On December 1, 2008, all of the indirect purchaser plaintiffs,
except Gasoline and Automotive Service Dealers of America, filed
a Consolidated Indirect Purchaser Complaint.  This complaint
names Champion as one of multiple defendants, but it does not
name UCI.  The complaint is styled as a putative class action and
alleges conspiracy violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act and
violations of state antitrust, consumer protection and unfair
competition law.  The indirect purchaser plaintiffs seek damages,
including statutory treble damages, penalties and punitive
damages where available, an injunction against future violations,
disgorgement of profits, costs and attorney's fees.  On February
2, 2009, Champion and the other defendants jointly filed a motion
to dismiss the Consolidated Indirect Purchaser Complaint.  On
November 5, 2009, the Court granted the motion in part, and
denied it in part.  The Court directed the indirect purchaser
plaintiffs to file an amended complaint conforming to the order.  
On November 30, 2009, the indirect purchasers filed an amended
complaint.  On December 17, 2009, the indirect purchasers filed a
motion for leave to file a second amended complaint.  On December
22, 2009, the Court granted the motion for leave, but gave
defendants permission to move to dismiss the second amended
complaint.  Defendants' filed that motion to dismiss on January
19, 2010.  On April 2, 2010, the Court granted the motion in
part, and denied it in part.

On February 2, 2009, Champion, UCI and the other defendants
jointly filed a motion to dismiss the GASDA complaint.  On
April 13, 2009, GASDA voluntarily dismissed UCI from its case
without prejudice.  On November 5, 2009, the Court granted
defendants' motion to dismiss.

Pursuant to a stipulated agreement between the parties, all
defendants produced limited initial discovery on January 30,
2009.  On December 10, 2009 the plaintiffs filed their first sets
of interrogatories and requests for production of documents.  On
January 11, 2010, all defendants filed a number of discovery
requests to plaintiffs and third parties.  The parties submitted
their initial objections and responses to these discovery
requests on February 16, 2010.  On January 21, 2010, the Court
entered a scheduling order for discovery.  Under this order,
discovery related to class certification will proceed
immediately, with document production scheduled to be completed
no later than June 21, 2010.  Class certification briefing will
follow the completion of document production, and expert
discovery on merits-related issues follow the court's ruling on
plaintiffs' motions for class certification.

United Components, Inc. -- http://www.ucinc.com/-- designs,  
develops, manufactures and distributes filtration, fuel, cooling
and engine management products to the automotive, trucking,
industrial, construction, agricultural, marine and mining
vehicle markets.  The company offers approximately 41,000 part
numbers.  It is a supplier to the vehicle replacement parts
market, or the aftermarket.  Over 85% of its net sales, during
the year ended December 2007, were made to vehicle replacement
parts market or the aftermarket, which is subdivided into four
primary channels: retail, traditional, heavy-duty and original
equipment service (OES).  Filtration products made up 40.1% of
sales, during 2007, 23.7% for fuel products, 20.8% for cooling
products and the remaining 15.4% for engine management products.


UNITED STATES: Deadline in Cobell Indian Suit Extended to July 9
----------------------------------------------------------------
For the fifth time, Ryan J. Reilly at MainJustice.com reports,
lawyers in a class action suit brought by American Indians
against the federal government have reached an agreement with the
Justice Department to extend the deadline for Congress to approve
a settlement.  The new deadline is July 9.

"The Department of Justice continues its work to implement the
Cobell settlement," Justice Department spokeswoman Melissa
Schwartz said in a statement. "In light of the legislative
schedule, the parties have agreed to extend the June 15, 2010
legislative enactment deadline for congressional enactment to
July 9, 2010."

Justice and Interior Department officials announced in December
that they had reached a deal with the American Indian plaintiffs
to settle a lawsuit that accused the Interior Department of
mishandling thousands of individual Indian trust fund accounts
over more than a century. The lawsuit is called Cobell after lead
plaintiff Elouise Cobell. But the $1.41 billion deal requires
congressional approval, and the deadline for Congress to sign off
on the deal has already been extended several times.

"It's not an arbitrary date, there's a lot of activity going on
right now," lead counsel for the plaintiffs Dennis Gingold said.
"Obviously we're hoping it's going to be passed before [the
deadline]."

The House passed legislation approving the deal late last month,
but the Senate still needs to OK the agreement before it can go
into effect. The required legislation is attached to an unrelated
jobs and tax package that is currently awaiting a vote on the
Senate floor.

One issue of contention is the cap on lawyers' fee. Sen. John
Barrasso (R-Wyo.) has proposed an amendment that would cap the
fees at $50 million, instead of the $100 million specified in the
deal.

The head of the country's most prominent Native American
organization, the National Congress of American Indians, recently
sent a letter to Senate leaders in support of the Barrasso
amendment.

Attorney General Eric Holder and Interior Secretary Ken Salazar
wrote letters to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) asking the Senate
to pass the settlement without amendments. According to Holder
and Salazar, any changes could nullify the deal.

Reid has scheduled a procedural vote to end debate on the measure
for Wednesday, but he may be short of the 60 votes needed to
overcome a Republican filibuster of the package.


USANA HEALTH: Continues to Defend Nevada Distributors' Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
USANA Health Sciences, Inc., continues to defend a suit styled
Chirco vs. USANA et al., in State District Court in Clark County,
Nevada, 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 3, 2010.

On April 17, 2009, a former USANA Associate filed a purported
class action lawsuit and named USANA and certain of USANA's
present and former officers and directors, as well as other
individuals, as defendants.

The proposed class consists of distributors who were Nevada
residents at any time since 1995.  The complaint is essentially a
copy of a complaint from a purported distributor class action
lawsuit filed against USANA in California state court in 2007,
which was dismissed.

The complaint alleges a number of purported material
misrepresentations to the market in violation of state pyramid
law, deceptive business practices, and business fraud law.  The
complaint seeks damages, general injunctive relief, pre-judgment
interest, costs, attorney's fees, and other further relief deemed
appropriate by the court.

As of April 3, 2010, the purported class action lawsuit was
pending in District Court.  The company believes that the claims
in this action are distorted, not actionable under applicable
law, and without merit, and will continue to vigorously defend
itself and related defendants in the action.

USANA Health Sciences, Inc. --
http://www.usanahealthsciences.com/-- develops and manufactures    
science-based nutritional and personal care products.  The
company distributes and sells its products internationally
through a network marketing system, which is a form of direct
selling.  Its international markets include Canada, Mexico,
Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, Malaysia, Hong Kong, Taiwan,
Japan, and South Korea, and direct sales from the United States
to customers in the United Kingdom and the Netherlands.  The
company distributes and sells its products through a network
marketing system, a form of direct selling, using independent
distributors that it refers to as Associates.  It also sells its
products directly to Preferred Customers who purchase the
company's products for personal use and are not permitted to
resell or distribute the products.


UTI WORLDWIDE: Freight Forwarding Services Lawsuit Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
UTi Worldwide Inc. and several other global logistics providers
continue to face a purported class-action suit that was filed
with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New
York, alleging antitrust violations.

The suit was filed on Jan. 3, 2008, under the caption, "Precision
Associates, Inc. v. Panalpina World Transport (Holding) Ltd."  It
alleges that the defendants engaged in various forms of anti-
competitive practices and seeks an unspecified amount of treble
monetary damages and injunctive relief under U.S. antitrust laws.

Also named as defendants in the lawsuit are:

     -- Panalpina, Inc.;
     -- Kuhne + Nagel International AG;
     -- Kuehne + Nagel, Inc.;
     -- Expeditors International of Washinton, Inc.;
     -- EGL, Inc.;
     -- EGL Eagle Global Logistics, LP;
     -- Deutsche Bahn AG;
     -- Schenker AG;
     -- Schenker, Inc.;
     -- Deutsche Post AG;
     -- DHL EXpress (USA), Inc.;
     -- UTi Worldwide, Inc.; and
     -- Spedlogswiss a/k/a The Association of Swiss Forwarders.

Precision Associates, Inc., James Barnes and Anything Goes LLC
d/b/a Mail Boxes Etc., bring this action under the provisions of
Rule 23(a) and (b)(2) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure on behalf of all persons (excluding governmental
entities, defendants, their subsidiaries and affiliates, and
their co-conspirators) who directly purchased Freight Forwarding
Services in the U.S. from any of the defendants or any subsidiary
or affiliate thereof, or any co-conspirator, at any time during
the period from Jan. 1, 2001, to the present.

They want the court to rule on:

     (a) whether defendants and their co-conspirators engaged in
         a contract, conspiracy or combination to raise, fix,
         stabilize, or maintain the prices of Freight Forwarding
         Services sold in the United States;

     (b) whether the alleged contract, conspiracy or combination
         violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act;

     (c) the duration and extent of the contract, conspiracy or
         combination alleged;

     (d) whether the defendants and their co-conspirators took
         affirmative steps to conceal the contract, conspiracy
         or combination;

     (e) whether each of the defendants was a participant in the
         contract, conspiracy or combination alleged;

     (f) whether the defendants' conduct caused the prices of
         Freight Forwarding Services to be set at an
         artificially high and non-competitive level;

     (g) the effect of defendants' contract, conspiracy or
         combination upon interstate commerce;

     (h) the appropriate measure of damages; and

     (i) whether plaintiffs and class members are entitled to
         declaratory and/or injunctive relief.

The plaintiffs pray:

     -- that the court determine that the Sherman Act claim
        contained may be maintained as a class action under Rule
        23(a), (b)(2), and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil
        Procedure;

     -- that the unlawful contract, conspiracy or combination
        alleged be adjudged and decreed to be a per se restraint
        of trade or commerce in violation of Section 1 of the
        Sherman Act;

     -- that plaintiffs and the class recover damages, as
        provided by law, and that a joint and several judgment
        in favor of plaintiffs and the class be entered against
        the defendants in an amount to be trebled in accordance
        with the antitrust laws;

     -- that defendants, their affiliates, successors,
        transferees, assignees, and the officers, directors,
        partners, agents and employees thereof, and all other
        persons acting or claiming to act on their behalf, be
        permanently enjoined and restrained from in any manner:

        (1) continuing, maintaining, or renewing the contract,
            conspiracy or combination alleged, or from entering
            into any other conspiracy alleged, or from entering
            into any other contract, conspiracy or combination
            having a similar purpose of effect, and from
            adopting or following any practice, plan, program or
            device having a similar purpose or effect; and

        (2) communicating or causing to be communicated to any
            other person engaged in the distribution or sale of
            Freight Forwarding Services, information concerning
            prices or other terms or conditions of sale of any
            such products except to the extent necessary in
            connection with bona fide sale transactions between
            the parties to such communication;

     -- that plaintiffs and members of the class be awarded pre-
        and post-judgment interest and that interest be awarded
        at the highest legal rate from and after the date of
        service of the initial complaint in this action;

     -- that plaintiffs and members of the class recover their
        costs of this suit, including reasonable attorneys' fees
        as provided by law; and

     -- that plaintiffs and members of the class have such
        other, further, and different relief as the case may
        require and the court may deem just and proper under the
        circumstances.

No further updates were reported in company's June 4, 2010, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended April 30, 2010.

The suit is Precision Associates, Inc., et al. v. Panalpina World
Transport (Holding) Ltd. et al., Case No. CV 08 0042 E.D.N.Y.).

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Christopher Lovell, Esq.
          Lovell Stewart Halebian LLP
          500 Fifth Avenue, Floor 58
          New York, NY 10110
          Phone: (212) 608-1900
          Fax:   (212) 719-4677
          E-mail: clovell@lshllp.com

Representing the defendants are:

          August C. Venturini, Esq.
          Venturini & Associates
          230 Park Avenue, Suite 545
          New York, NY 10169
          Phone: (212) 826-6800
          Fax:   (212) 949-6162
          E-mail: acv@venturini-law.com

               - and -

          James Joseph Calder, Esq.
          Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP
          575 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: (212) 940-6460
          Fax:   (212) 940-3871
          E-mail: james.calder@kattenlaw.com

               - and -

          Breon S. Peace, Esq.
          Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP
          One Liberty Plaza
          New York, NY 10006
          Phone: (212) 225-2059
          Fax:   (212) 225-3999
          E-mail: bpeace@cgsh.com


VAXGEN INC: Merger Fails; Plaintiffs Move to Dismiss Complaint
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in class action lawsuits protesting VaxGen, Inc.'s
proposed merger with OXiGENE have moved to dismiss their
complaints after the planned merger failed to push through,
according to the Company's May 14, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2010.  

Beginning on October 23, 2009, several putative stockholder class
action lawsuits were filed against the Company, members of its
Board of Directors, OXiGENE and OXiGENE Merger Sub, Inc. in the
Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo in connection
with the proposed merger with OXiGENE. The complaints, styled
respectively Jensen v. Panek et al., Case No. CIV 488075; Ming v.
VaxGen, Inc. et al., Case No. CIV 489164; and Hawes v. VaxGen,
Inc. et al., Case No. CIV 489313, allege, among other things,
that the members of the Company's Board of Directors violated
their fiduciary duties by failing to maximize value for the
Company's stockholders when negotiating and entering into the
merger agreement with OXiGENE. The complaints also allege that
the Company and OXiGENE aided and abetted those purported
breaches. The plaintiffs seek, among other things, to enjoin the
acquisition of the Company by OXiGENE or, in the alternative, to
rescind the acquisition should it occur before the lawsuit is
resolved.

On February 3, 2010, the Company held a special meeting of
stockholders at which the proposed merger failed to receive
sufficient votes to be approved.

Accordingly, the plaintiffs have filed requests to dismiss the
action without prejudice.

VaxGen, Inc. -- http://www.vaxgen.com/-- is a biopharmaceutical   
company.  VaxGen is focused on the development, manufacture and
commercialization of biologic products for the treatment of human
disease.  The company owns a state-of-the-art biopharmaceutical
manufacturing facility with a 1,000-liter bioreactor that can be
used to make cell culture or microbial biologic products.


VERIZON WIRELESS: 3d Cir. Reinstates FACTA Settlement Pact
----------------------------------------------------------
Verizon Wireless customers asked the United States Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit to review the propriety of a class
action settlement in a case complaining that the
telecommunications provider didn't follow the rules under The
Fair and Accurate Credit Transaction Act (FACTA), 15 U.S.C. Sec.
1681, et seq., when printing credit card numbers on customer
receipts.  

The Third Circuit decided to reverse the District Court's
judgment on the pleadings and remand the matter with instructions
for the District Court to reinstate its preliminary approval of
the settlement agreement and to proceed with the Rule 23 process.  

A copy of the Opinion in Ehrheart, et al. v. Verizon Wireless, et
al., No. 08-4323 (3d Cir.), is available at:

     http://www.leagle.com/unsecure/page.htm?shortname=infco20100615089

The customer-plaintiffs are represented by:

          Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
          R. Bruce Carlson, Esq.
          CARLSON LYNCH
          36 North Jefferson Street
          PO Box 7635
          New Castle, PA 16107

               - and -  

          Justin S. Gilbert, Esq.
          GILBERT RUSSELL & MCWHERTER
          101 North Highland
          Jackson, TN 38301

Verizon is represented by:

          Michael A. Carvin, Esq.
          Noel J. Francisco, Esq.
          John M. Gore, Esq.
          JONES DAY
          51 Louisiana Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20001

               - and -  

          Amy E. Dias, Esq.
          JONES DAY
          500 Grant Street, Suite 4500
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219


VESTIN REALTY: July 9 Hearing on Post-Judgment Settlement Set
-------------------------------------------------------------
Vestin Realty Mortgage II, Inc., Vestin Realty Mortgage I, Inc.,
and other parties to a breach of contract class action lawsuit
are awaiting approval of the San Diego Superior Court of their
post-judgment settlement by which the plaintiffs will not appeal
the pending judgment in consideration of a waiver by the
defendants of any claim to recover costs from the plaintiffs,
according to Vestin Realty's May 13, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2010.

VRM I, VRM II and Vestin Mortgage, Inc., were defendants in a
breach of contract class action filed in San Diego Superior Court
by certain plaintiffs who alleged, among other things, that they
were wrongfully denied roll-up rights in connection with the
merger of Fund I into VRM I and VRM II.

The court certified a class of all former Fund I unit holders and
Fund II unit holders who voted against the mergers of Fund I into
VRM I and Fund II into VRM II.  The trial began in December 2009
and concluded in January 2010.

On February 11, 2010, the Defendants were notified of a Tentative
Statement of Decision, in their favor issued by the Superior
Court for the State of California in San Diego following a trial.  
In the Tentative Statement, the Court found that there was no
roll-up, and therefore, no breach of contract.  The Court entered
judgment for the Defendants on March 18, 2010.

Defendants and Plaintiffs have agreed to a post-judgment
settlement by which Plaintiffs will not appeal the pending
judgment in consideration of a waiver by the Defendants of any
claim to recover costs from the Plaintiffs.  The Court has
preliminary approved this settlement of post-judgment rights and
will decide on July 9, 2010, whether to finally approve it.

Vestin Group, Inc. -- http://www.vestingroup.com/-- is investing  
in commercial real estate.  Through subsidiaries, the firm
originates, invests in, and services mortgages secured by
commercial properties such as apartment complexes, office
buildings, shopping centers, and assisted living facilities.  Its
Vestin Mortgage subsidiary manages two real estate investment
trusts and a real estate investment fund that focus on mortgages
and deeds of trust.


WAL-MART STORES: Appeal to "Braun/Hummel" Judgment Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.'s appeal to a $188 million judgment in the
matter, Braun/Hummel v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., continues to
remain pending.

The company is a defendant in various cases containing class-
action allegations in which the plaintiffs are current and former
hourly associates who allege that the company committed wage-and-
hour violations by failing to provide rest breaks, meal periods,
or other benefits, or otherwise by failing to pay them correctly.  
The complaints generally seek unspecified monetary damages,
injunctive relief, or both.

In one of the wage-and-hour lawsuits captioned Braun/Hummel v.
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., a trial was commenced in September 2006,
in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.  The plaintiffs allege that the
company failed to pay class members for all hours worked and
prevented class members from taking their full meal and rest
breaks.

On Oct. 13, 2006, the jury awarded back-pay damages to the
plaintiffs of approximately $78 million on their claims for off-
the-clock work and missed rest breaks.  The jury found in favor
of the company on the plaintiffs' meal-period claims.

On Nov. 14, 2007, the trial judge entered a final judgment in the
approximate amount of $188 million, which included the jury's
back-pay award plus statutory penalties, prejudgment interest and
attorneys' fees.

The company believes it has substantial factual and legal
defenses to the claims at issue, and on Dec. 7, 2007, the Company
filed its Notice of Appeal.

No further updates were reported in the company's June 4, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended April 30, 2010.

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. -- http://walmartstores.com/-- serves  
customers and club members more than 200 million times per week
at more than 8,000 retail units under 53 different banners in 15
countries.  The company operates in three business segments:
Walmart U.S. and Sam's Club in the United States, and Walmart
International in 14 countries and Puerto Rico.


WAL-MART STORES: Calif. Court Stays Proceedings in "Dukes" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
has stayed further proceedings in a gender-discrimination class-
action lawsuit against Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. captioned Dukes v.
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., according to the company's June 4, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended April 30, 2010.

The class-action lawsuit commenced in June 2001.

The complaint alleges that the company has engaged in a pattern
and practice of discriminating against women in promotions, pay,
training and job assignments.  The complaint seeks, among other
things, injunctive relief, front pay, back pay, punitive damages
and attorneys' fees.  On June 21, 2004, the district court issued
an order granting in part and denying in part the plaintiffs'
motion for class certification.  The class, which was certified
by the district court for purposes of liability, injunctive and
declaratory relief, punitive damages and lost pay, subject to
certain exceptions, includes all women employed at any Walmart
domestic retail store at any time since Dec. 26, 1998, who have
been or may be subjected to the pay and management track
promotions policies and practices challenged by the plaintiffs.

The company believes that the district court's ruling is
incorrect.

On Aug. 31, 2004, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
granted the company's petition for discretionary review of the
ruling.

On Feb. 6, 2007, a divided three-judge panel of the court of
appeals issued a decision affirming the district court's
certification order.  On Feb. 20, 2007, the Company filed a
petition asking that the decision be reconsidered by a larger
panel of the court.

On Dec. 11, 2007, the three-judge panel withdrew its opinion of
Feb. 6, 2007, and issued a revised opinion.

As a result, the company's Petition for Rehearing En Banc was
denied as moot.

The company filed a new Petition for Rehearing En Banc on Jan. 8,
2008.

On Feb. 13, 2009, the court of appeals issued an Order granting
the Petition.

On April 26, 2010, the Ninth Circuit issued a divided 6-5 opinion
affirming certain portions of the district court's ruling and
reversing other portions.  The company intends to file a petition
for a writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court seeking review
of the Ninth Circuit's decision.

On May 14, 2010, after the parties moved jointly for a stay
pending final resolution of the company's petition for a writ of
certiorari, the district court stayed further proceedings until
the earlier of:

     (1) the Supreme Court's resolution of the company's
         petition or

     (2) Sept. 30, 2010.

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. -- http://walmartstores.com/-- serves  
customers and club members more than 200 million times per week
at more than 8,000 retail units under 53 different banners in 15
countries.  The company operates in three business segments:
Walmart U.S. and Sam's Club in the United States, and Walmart
International in 14 countries and Puerto Rico.


WELLS REAL: Parties' Summary Judgment Motions Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Parties to the class action and derivative complaint filed by a
stockholder of Piedmont REIT against Wells Real Estate Funds,
Inc., et al., are awaiting a ruling to their requests for summary
judgment, according to the company's May 13, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2010.

On March 12, 2007, a stockholder of Piedmont REIT filed a
putative class action and derivative complaint, presently styled
In re Wells Real Estate Investment Trust, Inc. Securities
Litigation, in the United States District Court for the District
of Maryland against, among others, Piedmont REIT; Leo F. Wells,
III, one of the Partnership's General Partners; Wells Capital,
the corporate general partner of Wells Partners, the
Partnership's other General Partner; Wells Management, the
Partnership's property manager; certain affiliates of WREF; the
directors of Piedmont REIT; and certain individuals who formerly
served as officers or directors of Piedmont REIT prior to the
closing of the internalization transaction on April 16, 2007.

The complaint alleged, among other things, violations of the
federal proxy rules and breaches of fiduciary duty arising from
the Piedmont REIT internalization transaction and the related
proxy statement filed with the SEC on February 26, 2007, as
amended.  The complaint sought, among other things, unspecified
monetary damages and nullification of the Piedmont REIT
internalization transaction.

On April 9, 2007, the District Court denied the plaintiff's
motion for an order enjoining the internalization transaction.  
On April 17, 2007, the Court granted the defendants' motion to
transfer venue to the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia, and the case was docketed in the
Northern District of Georgia on April 24, 2007.

On June 7, 2007, the Court granted a motion to designate the
class lead plaintiff and class co-lead counsel.  On June 27,
2007, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which attempted
to assert class action claims on behalf of those persons who
received and were entitled to vote on the Piedmont REIT proxy
statement filed with the SEC on February 26, 2007, and derivative
claims on behalf of Piedmont REIT.  On July 9, 2007, the Court
denied the plaintiff's motion for expedited discovery related to
an anticipated motion for a preliminary injunction. On August 13,
2007, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint.

On March 31, 2008, the Court granted in part the defendants'
motion to dismiss the amended complaint.  The Court dismissed
five of the seven counts of the amended complaint in their
entirety.  The Court dismissed the remaining two counts with the
exception of allegations regarding the failure to disclose in the
Piedmont REIT proxy statement details of certain expressions of
interest in acquiring Piedmont REIT.

On April 21, 2008, the plaintiff filed a second amended
complaint, which alleges violations of the federal proxy rules
based upon allegations that the proxy statement to obtain
approval for the Piedmont REIT internalization transaction
omitted details of certain expressions of interest in acquiring
Piedmont REIT.  The second amended complaint seeks, among other
things, unspecified monetary damages, to nullify and rescind the
internalization transaction, and to cancel and rescind any stock
issued to the defendants as consideration for the internalization
transaction.

On May 12, 2008, the defendants answered and raised certain
defenses to the second amended complaint.  On June 23, 2008, the
plaintiff filed a motion for class certification.  On Sept. 16,
2009, the Court granted the plaintiff's motion for class
certification.  On September 20, 2009, the defendants filed a
petition for permission to appeal immediately the Court's order
granting the motion for class certification with the Eleventh
Circuit Court of Appeals.  The petition for permission to appeal
was denied on October 30, 2009.  

On April 13, 2009, the plaintiff moved for leave to amend the
second amended complaint to add additional defendants.  The Court
denied the plaintiff's motion for leave to amend on
June 23, 2009.

On December 4, 2009, the parties filed motions for summary
judgment.  The parties filed their responses to the motions for
summary judgment on January 29, 2010.  The parties' respective
replies to the responses to the motions for summary judgment were
filed on February 19, 2010.  The motions for summary judgment are
currently pending before the Court.

Wells Real Estate Funds -- http://www.wellsref.com/-- is a  
national real estate investment company.  More than 200,000
individuals have invested in Wells-sponsored investment programs
through their financial advisors, and these programs collectively
own over $7.5 billion in assets.


YTB INT'L: Sued in Madison Cty., Ill., for Alleged Pyramid Scheme
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Harris at Courthouse News Service reports that YTB.com
(YourTravelBiz.com) is a $500 million pyramid scheme -- one of
the largest frauds in Illinois history, a class action claims in
Madison County Court.  The class claims YTB sells promises of
cheap travel and million-dollar payouts, but the only way
customers can profit is by recruiting others to join an illegal
pyramid scheme.

"While over half of the customers received no travel commissions
at all, the officers and directors of YTB International Inc. each
paid themselves multimillion-dollar salaries while also siphoning
tens of millions of dollars from their publicly traded
corporation to privately owned corporations that they owned and
controlled," the complaint states.

The class claims YTB generates about 75 percent of its revenue by
using independent marketing representatives to recruit referring
travel agents to buy online travel agencies from the defendants.

Independent marketing representatives receive "marketing
commissions" if the people they refer to YTB buy online travel
agencies, according to the complaint.  The claims that
independent marketing representatives cannot be effective unless
they become referring travel agents themselves.

The class consists of all independent marketing representatives
who paid non-reimbursed referring travel agent fees to YTB.  It
seeks damages for fraud.

The defendants include YTB International, several YTB
subsidiaries, including Rezconnect Technologies, and five
individuals: J. Lloyd Tomer, J. Scott Tomer, J. Kim Sorensen,
Andrew Cauthen, and Michael Brent.

A copy of the Complaint in Stull, et al. v. YTB International,
Inc., et al., Case No. 10L608 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Madison Cty.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/06/15/YTB.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Christian G. Montroy, Esq.
          MONTROY LAW OFFICES, LLC
          412 Missouri Ave.
          East St. Louis, IL 62201
          Telephone: 618-274-0434
          E-mail: cmontroy@montroylaw.com

               - and -

          Jay L. Kanzler, Jr., Esq.
          Brian J. Massimino, Esq.
          WITZEL KANZLER DIMMIT KENNEY & KANLER, LLC
          2001 S. Big Bend Blvd.
          St. Louis, MO 63117
          Telephone: 314-645-5367
          E-mail: jaykanzler@wkllc.com
                  bmassimino@wkllc.com


* Garden City Promotes Stephen Cirami to Senior Vice President
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Garden City Group, Inc. (GCG), one of the largest claims
administration firms in the country, announced that Stephen
Cirami has been promoted to senior vice president of operations.
He has been with the firm since 2003 and was previously vice
president of East Coast operations.

Based in the New York office, Cirami manages all aspects of
hundreds of securities settlements, including high volume
securities litigations such as IPO, Tyco International, Royal
Ahold and Nortel Networks Corp.

Cirami is a highly sought-after speaker on various topics,
including securities class action notice and administration, at
national conferences for industry groups such as BDUG (the Bank
Depository Users Group) and SIFMA (Securities Industry and
Financial Markets Association). In 2009, Cirami spoke at several
institutional investor conferences in Frankfurt, Paris and Zurich
on the topic of global class action claims administration. On
numerous occasions, he has been asked to testify at various court
hearings to discuss the claims process and/or claim
determinations of GCG.

"Steve has been an asset to GCG since day one and has been a
leader by example from the start," said Neil L. Zola, GCG's
president and chief operating officer. "His work ethic,
understanding of complex issues, steady management style and easy
manner with clients all proved invaluable to the continued growth
of our company."

In addition to his experience in handling some of the largest and
most complex securities settlements of all time, Cirami has
overseen all types of other administrations, including dozens of
human rights administrations, product liability, antitrust,
ERISA, wage and hour, and insurance-related matters.

"It is a pleasure to be part of this diverse team and I thank
senior management for this recognition and opportunity," said
Cirami. "GCG represents professionalism, dedication and expertise
in claims administration and I am proud to be on such a great
team."

Before joining GCG, Cirami spent the bulk of his legal career as
a class action defense attorney at King & Spalding LLP in New
York. Prior to that, he was a litigation associate at Clifford
Chance LLP (formerly Rogers & Wells).

Cirami holds a bachelor's degree in psychology from the State
University of New York at Albany. He is a cum laude law school
graduate from Duke University School of Law, where he earned his
juris doctorate.  Cirami is a member of the New York Bar
Association, the New Jersey Bar Association and the Florida Bar
Association.

               About The Garden City Group, Inc. (GCG)

The Garden City Group, Inc. -- http://www.gardencitygroup.com/--  
a subsidiary of Crawford & Company, administers class action
settlements, designs legal notice programs, manages Chapter 11
administrations and provides expert consultation services.

                          About Crawford

Based in Atlanta, Georgia, Crawford & Company --
http://www.crawfordandcompany.com/-- is the world's largest  
independent provider of claims management solutions to the risk
management and insurance industry as well as self-insured
entities, with a global network of more than 700 locations in 63
countries. The Crawford System of Claims Solutions(SM) offers
comprehensive, integrated claims services, business process
outsourcing and consulting services for major product lines
including property and casualty claims management, workers
compensation claims and medical management, and legal settlement
administration. The Company's shares are traded on the NYSE under
the symbols CRDA and CRDB.


                       Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Everest Has $595.8MM Gross Reserves at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Everest Re Group, Ltd., at March 31, 2010, had gross asbestos
loss reserves of US$595.8 million, or 95.3 percent, of total
asbestos and environmental reserves, of which US$465.9 million
was for assumed business and US$129.9 million was for direct
business.

The Company's net three year asbestos survival ratio was 6.3
years at March 31, 2010.

Based in Hamilton, Bermuda, Everest Re Group, Ltd. offers
specialized underwriting in several areas, including
property/casualty, marine, aviation, and surety, as well as
medical malpractice, directors and officers liability, and
professional errors and omissions liability.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sealed Air Unit Still Party to Thundersky Claim
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sealed Air Corporation's Canadian subsidiary, Sealed Air (Canada)
Co./Cie, since 2004, is a defendant in an asbestos case styled
Thundersky v. The Attorney General of Canada, et al. (File No.
CI04-01-39818).

The case is pending in the Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench.

In November 2004, Sealed Air (Canada) Co./Cie learned that it had
been named a defendant in the case. W. R. Grace & Co. and W. R.
Grace & Co.-Conn. are also named as defendants.

The plaintiff brought the claim as a putative class proceeding
and seeks recovery for alleged injuries suffered by any Canadian
resident, other than in the course of employment, as a result of
Grace's marketing, selling, processing, manufacturing,
distributing and/or delivering asbestos or asbestos-containing
products in Canada prior to the Cryovac Transaction.

A plaintiff filed another proceeding in January 2005 in the
Manitoba Court of The Queen's Bench naming the Company and
specified subsidiaries as defendants. The latter proceeding, Her
Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of Manitoba v. The
Attorney General of Canada, et al. (File No. CI05-01-41069),
seeks the recovery of the cost of insured health services
allegedly provided by the Government of Manitoba to the members
of the class of plaintiffs in the Thundersky proceeding.

In October 2005, the Company learned that six additional putative
class proceedings had been brought in various provincial and
federal courts in Canada seeking recovery from the Company and
its subsidiaries Cryovac, Inc. and Sealed Air (Canada) Co./Cie,
as well as other defendants including Grace and W. R. Grace &
Co.-Conn., for alleged injuries suffered by any Canadian
resident, other than in the course of employment (except with
respect to one of these six claims), as a result of Grace's
marketing, selling, manufacturing, processing, distributing
and/or delivering asbestos or asbestos-containing products in
Canada prior to the Cryovac transaction.

Grace and W. R. Grace & Co.-Conn. have agreed to defend,
indemnify and hold harmless the Company and its affiliates in
respect of any liability and expense, including legal fees and
costs, in these actions.

Based in Elmwood Park, N.J., Sealed Air Corporation manufactures
packaging and performance-based materials and equipment systems
that now serve an array of food, industrial, medical and consumer
applications. The Company has business operations in 51 countries
and sells products under brands like Bubble Wrap brand
cushioning, Jiffy protective mailers, Instapak foam-in-place
systems and Cryovac packaging technology.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sealed Air Corp. Party to Cryovac Deal Actions
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sealed Air Corporation, since 2000, has been served with lawsuits
alleging that, as a result of the Cryovac transaction, the
Company is responsible for alleged asbestos liabilities of W. R.
Grace & Co. and its subsidiaries, some of which were also named
as co-defendants in some of these actions.

Among these lawsuits are several purported class actions and a
number of personal injury lawsuits. Some plaintiffs seek damages
for personal injury or wrongful death, while others seek medical
monitoring, environmental remediation or remedies related to an
attic insulation product.

Neither the former Sealed Air Corporation nor Cryovac, Inc. ever
produced or sold any of the asbestos-containing materials that
are the subjects of these cases.

None of these cases has reached resolution through judgment,
settlement or otherwise.

Based in Elmwood Park, N.J., Sealed Air Corporation manufactures
packaging and performance-based materials and equipment systems
that now serve an array of food, industrial, medical and consumer
applications. The Company has business operations in 51 countries
and sells products under brands like Bubble Wrap brand
cushioning, Jiffy protective mailers, Instapak foam-in-place
systems and Cryovac packaging technology.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: J. C. Penney Estimates $50MM Liability at May 1
----------------------------------------------------------------
J. C. Penney Company, Inc., as of May 1, 2010, estimated its
total potential asbestos and environmental liabilities to range
from US$49 million to US$60 million and recorded its best
estimate of US$50 million in other liabilities in the
Consolidated Balance Sheet as of that date.

This estimate covered potential liabilities primarily related to
underground storage tanks, remediation of environmental
conditions involving the Company's former Eckerd drugstore
locations and asbestos removal in connection with approved plans
to renovate or dispose of the Company's facilities.

The Company continues to assess required remediation and the
adequacy of environmental reserves as new information becomes
available and known conditions are further delineated.

Based in Plano, Tex., J. C. Penney Company, Inc. is a holding
company for department store operator J. C. Penney Corporation,
one of the largest department store, catalog, and e-commerce
retailers in the United States with more than 1,100 JCPenney
department stores in 49 states and Puerto Rico.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Todd Shipyards Corp. Has 565 Claims at March 28
----------------------------------------------------------------
Todd Shipyards Corporation faced a total of 565 outstanding
asbestos claims as of March 28, 2010, compared with 535
outstanding claims as of March 29, 2009, according to the
Company's annual report filed on June 10, 2010 with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.

Of the outstanding claims as of March 28, 2010, the Company
recorded 10 malignant claims, 184 non-malignant claims, and 371
inactive claims. Of the outstanding claims as of March 29, 2009,
the Company recorded 12 malignant claims and 523 non-malignant
claims.

The Company is named as a defendant in civil actions by parties
alleging damages from past exposure to toxic substances,
generally asbestos, at its Seattle shipyard and closed former
facilities.

In addition to the Company, the cases generally include other
ship builders and repairers, ship owners, asbestos manufacturers,
distributors and installers, and equipment manufacturers as
defendants, and arise from injuries or illnesses allegedly caused
by exposure to asbestos or other toxic substances.

The relief sought in all cases varies greatly by jurisdiction and
claimant. Included in the 490 cases open as of March 28, 2010 are
about 565 claimants. About 245 cases do not assert any specific
amount of relief sought.

About 153 cases assert on behalf of each claimant a claim for
compensatory damages of US$2 million and punitive damages of
US$20 million against 20-100 defendants. About 39 cases assert
US$5-20 million in compensatory and US$5-20 million in punitive
damages on behalf of each claimant against 20-100 defendants.
About 50 cases assert US$1-5 million in compensatory and US$5-10
million in punitive damages on behalf of each claimant against
20-100 defendants. About three cases seek compensatory damages of
less than US$1 million per claim.

Bodily injury reserves decreased from US$5 million at March 29,
2009 to US$3 million at March 28, 2010. Bodily injury insurance
receivables also decreased from US$3.8 million at March 29, 2009
to US$2.1 million at March 28, 2010.

Based in Seattle, Todd Shipyards Corporation is a private (or
non-Governmental) shipyard operator. Most of its business is
repair and maintenance work on commercial and federal government
vessels engaged in various maritime activities in the Pacific
Northwest.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeal Court Affirms Dismissal of McDowell Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Oregon upheld the ruling of the Multnomah
County Circuit Court, which dismissed an asbestos lawsuit filed
by Robert McDowell against various defendants.

Judges Rick T. Haselton, Rex Armstrong, and Ellen F. Rosenblum
entered judgment in the case on April 21, 2010.

Mr. McDowell appealed a limited judgment, challenging the
dismissal of his claims concerning alleged asbestos exposure
against defendants as a sanction for his violation of a court
order.

Mr. McDowell contended on appeal that, because he was unable to
comply with the Multnomah County Circuit Court's order, the trial
court abused its discretion by dismissing his case.

The Appeals Court affirmed the dismissal.

Defendants referred to Domco Products Texas, L.P., Kentile
Floors, Inc., and Wanke Panel Company.

Richard M. Grant, Esq., argued the case for Mr. McDowell. On the
opening brief were Patrick Angel, Esq., J. Peter Jeffers, Esq.,
Delaney Miller, Esq., and Brayton Purcell, LLP. On the reply
brief were Patrick Angel, Esq., Cameron O. Carter, Esq., and
Brayton Purcell, LLP.

Thomas W. Brown, Esq., and J. Michael Mattingly, Esq., argued the
cause for respondents. With them on the joint brief were Cosgrave
Vergeer Kester LLP, and Rizzo Mattingly Bosworth PC, and R.
Daniel Lindahl, Esq., and Lindahl Law Firm, PC.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fla. Court Reverses Ruling in Caraffa's Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District, reversed
the ruling of the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, which
dismissed an asbestos lawsuit filed by Giovanna Settimi Caraffa.

The case is styled Giovanna Settimi Caraffa, individually, and as
personal representative of the Estate of Benedetto Emanuelle
Caraffa, Appellant v. Carnival Corporation, Appellee.

Judges Juan Ramirez Jr., Gerald B. Cope Jr., and David M. Gersten
entered judgment in Case No. 3D09-1998 on April 21, 2010.

Mrs. Caraffa appealed the dismissal of her complaint on forum non
conveniens grounds.

Mrs. Caraffa filed the underlying action on behalf of her
deceased husband, Benedetto Caraffa, on Jan. 17, 2006. She
alleged that her husband died as a result of prolonged exposure
to asbestos while working on ships that Carnival Corporation
owned and controlled. Carnival received service of process on
Jan. 19, 2006.

On March 22, 2006, Carnival served its Motion to Dismiss, which
included a forum non conveniens argument. In response, on July
10, 2006, Mrs. Caraffa filed her Motion to Strike Carnival's
untimely forum non conveniens argument, which she later withdrew
before the trial court ruled on the motion.

On Sept. 6, 2006, Mrs. Caraffa filed her Amended Complaint.
Carnival filed its Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint on
Oct. 2, 2006. On April 27, 2007, the parties entered into an
agreed order regarding Carnival's Amended Motion to Dismiss.

On May 14, 2007, Carnival served its Answer and Affirmative
Defenses. Carnival amended its Answer and Affirmative Defenses
the next day. On March 4, 2008, the trial court transferred the
case to the Asbestos Division.

On Nov. 12, 2008, Carnival filed and served another Motion to
Dismiss. Carnival raised the issue of forum non conveniens,
arguing that the case was more conveniently litigated in Italy.
Mrs. Caraffa promptly moved to strike the motion.

The trial court heard argument on Carnival's Motion to Dismiss on
May 20, 2009. During oral argument, Carnival asked for the first
time for the court to deem the motion as timely filed based upon
excusable neglect. The trial court ultimately granted Carnival's
motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens.

The Appeals Court reverse the order of dismissal, and remanded
the matter for further proceedings.

Lipcon, Margulies & Alsina, P.A., and Michael A. Winkleman, Esq.,
represented Mrs. Caraffa.

Maltzman Foreman, and Jeffrey E. Maltzman, Esq., and Darren W.
Friedman, Esq., represented Carnival Corporation.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Court Reverses Ruling in Walton Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeal, Second District, California reversed the
ruling of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, which entered
judgment in favor of Edward and Carol Walton in an asbestos case
filed against The William Powell Company.

Judges Norman L. Epstein, Nora M. Manella, and Thomas L. Willhite
Jr. entered judgment in Case No. B208214 on April 22, 2010.

Beginning in the late 1940s, Powell sold metal valves, together
with asbestos gaskets and packing, to the U.S. Navy. Mr. Walton
served in the Navy from 1946 to 1968. After leaving the Navy, Mr.
Walton operated a painting business that brought him into contact
with products containing asbestos. In November 2005, he was
diagnosed as suffering from lung cancer.

On Nov. 2, 2006, the Waltons filed their complaint for negligence
and strict liability against Powell and about 45 other
defendants. The complaint alleged that Mr. Walton's lung cancer
and related medical conditions resulted from his exposure to
asbestos in connection with the defendants' products. The Waltons
sought compensatory and punitive damages.

On Feb. 20, 2008, at the commencement of jury selection, six
defendants remained in the action, including Powell. The next
day, when the Waltons made their opening statement to the jury,
Powell and a pump manufacturer were the only defendants in the
action. By midtrial, Powell was the sole defendant in the action.

The jury found that Mr. Walton had suffered US$561,861 in
economic damages and US$20 million in noneconomic damages, and
allocated Powell a 25 percent share of the responsibility for the
causation of these damages. In addition, the jury found that
Powell had acted with malice, oppression, or fraud, but awarded
no punitive damages.

On March 6, 2008, a judgment was entered in favor of the Waltons
awarding damages totaling US$5,660,624.39. The trial court later
denied Powell's motions for a new trial and judgment
notwithstanding the verdict. This appeal followed.

The judgment was reversed, and the matter was remanded with
directions to the trial court to vacate the judgment and enter a
new judgment in favor of Powell on the Waltons' claims. Powell
was awarded its costs on appeal.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Court Upholds Ruling in Bechtel Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeal, Second District, California, upheld the
decision of the Los Angeles County Superior Court, which granted
summary judgment in favor of Bechtel Corporation and Bechtel
Construction Company, in an asbestos suit filed against Barbara
Whitmire on behalf of her husband, Jimmie Whitmire.

The case is styled Jimmie Whitmire, et al., Plaintiffs and
Appellants v. Ingersoll-Rand Company, et al., Defendants and
Respondents.

Judges Norman L. Epstein, Nora M. Manella, and Thomas L. Willhite
Jr. entered judgment in Case No. B210211 on April 22, 2010.

Mrs. Whitmire, on her own behalf and as successor in interest to
Mr. Whitmire (collectively plaintiffs), appealed from a summary
judgment granted in favor of defendants Bechtel Corporation and
Bechtel Construction Company (collectively Bechtel) on
plaintiffs' complaint for negligence and strict liability related
to Mr. Whitmire's exposure to asbestos.

From 1961 to 1993, Mr. Whitmire was employed as an electrician at
Pacific Gas and Electric (PG & E) power plants. After he
contracted mesothelioma, plaintiffs sued Bechtel, among other
defendants, alleging that Mr. Whitmire had contracted
mesothelioma from exposure at the power plants to asbestos-
containing products for which the defendants were responsible.

Mr. Whitmire worked for PG & E at three locations in Northern
California - Contra Costa Powerhouse in Antioch (1961-1966 and
1969-1985), Pittsburg Powerhouse in Pittsburg (1966-1969), and
Moss Landing Powerhouse in Moss Landing (1985- 1993).

Bechtel moved for summary judgment on the issue of causation,
contending that "Plaintiffs have not produced - and cannot
produce - evidence that Mr. Whitmire was ever exposed to asbestos
attributable to Bechtel, much less that Bechtel-attributable
asbestos was a substantial factor in the causation of his alleged
injury."

In opposition, plaintiffs argued that Bechtel had failed to meet
its initial moving burden of demonstrating the absence of a
triable issue of material fact and, in the alternative, submitted
evidence that plaintiffs contended was sufficient to create a
triable controversy as to whether Mr. Whitmire was exposed to
asbestos as a result of Bechtel's conduct.

At the hearing on Bechtel's motion, the court's tentative ruling
was to grant summary judgment. The court proposed to disregard
Mr. Whitmire's declaration alleging exposure at the Contra Costa
plant because it was "inconsistent to prior discovery responses
where he declared he had been exposed at the Moss Landing
facility." The plaintiffs appealed.

Waters Kraus & Paul (Michael B. Gurien, Esq., and Paul C. Cook,
Esq.) represented Plaintiffs and Appellants.

Hassard Bonnington, Esq., Robert M. Hamblett, Esq., and Philip S.
Ward, Esq., Reed Smith, Esq., Dennis Peter Maio, Esq., Paul D.
Fogel, Esq., and Margaret A. Grignon, Esq., represented
Defendants and Respondents.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ind. Court Affirms Board Ruling in Joiner Claim
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Indiana upheld the ruling of the Indiana
Worker's Compensation Board, which denied Gene A. Joiner's claim
for worker's compensation for medical difficulties he had
experienced as a result of exposure to asbestos in the course of
his employment for United States Steel Corporation.

The case is styled Gene A. Joiner, Appellant-Petitioner v. United
States Steel Corp., Appellee-Respondent.

Judges John G. Baker, Margret G. Robb, and Melissa S. May entered
judgment in Case No. 93A02-0907-EX-701 on April 21, 2010.

Mr. Joiner worked for U.S. Steel from 1968 through 1974, and
alleged that he was exposed to asbestos in the course of his
employment. On Nov. 13, 2000, he filed his first application for
worker's compensation, contending that he became disabled in 1991
as a result of the asbestos exposure.

On Aug. 25, 2003, the Board denied Mr. Joiner's claim, finding it
barred by the applicable statute of limitations. On April 24,
2004, he filed his second application, which raised precisely the
same claims as those raised in his first application. On Sept.
30, 2004, a Single Hearing Member denied the claim, finding that
it was barred by res judicata and law of the case. Mr. Joiner did
not appeal to the full Board.

On Oct. 25, 2004, Mr. Joiner filed his third application, which
was again essentially identical to the first application. On
April 25, 2005, a Single Hearing Member denied the claim based on
res judicata and law of the case. Mr. Joiner did not appeal to
the full Board.

On May 12, 2005, Mr. Joiner filed a fourth application, which
was, again, identical to those he had filed before. On Aug. 4,
2005, a Single Hearing Member granted U.S. Steel's motion to
dismiss based upon res judicata and law of the case. On Dec. 21,
2005, the Board affirmed the Single Hearing Member's conclusions.

On Dec. 5, 2008, Mr. Joiner requested that the Board reopen his
third application, raising the same claims he had been pursuing
since 2000. On Dec. 30, 2008, a Single Hearing Member denied the
request.

Mr. Joiner appealed to the Board, which affirmed the Single
Hearing Member's refusal to reopen Mr. Joiner's third application
on June 8, 2009. Mr. Joiner now appealed.

The judgment of the Board was affirmed.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Supreme Court Rules on Mt. Sinai Asbestos Issue
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court, New York County, New York, entered rulings in
the case styled Victor Reyniak and Sybille Reyniak, Plaintiffs v.
Barnstead International, et al., Defendants.

Judge Sherry Klein Heitler entered judgment in Case No. 102688-08
on April 6, 2010.

Mount Sinai School of Medicine moved for a protective order
limiting the judicial subpoena duces tecum served upon it by
Kentile Floors, Inc. in March 2009. During the months following
such service, Mt. Sinai produced documents concerning the
installation, use, and removal of asbestos at Mt. Sinai's
hospital and medical school in response to the subpoena.

Mt. Sinai's objection pertained to Kentile's position that in
addition to the documents produced the subpoena also required the
production of certain other documents generated by Dr. Irving
Selikoff (now deceased), who was a physician and member of Mt.
Sinai's faculty.

In opposition, Kentile asserted that its counsel's previous
motion against Mt. Sinai to compel compliance with an earlier
non-judicial subpoena duces tecum and for sanctions against Mt.
Sinai remained undecided by the court; that the instant motion
for a protective order is untimely and Mt. Sinai had therefore
waived any objection thereto; and that the information sought by
Kentile under the subpoena is relevant and discoverable.

Under order dated Dec. 7, 2009 and filed by the New York County
Clerk on Dec. 15, 2009, the previous motion to which Kentile
referred was disposed of as withdrawn by counsel, and that branch
of Kentile's opposition was therefore moot.

Mt. Sinai's motion for a protective order limiting Kentile's
subpoena duces tecum was granted.

Ordered that Mount Sinai School of Medicine's motion for a
protective order was granted, and the portion of the subpoena
that purported to require disclosure of the private
correspondence and research notes of Dr. Irving Selikoff was
hereby vacated.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: James Hardie Files Lawsuit v. Queensland Gov't.
----------------------------------------------------------------
James Hardie Industries SE is filing suit against the Queensland
Government, charging the state for not protecting a subcontracted
carpenter from Hardie asbestos products in the 1950s and 1960s,
The Australian reports.

However, the Queensland Government counters that the then-
Queensland Housing Commission did not owe a duty of care to the
carpenter, who is now suffering from asbestosis.

The 77-year-old Leonard Mervyn French sued a division of asbestos
manufacturer James Hardie, now known as Amaca, and Wunderlich,
now Seltsam, for AUD238,160 last June 2009.

The lawsuit was settled by Amaca on Sept. 30, 2009 and the
Company is now trying to recoup that compensation from the
Queensland government, as part of a well-orchestrated strategy to
spread the blame and share the cost burden.

In 2009, the Weekend Australian revealed that Amaca had launched
legal action against Ipswich City Council in a similar attempt to
spread liability. The council is currently defending the claim.

According to documents filed in the District Court of Queensland,
Mr. French worked with asbestos cement sheeting between 1947 and
1983 for various jobs as a carpenter and builder. In the 1950s
and 1960s, he was subcontracted to the Queensland Housing
Commission to build homes in Brisbane.

During those years, Mr. French worked both for himself and in
partnership with a fellow builder, and "continued to work
extensively with asbestos cement fibro sheeting." Mr. French was
diagnosed with asbestos disease in February 2009.

In court documents, Amaca claims that Mr. French's "pain, injury,
loss and damage was caused, or contributed to, by the negligence
of the Queensland Housing Commission."

Amaca alleges that the government failed to provide a safe
workplace for Mr. French, did not supply him with a respirator or
mask, and did not ensure the workplace was properly ventilated.

In its defense filed on May 2010, the Queensland Government said
that because Mr. French was a subcontractor, it did not owe a
duty of care to him.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mt. Vernon Schools Get $70T Grant for Abatement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Mt. Vernon City Schools in Mt. Vernon, Ill., received a
US$70,000 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act grant through
Head Start to remove asbestos floor tiles, the Mt. Vernon
Register-News reports.

With a US$60,000 match from District 80 funds, stained and worn
carpets and asbestos floor tiles will be removed in the Benjamin
Franklin Early Education Center and replaced before children
return Aug. 30, 2010, said District superintendent Dr. Kevin
Settle.

The tiles, which are part of the original 60-year-old building,
cannot be removed without sealing the building because of the
carcinogenic effect asbestos has on the lungs, according to
information from the Environmental Protection Agency.

Environmental Assurance Company submitted the lowest bid.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Metolius School Fined $33T for Safety Breaches
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality issued US$33,173
in penalties to Jefferson County School District 509-J and two
district employees for environmental law violations that occurred
during an asbestos removal project last summer at Metolius
Elementary School, 420 SW Butte Ave., in Metolius, Ore.,
according to an Oregon DEQ press release dated June 14, 2010.

DEQ penalized the school district US$11,573 for allowing the two
employees to perform an unlicensed asbestos abatement project at
the school. The employees removed about 260 square feet of
asbestos-containing floor tiles from the school's kitchen area in
June and July of 2009.

The actions likely released harmful asbestos fibers into the air
during a period when the building was open for summer school
activities. In addition, according to DEQ, the employees disposed
of the asbestos-containing material unpackaged and in a cafeteria
trash container at the school.

DEQ issued US$10,800 penalties to the two school district
employees, Timothy Whitaker of Culver, and Vernon Leroy Middleton
of Madras, for performing an unlicensed asbestos abatement
project.

DEQ also cited Mr. Whitaker, Mr. Middleton and the school
district for failing to dispose of all the asbestos-containing
waste material at an authorized waste disposal site, but did not
assess penalties for those violations.

The Jefferson County School District has notified DEQ that it is
appealing its penalty and is appealing on behalf of both Mr.
Whitaker and Mr. Middleton.

DEQ alleges that removal of the floor tiles crushed and broke up
the tiles, likely releasing asbestos fibers into the atmosphere.
In assessing the penalties to Mr. Whitaker and Mr. Middleton, DEQ
expressed concerns that the two workers pulverized the tiles as
they were removing them, despite knowing the tiles contained
asbestos.

In assessing the district's penalty, DEQ noted that as the
school's owner, the district is responsible for ensuring that
asbestos in the school is properly managed.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cleanup at Asheville High in N.C. to Cost $22T
---------------------------------------------------------------
Asheville High School officials say that it will cost US$22,000
to remove asbestos from the school, which is located in
Asheville, N.C., CITIZEN-TIMES.com reports.

The asbestos was found as workers began removing layers of old
flooring during a US$2.9 million renovation project at the
school. They found the asbestos in an area that has been closed
off to students since January 2010, said Bob McGrattan, assistant
superintendent for human resources and support services. The
asbestos was found underneath the existing floor in the dining
room of the old cafeteria. The facility opened in 1929.

In addition to removal costs, it will cost another US$3,000 to
clean contractors' tools and materials that were in the area.

As part of the current renovation project, the old cafeteria is
being converted into offices and other space, and a new
accessible entrance is being added, said Charlie Glazener,
spokesman for Asheville City Schools.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Intervention Sought to Remove Asbestos in Mass.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Emergency federal intervention is needed to abate asbestos
hazards in hundreds of Massachusetts schools, according to a
legal petition filed on June 10, 2010 by Public Employees for
Environmental Responsibility (PEER), according to a PEER press
release dated June 10, 2010.

Agency records show widespread noncompliance by schools with
federal asbestos requirements.

Massachusetts Cancer Registry data indicate that teachers and
school custodians are reporting cases of malignant mesothelioma,
a cancerous tumor in the lining of the lung linked to asbestos
exposure for the period of 1982 to 2003. Risks for students,
however, have yet to be studied. More than 53 million children
and about 6 million adults spend a substantial part of their days
in schools, according to federal statistics.

The federal Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA)
requires all public and private non-profit primary and secondary
schools to implement plans for asbestos containment, removal and
periodic inspections.

On average, 90 percent of Massachusetts schools chosen at random
for audits were not in compliance with AHERA during the last 10
years for which records are available (1998 to 2008). In none of
the years was the rate of school compliance greater than 22
percent.

Problems uncovered in the audits included failure to:

-- Keep required records to verify that when asbestos-containing
   building materials were disturbed, access to the area was
   restricted, or the air-handling system was modified or shut
   down;

-- Ensure that maintenance/custodial staff were trained in
   asbestos hazards and requirements; and

-- Notify parents, teachers or employee organizations of the
   asbestos management plan's availability.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is responsible for
enforcing AHERA but in 1998, EPA authorized the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts to administer the statute, a task that, in turn,
fell to the state Division of Occupational Safety. EPA retains
oversight over Massachusetts' performance - a responsibility
which PEER is invoking through the June 10, 2010 petition.

New England PEER Director Kyla Bennett said, "School children,
teachers, custodians and cafeteria workers are at risk of
exposure throughout the Commonwealth. These ultrahigh rates of
noncompliance sound an alarm bell that we need more boots on the
ground now to turn the corner on this by the end of the summer,
before the schools reopen."

Ms. Bennett, a former EPA biologist and attorney, noted that
recent inspections of 40 schools turned up more than 300
violations.

The PEER enforcement petition was filed on June 10, 2010 with the
acting EPA Regional Administrator Curt Spalding in Boston. The
petition demands that EPA immediately assume jurisdiction in
order to protect public health and maintain credibility of the
federal program.

If Mr. Spaulding declines to intervene, PEER can appeal his
inaction to EPA's Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance in Washington, Cynthia Giles.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chicago Conference to Focus on Bankruptcy Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
Perrin Conferences announced that it is holding an Asbestos
Bankruptcy Conference on June 21, 2010 at the Peninsula Hotel in
Chicago, according to a Perrin Conferences press release dated
June 11, 2010.

The conference, featuring a "Judicial Roundtable on Asbestos
Compensation," will address the recent headline news regarding
the Chapter 11 bankruptcy filings of RPM International's Bondex
unit and Enpro Industries' Garlock subsidiary.

The conference is chaired by John Cooney, Esq., Cooney & Conway,
Chicago, and Kirk Hartley, Esq., Childress Duffy Goldblatt, Ltd.,
Chicago.

In addition to sessions on the recent bankruptcy filings, the
one-day conference features six important panels on emerging
asbestos bankruptcy issues including "Asbestos Bankruptcy 2010 -
A New Era or the Last Chapter?" that provides a national update
of current cases involving debtors who have yet to emerge from
the bankruptcy process and those who recently entered the trust
system - W. R. Grace & Co., Quigley (Pfizer), Congoleum
Corporation, Flintkote, Pittsburgh Corning, Plant Insulation,
NARCO, etc.    

Another panel addresses the critical changes in today's ever-
changing bankruptcy and tort environment, "Trusts Online: The
Impact of Asbestos Bankruptcies on the Tort System," which
focuses on the emergence of bankruptcy trusts to pay claimants
and how state courts are currently dealing with asbestos
bankruptcy trust claims.

Other panels include an update on the continued impact of the GM
and Chrysler bankruptcy cases; the management and operation of an
asbestos bankruptcy trust; and how to successfully file asbestos
bankruptcy trust claims.

The conference closes with a session of the nation's top
bankruptcy and state court judges who offer their insight on the
evolving changes in asbestos and asbestos bankruptcy law.

The Judicial Roundtable, "The Interplay between Bankruptcy Trusts
and Traditional Asbestos Litigation," features Hon. Judith
Fitzgerald, U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania, Hon. James Murray Lynn, Philadelphia Court of
Common Pleas, Hon. William D. Maddux, Circuit Court of Cook
County, Hon. Randall J. Newsome, U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the
Northern District of California, and Hon. Daniel Stack, Madison
County Circuit Court.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cleanup at Ex-Texaco Center in Fishkill Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Asbestos and environmental cleanup at the former Texaco Beacon
Research Center in Fishkill, N.Y., is ongoing, the Mesothelioma
Resource Center reports.

The Research Center is slated for demolition.

Of the 64 buildings at the center, Chevron Environmental
Management plans to demolish 43 structures down to their
foundations once asbestos remediation is completed, according to
Demolitionnews.com.

The property goes back to 1811 when it was originally a textile
mill. Texaco bought the property in 1931 and located a crude oil
refining research facility there. The facility closed in 2003,
two years after Texaco merged with Chevron.

Once the structures are demolished, work crews will drill through
concrete slabs in the foundations to sample soil for any
remaining contamination.

Mark Hendrickson, project manager for Chevron Environmental
Management, said, "The site is inactive, and we would like to put
it back to productive use." The plant once employed as many as
1,200 people, but was closed when research activities decreased.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA OKs Asbestos Mitigation at Bayview Shipyard
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, in June 2009, approved
asbestos safety measures of the redevelopment work at Hunters
Point Naval Shipyard in Bayview, Calif., Asbestos.com reports.

In 2006 and 2007, airborne asbestos dust was released during a
grading project connected with the redevelopment of the shipyard.

The asbestos was released from the soil, as Bay-area soils are
naturally contaminated with the mineral asbestos. The
homebuilding company Lennar Corp. was fined US$515,000 in 2008 by
state regulators for failing to properly manage and monitor the
disturbed asbestos dust.

The most recent investigation on behalf of the EPA found that
current safety procedures are sufficiently protecting Bay-area
residents.

In its report, the EPA states, "Strict best-management practices
for dust and asbestos monitoring and mitigation are in place to
protect the community and keep exposure to asbestos in dust
within acceptable levels.

"The current practice of daily inspections by the Bay Area Air
Quality Management District (Air District) and the City of San
Francisco Department of Public Health provide appropriate
oversight and enforcement."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bolton Local's Death Linked to Hazard Exposure
---------------------------------------------------------------
An inquest heard that the death of Keith Rawlinson, an engineer
from Bolton, Greater Manchester, England, was linked to workplace
exposure to asbestos, The Bolton News reports.

Mr. Rawlinson died on Dec. 25, 2009 at the age of 64 in Bolton
Hospice. He worked for British Leyland for 20 years where, for
the first 10 years, he regularly came into contact with asbestos
dust, Bolton Coroner's Court was told.

Histopathologist Dr. David Bisset said Mr. Rawlinson died from
bronchial pneumonia caused by mesothelioma.

Recording his verdict, deputy coroner Alan Walsh said Mr.
Rawlinson died from an industrial disease.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Speedy Excavating Charged for Disposal Breaches
----------------------------------------------------------------
Speedy Excavating, a Surrey, British Columbia-based demolition
firm, was charged with allegedly dumping asbestos-laden building
materials at a recycling depot in New Westminster instead of
taking it to Alberta, Canada, to be disposed of, The Vancouver
Sun reports.

Speedy's Bhupinder Singh Dhillon and Kelbeir Singh Sall were
charged on June 8, 2010 with nine offenses under the
Environmental Management Act of transporting and disposing
hazardous waste, according to Surrey Provincial Court documents.

The documents show that the alleged offences occurred in December
2008. The two accused are set to appear in Surrey Provincial
Court on July 9, 2010.

Jack Trudgin, the B.C. conservation officer who was investigating
the case, alleges that Speedy Excavating was underbidding for
construction jobs that involved tearing down old houses with
asbestos-laden drywall because it knew how to dispose of it
cheaper than having to ship it to Alberta, the nearest place that
safely disposes of asbestos.

Mr. Trudgin says the recycling depot was unaware there was
asbestos in the drywall, which could pose a serious health risk
to workers.

The Company was taking the drywall to the New West recycling
depot for a couple of hundred dollars instead of paying thousands
to ship it legally, Mr. Trudgin said.

Gary Zappone, owner of Langley-based Alchemist Transport, one of
the companies that ships hazardous asbestos to Alberta, estimated
it would cost a company nearly CAD4,000 to safely dispose an
average bin of between 6,000 and 9,000 kilograms of asbestos
drywall. That is about CAD400 to safely clean and double-bag in
B.C. and then about CAD3,150 to ship to Alberta, Mr. Zappone
added.

Mr. Zappone said he had never witnessed a company illegally
dumping asbestos but he had heard that it was happening more
often.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeal Court Affirms Dismissal of Greb's Claim
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeal, First District, Division 1, California,
upheld the decision of the San Francisco County Superior Court,
which dismissed an asbestos lawsuit (filed by Walter and Karen
Greb) in favor of Diamond International Corporation.

The case is styled Walter Greb et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants
v. Diamond International Corporation, Defendant and Respondent.

Judges Robert L. Dondero, Sandra L. Margulies, and Kathleen M.
Banke entered judgment in Case No. A125472 on April 26, 2010.

On Dec. 22, 2008, the Grebs filed a complaint for personal injury
and loss of consortium against Diamond and several other
defendants. The complaint alleged Mr. Greb had suffered injury
from exposure to asbestos and asbestos-containing products.

On Feb. 13, 2009, Diamond filed a demurrer to the complaint. In
the demurrer, Diamond alleged it had obtained a corporate
dissolution in accordance with the laws of Delaware on July 1,
2005.

On March 4, 2009, the Grebs filed their opposition to Diamond's
demurrer. After the hearing on the demurrer, Diamond was allowed
to file a surreply brief, which it did on March 19, 2009.

On May 1, 2009, the trial court sustained Diamond's demurrer to
the complaint without leave to amend. On June 2, 2009, the trial
court filed its order dismissing the complaint with prejudice.

Clapper, Patti, Schweizer & Mason (Jack K. Clapper, Esq., Steven
J. Patti, Esq., and Christine A. Renken, Esq.) represented Mrs.
Greb.

Murchison & Cumming, LLP (Maria A. Starn, Esq., and Scott L.
Hengesbach, Esq.) represented Diamond.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ala. Court OKs Denial of Owens-Illinois Motions
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of Alabama upheld the Colbert Circuit Court's
denial of Owens-Illinois, Inc.'s motions for summary judgment in
six asbestos lawsuits.

Judges Sue Bell Cobb, Champ Lyons Jr., Thomas A. Woodall,
Patricia M. Smith, Michael F. Bolin, Tom Parker, Lyn Stuart,
Glenn Murdock, and Greg Shaw entered judgment in Case Nos.
1070213, 1070214, 1070215, 1070216, 1070217 and 1070218 on April
23, 2010. Judges Murdock and Shaw filed dissenting opinions.

In six separate appeals, this Court granted Owens-Illinois, a
defendant in the underlying actions involving asbestos exposure,
permission to appeal the trial court's denial of its motions for
a summary judgment on the claims of John W. Wells; Harold
Mitchell, personal representative of the estate of Reba Mae
Mitchell, deceased; James Newman; Floyd Patterson; Roger Hugh
Young and Dinah Young Tate, coexecutors of the estate of Pauline
Young, deceased; and Rosalyn Diane Davis and Marilyn Joanne
Woods, personal representatives of the estate of Ruby Williams,
deceased.

Between Aug. 5, 2005 and July 24, 2006, in six separate actions,
the plaintiffs sued Owens-Illinois and various other defendants.
The plaintiffs alleged that Owens-Illinois produced and/or
installed products containing asbestos and that Owens-Illinois
was liable for certain injuries or deaths that were allegedly
caused by exposure to those products.

In April 2007, Owens-Illinois moved for a summary judgment in
each of the six cases, arguing that the plaintiffs' claims were
barred by Alabama's 20-year common-law rule of repose.

The trial court denied Owens-Illinois' motion for a summary
judgment in each of the six cases.

The Supreme Court granted Owens-Illinois' petition for permission
to appeal in all six cases, and the Supreme Court affirmed the
trial court's orders denying the motions for a summary judgment
in all six cases.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tex. Court OKs Order of Removal in Hoelzer Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Texas, Beaumont, upheld the ruling of the
County Court at Law No. 1, Jefferson County, Tex., which removed
Richard David Hoelzer as independent executor of the estate of
Carl Hoelzer.

The case is styled In the Estate of Carl J. Hoelzer.

Judges David Gaultney, Kreger, and Horton entered judgment in
Case No. 09-09-00003-CV on April 29, 2010.

Carl Hoelzer died in 1987. Carl's will named Lillian Hoelzer,
Carl's wife and Richard's stepmother, as the independent executor
and sole beneficiary of Carl's estate.

Twenty-three years ago, the year of Carl's death, Lillian,
individually and as independent executor of Carl's estate, filed
an asbestos lawsuit in federal court in Beaumont. She settled
with various defendants. Carl's children intervened in the
lawsuit as wrongful death beneficiaries. Two claims against
defendants in bankruptcy remain pending and are listed as
property of Carl's estate.

Eighteen years ago, Carl's children filed a petition in probate
court to remove Lillian as independent executor of Carl's estate.

Carl's children then filed suit against Lillian in Orange County
District Court. They alleged Lillian breached her fiduciary duty
by self-dealing, misapplying funds, embezzling funds, and
committing gross misconduct. The district court granted summary
judgment in favor of Lillian based on the defense of limitations,
and this Court affirmed the judgment 14 years ago.

Lillian died in 2007. In 2008, Richard was named the successor
independent executor, as Carl's will provided. Shortly
thereafter, Richard filed a verified claim against the estate in
the amount of US$150,000 on behalf of himself and his three
siblings. The sworn claim requested reimbursement for funds
Lillian received as a result of the 1987 asbestos litigation but
"never distributed" to Carl's children. Richard "allowed and
approved" as a result of the claim as independent executor.

Clyde Hebert, Lillian's son, then filed a motion to remove and
disqualify Richard as independent executor of Carl's estate. The
motion asserted that Richard filed the verified claim against the
estate for his personal benefit.

After a hearing, the court concluded Richard was unsuitable to
serve as successor executor and removed him as independent
executor of Carl's estate.

The order of removal was affirmed.

Roxie Huffman Lormand, Esq., represented Richard David Hoelzer.

Bruce Gregory, Esq., represented Clyde Hebert.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeals Court Affirms Ruling in Shepard Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga County,
affirmed the decision of the Cuyahoga County Circuit Court of
Common Pleas, which issued rulings in favor of William E. Shepard
in an asbestos case filed against Grand Truck Western Railroad,
Inc.

The case is styled William E. Shepard, Plaintiff-Appellee v.
Grand Trunk Western Railroad, Inc., Defendant-Appellant.

Judges Christine T. McMonagle, James J. Sweeney, and Colleen
Conway Cooney entered judgment in Case No. 92711 on April 29,
2010.

Grand Trunk appealed from the trial court's judgments denying its
motions for (1) summary judgment, (2) a directed verdict, (3)
judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV), or alternatively, a
new trial, and (4) remittitur. Grand Trunk also challenged a
portion of the court's jury instructions.

In March 2005, Mr. Shepard filed this action under the Federal
Employers' Liability Act (FELA) and the Locomotive Inspection Act
(LIA). He alleged that during his employment with the railroad,
he was exposed to asbestos and diesel fumes in violation of the
FELA and the LIA, and that as a result of such exposure, he
developed chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), heart
conditions, and laryngeal cancer.

Grand Trunk filed a motion for summary in which it alleged that
the action was filed outside of the three-year statute of
limitations under the FELA. The motion was denied. The case
proceeded to a jury trial.

The railroad moved for a directed verdict at the conclusion of
both Mr. Shepard's case and the presentation of all the evidence;
both motions were denied. The jury returned a verdict in favor of
Mr. Shepard, finding that the railroad had violated the FELA and
the LIA, and awarded US$872,756 to Mr. Shepard.

The trial court subsequently entered a judgment in that amount in
favor of Mr. Shepard. Grand Trunk filed motions for JNOV, or
alternatively, a new trial, and remittitur, which were denied.

Holly Olarczuk-Smith, Esq., Kevin C. Alexandersen, Esq., Colleen
A. Mountcastle, Esq., Gallagher Sharp, Esq., of Cleveland, Ohio,
represented Grand Truck.

Christopher Murphy, Esq., Michael L. Torcello (pro hac vice),
Esq., Doran & Murphy, LLP, Buffalo, N.Y., represented Mr.
Shepard.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pierson Remand Bid OK'd in Heerema Marine Claim
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, granted
James Pierson Watson, Jr.'s motion to remand an asbestos suit
filed against Heerema Marine Contractors Nederland B.V.

The case was remanded to the 25th Judicial District Court for the
Parish of Plaquemines, State of Louisiana.

The case is styled James Pierson Watson, Jr. v. Heerema Marine
Contractors Nederland B.V.

District Judge Mary Ann Vial Lemmon entered judgment in Civil
Action No. 10-491 on April 22, 2010.

On Dec. 17, 2009, Mr. Watson filed a Petition for Damages in the
25th Judicial District Court for the Parish of Plaquemines, State
of Louisiana alleging claims under the Jones Act and the general
maritime law, or alternatively the applicable foreign law, for
damages he sustained when he was allegedly exposed to asbestos
dust while working aboard the M/V THIALF, a Panamanian-flagged
vessel that is owned by Heerema.

Mr. Watson, a citizen of Mississippi, alleged that he was
employed by Heerema, a Dutch company, as a seaman/mechanic at the
time of the incident. He claimed that he was flown from his home
in Mississippi to join the vessel in The Netherlands, and that
the accident occurred while the vessel was moored in The
Netherlands. He also claimed that the majority of his medical
treatment for asbestos dust inhalation has occurred in
Mississippi.

Heerema removed the action to the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana alleging that Mr. Watson's Jones
Act claim was fraudulently pleaded because the law of the United
States does not apply to Mr. Watson's action. Heerema argued that
the only connection to the United States is that Mr. Watson is a
citizen of Mississippi, and that this fact alone was insufficient
to apply the laws of the United States in light of the foreign
contacts.

Further, Heerema argued that Mr. Watson was employed by Meridian
International, a manpower staffing company organized under the
laws of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Watson moved to remand the case to the 25th Judicial District
Court for the Parish of Plaquemines, State of Louisiana arguing
that he had stated a legitimate Jones Act claim. He argued that
when all disputed issues of fact were resolved in his favor, he
was employed by Heerema and there were sufficient contacts with
the Untied States to establish the possibility that the law of
the United States would apply to his action.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Moves to Dismiss Bush, Chrichlow Actions
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York,
recommended the dismissal of asbestos-related lawsuits filed by
Darrell Bush and Kevin Damion Crichlow.

The case is styled Darrell Bush, Plaintiff v. Martin Horn, et
al., Defendants.

Magistrates Judge Frank Maas entered judgment in Case No. 07 Civ.
3231(RJS)(FM) on March 2, 2010.

Mr. Bush and Mr. Crichlow previously were incarcerated at the
Eric M. Taylor Center (EMTC), a facility at Rikers Island under
the control of the New York City Department of Corrections (DOC).

In these consolidated pro se actions, Mr. Bush and Mr. Crichlow
alleged that they were exposed to asbestos while serving
sentences at the EMTC, in violation of their rights under the
Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

The defendants named in their complaints were former DOC
Commissioner Martin Horn and Assistant Deputy Warden Clayton
Augustus, both of whom were sued in their individual and official
capacities; D & S Abatement Inc.; and Sunshine Environmental
Services.

Mr. Bush also referred to the City of New York as a defendant
even though the City did not appear in the caption and never was
served.

Commissioner Horn and A.D.W. Augustus had moved to dismiss the
complaints against them. D & S had moved for judgment on the
pleadings. Although Sunshine had not filed any motion, the Court
recommended that both complaints be dismissed in their entirety.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: PPG Industries Sees Strong Results in 2nd Qtr.
---------------------------------------------------------------
PPG Industries, Inc. announced that it expects its second quarter
earnings, excluding unusual items, to be in the range of US$1.40
to US$1.50 per share, according to a Company press release dated
June 16, 2010.

Adjusted earnings per share were US$0.91 per share in the second
quarter 2009 and US$0.70 per share in the first quarter 2010.

Adjusted second quarter 2010 earnings per share will exclude an
anticipated aftertax charge of US$0.01 per share to reflect the
net increase in the current value of the Company's obligation
under its proposed asbestos settlement, which is pending court
approval.

Second quarter 2009 and first quarter 2010 earnings per share
included charges of US$0.02 and US$0.01 cent per share,
respectively, for the proposed asbestos settlement.

Pittsburgh-based PPG Industries, Inc. manufactures coatings and
specialty products. The Company serves customers in industrial,
transportation, consumer products, and construction markets and
aftermarkets. The Company operates in more than 60 countries
around the globe.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hunt's Case v. 60 Firms Filed May 14 in Kanawha
----------------------------------------------------------------
Doris Hunt, the executrix of the Estate of George F. Hunt, on May
14, 2010, filed an asbestos-related lawsuit against 60 defendant
corporations in Kanawha Circuit Court, W.Va., The West Virginia
Record reports.

Mr. Hunt died on Feb. 19, 2010. He worked for Union Carbide
Corporation from 1947 until 1987 as a laborer, according to a
complaint. On Sept. 29, 2009, he was diagnosed with mesothelioma.

Mrs. Hunt claims Mr. Hunt smoked one-half or less of a pack of
cigarettes per day from 1946 until 1953, but then quit.

Mrs. Hunt seeks a jury trial to resolve all issues involved in
the case. Victoria Antion, Esq., and James A. McKowen, Esq.,
represent Mrs. Hunt.

Case No. 10-C-878 has been assigned to a visiting judge.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Demolition, Cleanup of Pa. Building Costs $250T
----------------------------------------------------------------
The demolition of a dilapidated building in Washington County,
Pa., is costing County officials about US$250,000, mainly because
of the asbestos contained within the structure, the Mesothelioma
Resource Center reports.

The building in question formerly housed a local historical
society. The building, owned by the non-profit historical society
since 2001, has fallen into disrepair because the group did not
have enough money for proper maintenance, board member Dr.
Charles Stacey told the Valley Independent newspaper.

The newspaper reported that removing the historical society
building within the Donora borough will cost that much because of
precautions that must be taken when asbestos is removed from the
five-story building.

The Washington County Redevelopment Authority and the borough of
Donora will pay for the demolition, which will require asbestos
removal experts as well as an inspector from the Norfolk Southern
Railroad to make sure that none of the contaminated rubble falls
onto nearby railroad tracks.

The borough recently fined the historical society US$300 because
of the condition of the building, damaged further by a partial
collapse after a heavy snow in February 2010.

An adjacent home was destroyed when a wall of the historical
society building fell on it. The building has been empty since
the historical society moved into the Donora Smog Museum.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Watford RAF Operator's Death Linked to Exposure
----------------------------------------------------------------
An inquest on June 16, 2010 heard that the death of George
Robinson, a former Royal Air Force wireless operator from
Watford, Hertfordshire, England, was related to exposure to
asbestos, the Watford Observer reports.

Mr. Robinson died at Watford General Hospital of malignant
mesothelioma on Sept. 30, 2009. He was taken to the Vicarage Road
hospital on Sept. 1, 2009, but was too ill to undergo tests after
doctors suspected the fatal illness.

The inquest heard how Mr. Robinson was known to have been exposed
to asbestos and that this was the main reason of the cancer that
led to his death.

Assistant deputy coroner Frances Cranfield gave the cause of
death as malignant mesothelioma, which developed as a result of
Mr. Robinson's asbestos exposure.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Willmore, Costello Cases Pending in Supreme Ct.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Asbestos cases filed on behalf of Dianne Willmore and Enid
Costello, both of Merseyside, England, are now being taken to the
Supreme Court, the Liverpool Echo reports.

In landmark court cases, relatives of Mrs. Willmore and Mrs.
Costello won the right to payouts worth hundreds of thousands of
pounds.

Mrs. Willmore died at the age of 49 from mesothelioma after
apparently being exposed to asbestos dust while studying at
Bowring School in Huyton.

Mrs. Costello's family claims she passed away after breathing in
asbestos when she was a secretary at a packaging factory in
Ellesmere Port.

The Willmore and Costello cases set legal history when senior
judges ruled they should get compensation. The rulings were set
to open the floodgates to other claims from cancer sufferers who
were exposed to "low levels" of asbestos.

However, Knowsley Council and manufacturer Greif UK have won the
right to have their cases heard in the highest court in the land.
Since they deal with similar legal issues, Law Lords will hear
the cases side by side, starting on Oct. 26, 2010.

On June 15, 2010, Birkenhead solicitor Norman Jones, who
represents Mrs. Costello's family, said, "It will be the fifth
time that they have been to court as part of the process. It's a
tough ordeal for them."

Commenting on why Knowsley and Greif may have lodged the new
appeals, Mr. Jones added, "There are likely to be many
mesothelioma victims who are going to die in the next 20 years.
They will look at this as an opportunity to do damage
limitation."

Mrs. Willmore's family will be denied access to the GBP240,000
compensation she won after winning her case in July 2009 until
the case is finally concluded. Knowsley lost an appeal in October
2009, but Mrs. Willmore died the following day after hearing
Knowsley could appeal again.

Mrs. Willmore attended Bowring between 1972 and 1978 and said she
was exposed to asbestos dust during building work there.

Eastham-based Mrs. Costello died at the age of 74 in 2006. She
worked at the factory, which was then owned by Van Leer UK,
between 1966 and 1984.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pa. Court Reverses Dismissal of Simikian Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of Pennsylvania reversed the ruling of the
Court of Common Pleas, Allegheny County, Civil Division, which
dismissed an asbestos lawsuit filed by Diana K. Betz, executrix
of the estate of Charles Simikian, against various defendants.

Judges Kate Ford Elliott, Correale F. Stevens, Orie Melvin,
Lally-Green, Klein, Mary Jane Bowes, Jack A. Panella, Christine
L. Donohue, and Jacqueline O. Shogan entered judgment in Case No.
1058 WDA 2006 on April 30, 2010.

Ms. Betz appealed from the trial court's final order entered May
10, 2006, disposing of all claims in, and dismissing all parties
to, this action.

This final order followed the trial court's grant of summary
judgment to Allied Signal, Inc., Ford Motor Company, General
Motors Corporation, and DaimlerChrysler Corporation, f/k/a
Chrysler Corporation, (collectively, the "Friction Product
Defendants").

Mr. Simikian, a victim of mesothelioma, was a 44-year veteran of
the automotive repair industry. The grant of summary judgment was
based upon the trial court's earlier grant of a defense "global"
Frye motion to exclude any and all expert testimony asserting
that a plaintiff contracted an asbestos-related disease as a
result of exposures resulting from work in the automotive repair
field.

The Superior Court concluded that the trial court erred in
granting summary judgment to the Friction Product Defendants.
Accordingly, the Superior Court reversed and remanded for further
proceedings consistent with this decision.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeals Court OKs Board Ruling in Taylor Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims upheld the Oct. 29,
2008 ruling of the Board of Veterans' Appeals, which denied Alix
D. Taylor entitlement to VA benefits for asbestosis.

The case is styled Alix D. Taylor, Appellant v. Eric K. Shinseki,
Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Appellee.

Judge Lawrence B. Hagel entered judgment in Case No. 08-3832 on
April 30, 2010.

Mr. Taylor served in the U.S. Navy from July 1979 to July 1983
and from February 1984 to February 1986. In June 2001, he filed a
claim for VA benefits for asbestosis.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: N.Y. Supreme Court Modifies Order in Kim's Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New
York modified a case involving asbestos styled Chang Han Kim and
Book Soon Kim v. Clymer Central School, School Board of Clymer
Central School District, Barnes Construction Company,
Environmental Products & Services, Inc..

This was an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Chautauqua
County, entered Nov. 7, 2008 in a personal injury action. The
order granted the motion of plaintiffs for partial summary
judgment on the issue of liability under Labor Law.
                     
Judges Smith, Centra, Fahey, and Pine entered judgment in the
case on April 30, 2010.

Plaintiffs commenced this Labor Law and common-law negligence
action to recover damages for injuries sustained by Chang Han Kim
when he fell from a ladder while removing asbestos from Clymer
Central School.

Environmental Products & Services, Inc. (EPS) appealed from an
order that granted the motion of plaintiffs for partial summary
judgment on the issue of liability under Labor Law.

It was ordered that order so appealed from is unanimously
modified on the law by denying plaintiffs' motion and as modified
the order is affirmed without costs, and the matter is remitted
to Supreme Court, Chautauqua County, for further proceedings.

                            *********

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  * * *