CAR_Public/100621.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Monday, June 21, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 120

                            Headlines

21ST CENTURY: Pays $2.4 Million Settlement From D&O Policy
ABM INDUSTRIES: Unit Continues to Defend "Augustus" Litigation
ABM INDUSTRIES: Defends "Bucio" Suit Over Unpaid Overtime
ABM INDUSTRIES: Continues to Defend "Batiz" Suit in California
ABM INDUSTRIES: Faces "Khandera" Lawsuit Over Unpaid Overtime

ABM INDUSTRIES: Defends Consolidated "Diaz" Suit in Los Angeles
ADDUS HOMECARE: Underwriters Seek Indemnification in Class Suit
AMERICAN SIGNATURE: Recalls 24,000 Entertainment Centers
APPLE INC: Accused of Making False and Misleading Advertisements
BP PLC: Braud & Gallagher Files Suit on Toxic Chemical Dispersants

CENTERLINE HOLDING: Appeal on NY Suit Dismissal Still Pending
CENTERLINE HOLDING: Seeks Voluntary Dismissal of Class Suits
CHINA ORGANIC: Approval of "Provo" Suit Settlement Still Pending
CONVERTED ORGANICS: Parties Discuss Discovery in Leeseberg Suit
COOPER COMPANIES: No Approval Yet of $27 Million Settlement

COWEN GROUP: Awaits Court Decision on Transfer & Remand Motions
COWEN GROUP: Unit Faces Class Action Suits Over "Fuqi" Offering
DYNCORP INT'L: Faces "Naito" Suit over Delta Tucker Merger
DYNCORP INT'L: Faces "Meehan" Complaint in Virginia
EASTERN LA REGIONAL: Settles Suit on Autism Treatment Funding

EGAIN COMMUNICATIONS: Will Defend vs. IPO Suit if Appeal Filed
FIRST DATA: Awaits Outcome of Dismissal Motion of ATM Suit
GT SOLAR: Continues to Defend "Braun" Suit in New Hampshire
GT SOLAR: Continues to Defend "Hamel" Securities Suit
HEALTHMARKETS INC: Discovery in Calif. "Privacy" Suit Ongoing

HILTON LOS ANGELES: Faces Suit for Hiring Low-Wage Workers
HORIZON BLUE CROSS: Judge Cuts $2.2MM From Lawyers' Fees
HOVNANIAN ENT: Additional Portions of Complaint Dismissed
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Canadian Lawyers Continue to Follow Case
JONES SODA: Court to Schedule Oral Argument on Appeal

LPL FINANCIAL: Sued for Broker's Misrepresentations
META FINANCIAL: Court Certifies Class in "Guardian Angel" Suit
MICHAEL FOODS: Motions to Dismiss Complaints Still Pending
MONTGOMERY COUNTY: Judge Rejects Md. Speed Cameras Class Suit
NEUROMETRIX INC: Appeal on Dismissal of Mass. Suit Still Pending

NEXCEN BRANDS: Seeks to Dismiss "Granatelli" Suit in New York
NOVA SCOTIA: Supreme Court to Webcast Pollution Suit Hearing
NOVASTAR FINANCIAL: Court Approves Settlement of "Jones" Suit
ONVIA INC: Awaits Briefing Schedule on Appeals to Settlement
ORCHARD ENTERPRISES: Class Suit Seeks to Stop Dimensional Merger

PACIFIC WEBWORKS: Seeks to Dismiss Consumer Class Suits
PINNACLE GAS: Delaware Court Consolidates Class Action Lawsuits
PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE: Counsel Gets $138,000 After Suit Dismissal
QUEBEC: Superior Ct. Rejects Class Suit Bid on Noise Pollution
QUICKLOGIC CORP: Objectors File Appeals on Settlement Approval

RADIO ONE: Shareholders File Appeal on Settlement of IPO Cases
ROSS FIALKOW: Accused of Selling Unregistered Securities
SOURCE FOR PUBLIC DATA: Settles Missouri Data Privacy Class Action
SUNPOWER CORP: Faces Consolidated Securities Lawsuit in Calif.
TLC VISION: Units Face RICO Class Suit in South Carolina

TORO COMPANY: Court Gives Preliminary Nod to Settlement Pact
TORO COMPANY: Faces Suit in Canada Over Lawnmower HP Labels
TRAILER BRIDGE: Puerto Rico Court Grants Dismissal Motion
UNITED COMPONENTS: Unit Faces 2nd Amended Complaint in Illinois
UNITED COMPONENTS: Suit on Filter Sales in Ontario Still Pending

UNITED COMPONENTS: Lawsuit Over Filter Sales Pending in Quebec
VERIFONE SYSTEMS: Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit Pending
VERIFONE SYSTEMS: Proceedings in Israel Class Action Stayed
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Suit Complains About Defective Headlamps


                            *********


21ST CENTURY: Pays $2.4 Million Settlement From D&O Policy
----------------------------------------------------------
21st Century Holding Company has settled a consolidated securities
class action complaint and a shareholder derivative complaint in
Florida, according to its May 17, 2010, Form 10-Q filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.

From July 27, 2007, to August 7, 2007, several securities class
action lawsuits were filed against the Company and certain of its
executive officers in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida on behalf of all persons and entities
who purchased the Company's securities during the various class
periods specified in the complaints.  A consolidated amended
complaint was filed on behalf of the class on January 22, 2008,
Case No. 07-61057.  The complaint alleged that the defendants made
false and misleading statements and failed to accurately project
the Company's business and financial performance during the
putative class period.  The plaintiffs sought an unspecified
amount of damages and claim violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5.

On March 18, 2008, a verified shareholder derivative complaint,
Case No. 08-cv-60374, was filed against certain current or former
officers and directors of the Company in the District Court.

On November 7, 2008, the District Court granted in part and denied
in part the Company's motion to dismiss the consolidated class
litigation with leave to amend by December 8, 2009 or the
allegations dismissed would be deemed dismissed with prejudice
without further order of the District Court.  Lead plaintiffs did
not seek to amend the consolidated complaint and the defendants
answered.  On July 29, 2008, the District Court granted the
defendant's motion to dismiss the plaintiff's shareholder
derivative complaint without prejudice.  On August 27, 2009, the
derivative plaintiff filed an amended shareholder derivative
complaint.  On March 30, 2009, following various motions by the
parties, the District Court entered an order granting defendant's
renewed motion to stay the shareholder derivative action pending
resolution of the class action.

On September 4, 2009, a stipulation of settlement was submitted to
the Court by lead plaintiffs, the derivative plaintiff and the
defendants, setting forth the terms of a settlement of the Class
Litigation and Derivative Litigation which proposed that a payment
of $2.4 million be made to the lead plaintiffs and the derivative
plaintiff.  The Stipulation of Settlement contains no admission of
liability or wrongdoing by the Company or its officers and
directors.  The Company's insurance carriers agreed to fund the
$2.4 million settlement payment.  The Stipulation of Settlement
was preliminarily approved by the Court on
October 19, 2009.

At a settlement hearing held on January 29, 2010, the District
Court approved the terms of the Stipulation of Settlement.  On
March 15, 2010, counsel for Plaintiffs acknowledged receipt of
$2.4 million in settlement funds paid under the Company's
directors' and officers' insurance policy.

Headquartered in Lauderdale Lakes, Fla., 21st Century Holding
Company -- http://www.21stcenturyholding.com/-- is an insurance
holding company, which, through its subsidiaries and contractual
relationships with the independent agents and general agents,
controls substantially all aspects of the insurance underwriting,
distribution and claims processes.  The company is authorized to
underwrite fire, allied lines, homeowners' property and casualty
insurance, commercial general liability insurance, commercial
multi peril, inland marine, personal automobile insurance and
commercial automobile insurance in various states with various
lines of authority through the wholly owned subsidiaries,
Federated National Insurance Company (Federated National) and
American Vehicle Insurance Company (American Vehicle).  21st
Century markets and distributes its own and third party insurers'
products and other services in Florida, through contractual
relationships with a network of approximately 1,500 independent
agents and a select number of general agents.


ABM INDUSTRIES: Unit Continues to Defend "Augustus" Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
A subsidiary of ABM Industries, Inc., continues to defend in a
class action suit captioned Augustus, Hall and Davis v. American
Commercial Security Services.  The consolidated cases were filed
on July 12, 2005, before the Superior Court of California, Los
Angeles County.

The named plaintiffs in the suit are current or former employees
of ABM subsidiaries who allege, among other things, that they were
required to work "off the clock," were not paid for all overtime,
were not provided work breaks or other benefits, and received pay
stubs not conforming to California law.  The plaintiffs seek
unspecified monetary damages, injunctive relief or both.

On Jan. 8, 2009, a judge of the L.A. Superior Court certified the
Augustus case as a class action.

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.

ABM Industries, Inc. -- http://www.abm.com-- is a facility
services contractor in the U.S.  ABM and its subsidiaries
provide janitorial, parking, security, engineering and lighting
services for commercial, industrial, institutional and retail
facilities in hundreds of cities throughout the U.S. and in
British Columbia, Canada.  The company operates through five
segments: Janitorial, Parking, Security, Engineering and Lighting.


ABM INDUSTRIES: Defends "Bucio" Suit Over Unpaid Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------
ABM Industries, Inc., continues to defend in a purported class
action suit, Bucio and Martinez v. ABM Janitorial Services.  The
consolidated suit was filed on April 7, 2006, before the Superior
Court of California, County of San Francisco.

The named plaintiffs are current or former employees of ABM
subsidiaries who allege, among other things, that they were
required to work "off the clock," were not paid for all overtime,
were not provided work breaks or other benefits, and
received pay stubs not conforming to California law.  The
plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages, injunctive relief or
both.

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.

ABM Industries, Inc. -- http://www.abm.com-- is a facility
services contractor in the U.S.  ABM and its subsidiaries
provide janitorial, parking, security, engineering and lighting
services for commercial, industrial, institutional and retail
facilities in hundreds of cities throughout the U.S. and in
British Columbia, Canada.  The company operates through five
segments: Janitorial, Parking, Security, Engineering and Lighting.


ABM INDUSTRIES: Continues to Defend "Batiz" Suit in California
--------------------------------------------------------------
ABM Industries, Inc., continues to defend in a purported class
action, Batiz/Heine v. American Commercial Security Services.  The
consolidated suit was filed on June 7, 2006, in the U.S. District
Court of California, Central District.

The named plaintiffs are current or former employees of ABM
subsidiaries who allege, among other things, that they were
required to work "off the clock," were not paid for all overtime,
were not provided work breaks or other benefits, and
received pay stubs not conforming to California law.  The
plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages, injunctive relief or
both.

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.

ABM Industries, Inc. -- http://www.abm.com-- is a facility
services contractor in the U.S.  ABM and its subsidiaries
provide janitorial, parking, security, engineering and lighting
services for commercial, industrial, institutional and retail
facilities in hundreds of cities throughout the U.S. and in
British Columbia, Canada.  The company operates through five
segments: Janitorial, Parking, Security, Engineering and Lighting.


ABM INDUSTRIES: Faces "Khandera" Lawsuit Over Unpaid Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
ABM Industries, Inc., continues to defend in a purported class
action suit, Khadera v. American Building Maintenance Co.-West and
ABM Industries.  The suit, filed on March 24, 2008, in U.S
District Court of Washington, Western District, relates to alleged
violations of federal or state wage-and-hour laws.

The named plaintiffs are current or former employees of ABM
subsidiaries who allege, among other things, that they were
required to work "off the clock," were not paid for all overtime,
were not provided work breaks or other benefits, and
received pay stubs not conforming to state law.  The plaintiffs
seek unspecified monetary damages, injunctive relief or both.

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.

ABM Industries, Inc. -- http://www.abm.com-- is a facility
services contractor in the U.S.  ABM and its subsidiaries
provide janitorial, parking, security, engineering and lighting
services for commercial, industrial, institutional and retail
facilities in hundreds of cities throughout the U.S. and in
British Columbia, Canada.  The company operates through five
segments: Janitorial, Parking, Security, Engineering and Lighting.


ABM INDUSTRIES: Defends Consolidated "Diaz" Suit in Los Angeles
---------------------------------------------------------------
ABM Industries, Inc., continues to defend in the consolidated
cases of Diaz/Morales/Reyes v. Ampco System Parking.  The cases
were filed on Dec. 5, 2006, in the L.A. Superior Court.

The named plaintiffs are current or former employees of ABM
subsidiaries who allege, among other things, that they were
required to work "off the clock," were not paid for all overtime,
were not provided work breaks or other benefits, and
received pay stubs not conforming to California law.  The
plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages, injunctive relief or
both.

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.

ABM Industries, Inc. -- http://www.abm.com-- is a facility
services contractor in the U.S.  ABM and its subsidiaries
provide janitorial, parking, security, engineering and lighting
services for commercial, industrial, institutional and retail
facilities in hundreds of cities throughout the U.S. and in
British Columbia, Canada.  The company operates through five
segments: Janitorial, Parking, Security, Engineering and Lighting.


ADDUS HOMECARE: Underwriters Seek Indemnification in Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Addus Homecare Corporation disclosed in its May 14, 2010, Form 10-
Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2010, that underwriters of its initial
public offering is seeking indemnification with respect to a class
action filed against the company.

On March 26, 2010, a class action lawsuit was filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on
behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common stock in
connection with the Company's IPO. The Complaint alleges, inter
alia, that the Company's registration statement was materially
false or omitted the following: (1) that the Company's accounts
receivable included at least $1.5 million in aging receivables
that should have been reserved for; and (2) that the Company's
home health segment's revenues were falling short of internal
forecasts due to a slowdown in admissions from the Company's
integrated services program due to the State of Illinois' effort
to develop new procedures for integrating care.  The plaintiffs
are seeking compensatory damages.

The Company believes the claims are without merit and intends to
defend the litigation vigorously.

In addition, on April 16, 2010, Robert W. Baird & Company, on
behalf of the underwriters of the IPO, notified the Company that
the underwriters are seeking indemnification in respect of the
above-referenced action pursuant to the underwriting agreement
entered into in connection with the IPO.

Addus HomeCare Corp. provides home health care and related
services such as rehabilitation and disease management. The
company offers long-term home care for the elderly, which
primarily includes in-home support services such as bathing,
dressing, medication assistance, and other social activities.
Additional offerings include short-term skilled home nursing and
therapy (for patients recovering from a health condition) and
adult day care. Addus serves more than 20,000 patients from around
120 offices in 16 states. Investment firm Eos Capital Partners
owns a controlling stake in Addus HomeCare, which completed an IPO
in 2009.


AMERICAN SIGNATURE: Recalls 24,000 Entertainment Centers
--------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
American Signature Inc., of Columbus, Ohio, announced a voluntary
recall of about 24,000 Entertainment Centers.  Consumers should
stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise
instructed.

The recalled entertainment centers' shelves can detach and fall
onto consumers when the entertainment centers are moved.

American Signature has received four reports of the shelf above
the television collapsing, causing two injuries.  Injuries include
a child who was struck on her fingers and an adult who required
stitches to his mouth.  There were also two reports of minor
property damage.

The recall involves entertainment centers with model names "Arts
and Crafts", "Vineyard Manor", "Lake Cottage", "Studio One", "West
Indies" and "Plantation Cove" were sold in various colors
including dark brown, natural, black and white with fixed or
adjustable shelves.  Pictures of the recalled products are
available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10742.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China, Malaysia and
Thailand and sold through Value City Furniture, Rooms Today and
American Signature Furniture stores from October 2002 through
December 2009 for about $1,650.  The individual shelf was also
sold separately for about $70.

American Signature is sending free repair kits to consumers who
purchased the recalled entertainment centers.  Consumers should
not move the entertainment centers until they install the free
repair kit.  If the entertainment center must be moved, remove the
center shelf above the television first.  Consumers should contact
the store where they purchased the entertainment center if they do
not receive the repair kit.  For more information, contact the
store where the entertainment center was purchased.  Consumers can
find the location of American Signature Furniture stores at (866)
274-6631 or Value City Furniture stores at (866) 823-7867, contact
American Signature toll-free at (877) 793-3423 between 8:00 a.m.
and 5:00 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, or visit the
firms' Web sites at http://www.vcf.com/or
http://www.asfurniture.com/


APPLE INC: Accused of Making False and Misleading Advertisements
----------------------------------------------------------------
Stuart Logan, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. Apple Inc. and AT&T Mobility LLC, Case No. 10-cv-02588 (N.D.
Calif. June 11, 2010), asserts violations of the California's
False Advertising Law, Unfair Competition Law, and Consumer Legal
Remedies Act.  Mr. Logan says that between January 27, 2010, and
June 7, 2010, the defendants repeatedly represented, promised, and
advertised that iPad 3G owners could purchase a wireless data
service plan that provided unlimited data at a cost of $29.99 per
month, and that the unlimited data plan would be available on a
pre-paid, no-contract basis, so that iPad 3G owners could activate
unlimited 3G data service only when needed.  Based on the
defendants' representations, Mr. Logan says he purchased an iPad
3G, which retails at a $130 premium over standard iPad models
fitted only with Wi-Fi, but on June 2, 2010, the defendants
announced that they were canceling the unlimited data plan as of
June 7, 2010.  Mr. Logan says the cancellation of the no-contract,
unlimited data plan had a significant impact on the value of his
iPad 3G, as well as the manner in which it can be used.  Whereas
before iPad 3G owners (who purchased the iPad 3G before June 7)
can switch from an unlimited plan (paying $29.99 per month) to a
250-megabyte plan (for $14.99 per month), or opt to have no 3G
plan at all, they are now (after June 7, 2010) forced to keep an
unlimited plan continuously to avoid losing it, because customers
who activate an iPad 3G on or after June 7, 2010, are excluded
entirely from the unlimited data plan.

Apple Inc. is the designer of the iPod, the iPhone and the iPad.
AT&T is the exclusive United States provider of iPad 3G wireless
data service.  Mr. Logan says he would not have purchased his iPad
3G had he known that eventually the no-contract data plan, and its
switch-on-and-off feature would be cancelled.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gregory S. Weston, Esq.
          THE WESTON FIRM
          888 Turquoise Street
          San Diego, CA 92109
          Tel: (858) 488-1672
          E-mail: greg@westonfirm.com

               - and -

          Jack Fitzgerald, Esq.
          THE WESTON FIRM
          2811 Sykes Court
          Santa Clara, CA 95051
          Tel: (408) 459-0305
          E-mail: jack@westonfirm.com

               - and -

          Jared H. Beck, Esq.
          Elizabeth Lee Beck, Esq.
          BECK & LEE BUSINESS TRIAL LAWYERS
          28 West Flagler St., Suite 555
          Miami, FL 33130
          Tel: (305) 789-0072
          E-mail: jared@beckandlee.com
                  elizabeth@beckandlee.com


BP PLC: Braud & Gallagher Files Suit on Toxic Chemical Dispersants
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Louisiana on June 17, 2010, by the Law
Firm of Braud and Gallagher, LLC.  The lawsuit, more than likely
the first of many, alleges that BP and Nalco Holding Company
intentionally sprayed "COREXIT(R) 9500" dispersant into the Gulf
of Mexico with full knowledge of its dangerous toxicity.  It is
alleged that the dispersant was sprayed entirely to lessen BP's
financial exposure and cleanup efforts.

When administered the dispersant, COREXIT(R) 9500, attaches to the
oil causing both the oil and the chemical to sink below the
surface of the water eventually settling to the sea floor.
Studies have demonstrated this process will permanently alter the
biosystem and food chain in the Gulf.

"The oil spill itself was bad enough and resulted from negligence,
but this spraying of COREXIT(R) is intentional," stated C. Arlen
Braud, II, Esq., at Braud and Gallagher, L.L.C. COREXIT(R) is four
times as toxic as the oil itself.  Oil is toxic at 11 ppm, but
COREXIT(R) is toxic at only 2.61 ppm.  Mr. Braud went on, "This
chemical has been banned in the UK for over a decade, yet a UK
company is pouring millions of gallons into the Gulf of Mexico,
turning it into a toxic soup and that is despicable."

COREXIT(R) was banned from use in the United Kingdom because it
did not pass the "Rocky Shore Test" which assures that it does not
cause a deleterious effect or ecological change; in layman's
terms, kill off the entire food chain.

COREXIT(R) 9500 was used to clean up after the Exxon Valdez
disaster in 1989.  According to the Alaska Community Action on
Toxics it has had a negative effect on the health of those who
were exposed.  CNN reports that the average life expectancy of the
workers who cleaned up the Exxon Valdez spill is 51 years and most
of those workers are now deceased.

Braud & Gallagher, LLC. is a Law Firm that practices extensively
in Admiralty and Maritime Law, toxic torts and class actions
throughout the Gulf Coast Region.

The case is Parker v. Nalco Co., 10-cv-01749 (E.D. La.).


CENTERLINE HOLDING: Appeal on NY Suit Dismissal Still Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Centerline Holding Company is still awaiting decision on an appeal
filed by Centerline Investor Group regarding the dismissal of its
consolidated complaint alleging violations of federal securities
law, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 17, 2010.

On January 18, 2008, the first of the federal securities putative
class actions was filed against the Company and certain of its
officers and trustees in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York.  Thereafter, five other,
essentially duplicative putative class actions were also filed in
the same court.  The complaint in each case asserted that the
Company and other defendants allegedly violated federal securities
law by failing to disclose in a timely fashion the Company's
December 2007 transaction with Freddie Mac.

On May 5, 2008, the Court designated Centerline Investor Group,
which is made up of several shareholders, as lead plaintiff for
these cases.  Pursuant to the Court's stipulation and order dated
March 3, 2008, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint
on July 7, 2008 in this action, In re Centerline Holding Company
Securities Litigation, No. 08 CV 00505.  The consolidated
complaint also alleges violations of the federal securities laws
in connection with the Company's announcement of the Freddie Mac
transaction, changes to the Company's business model, and the
reduction in dividend guidance policy, and seeks an unspecified
amount of compensatory damages and other relief on behalf of all
persons or entities that purchased the common stock of Centerline
Holding Company during the period March 12, 2007 through December
28, 2007.  The defendants in this action filed a motion to dismiss
the consolidated complaint on
October 27, 2008 and the motion was granted by U.S District Court
Judge Shira Scheindlin on January 12, 2009.  Judge Scheindlin
granted the plaintiff leave to replead, and the plaintiff filed an
Amended Consolidated Complaint on March 13, 2009.  On April 30,
2009, the Defendants in this case filed a motion to dismiss the
Amended Consolidated Complaint.  The lead Plaintiff filed his
opposition to Defendants' motion to dismiss on June 12, 2009, and
the Defendants filed their reply to the opposition motion filed by
the Plaintiffs on June 30, 2009.  On August 4, 2009 the
Defendants' motion to dismiss was granted and the case was
dismissed without leave for the plaintiff to replead.

On September 2, 2009, Plaintiff filed an appeal of the District
Court's decision with the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.  Both
the plaintiffs and the defendants filed briefs in this appeal and
oral argument before the Second Circuit Court of Appeals was held
on April 7, 2010.  No decision has yet been rendered by the Second
Circuit.

Centerline Holding Company -- http://www.centerline.com/--
provides real estate financial and asset management services,
including institutional debt and equity fund management, mortgage
banking, and primary and special loan servicing.  As of Dec. 31,
2008, it had over $14 billion of assets under management.  It has
four business groups: Affordable Housing, Commercial Real Estate,
Portfolio Management and Credit Risk Products.  Its Corporate
group, consisting of Finance and Accounting, Legal, Corporate
Communications, Operations and Risk Management departments,
supports these business groups.  The Affordable Housing and
Commercial Real Estate groups raise capital through a series of
funds to deploy into an array of real estate debt and equity
investments.  The Credit Risk Products group provides credit
support to affordable housing debt and equity products for its
Affordable Housing group and third-parties. The Portfolio
Management group provides primary and special loan servicing for
commercial real estate.


CENTERLINE HOLDING: Seeks Voluntary Dismissal of Class Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
Centerline Holding Company is seeking the voluntary dismissal of
putative class and derivative actions in New York following the
effectiveness of a settlement relating to the company's 11.0%
Preferred Shares, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 17, 2010.

On January 15, 2008, the first of the state law cases, a putative
class and derivative action, entitled Off v. Ross, CA No. 3468-
VCP, was filed against the Company, its Board of Trustees and The
Related Companies, L.P., in the Delaware Court of Chancery.  The
lawsuit concerned the Company's sale of a new issue of convertible
preferred stock to an affiliate of TRCLP.  The lawsuit alleges
claims for breach of fiduciary duty against the Trustees and seeks
an unspecified amount of compensatory damages from them as well as
injunctive relief against all defendants.  Thereafter, seven other
derivative lawsuits asserting the same or similar claims were
filed in state and federal courts in New York and in the Delaware
Chancery Court.  Four of these later-filed actions also allege
that the trustees breached their fiduciary duties to the Company
by allegedly violating the federal securities laws.  The Company
is named solely as a nominal defendant in all eight derivative
actions and no monetary relief is sought against the Company in
any of those cases.  The seven derivative actions filed subsequent
to the Off case are:

   * On January 18, 2008, Kramer v. Ross, et al., Index. No.
100861-08, was filed against the Company and its board of
trustees, in New York County Supreme Court;

   * On January 25, 2008, Carfagno v. Schnitzer, et al.,
No. 08-cv-00912, was filed against the Company and its board of
trustees in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York;

   * On January 30, 2008, Ciszerk v. Ross, et al., CA No. 3511,
was filed against the Company, its board of trustees and The
Related Companies, L.P. in the Delaware Court of Chancery;

   * On February 22, 2008, Kanter v. Ross, et al., No.
08-cv-01827, was filed against the Company, its board of trustees
and The Related Companies, L.P. in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York;

   * On February 27, 2008, Broy v. Centerline Holding Company et
al., No. 08-cv-01971, was filed against the Company and certain of
its officers and trustees in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York;

   * On April 10, 2008, Kastner v. Schnitzer et al., Index No.
601043-08, was filed against the Company and its board of
trustees, in New York Supreme Court; and

   * On April 10, 2008, Kostecka v. Schnitzer et al., Index No.
601044-08, was filed against the Company and its board of
trustees, in New York Supreme Court.

On April 28, 2008, a consolidated amended verified complaint
alleging breaches of fiduciary duties of loyalty, candor, due
care, fair dealing, waste of corporate assets and unjust
enrichment, was filed against the Company and its board of
trustees in Carfagno v. Schnitzer et al., 08-cv-912 (SAS) and Broy
v. Blau, 08-cv-1971 (SAS), pending in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York.  The action was styled both as
a derivative suit and as a class action on behalf of all holders
of Centerline securities who qualified to purchase the Company's
11.0% Preferred Shares pursuant to the rights offering but who did
not do so.  In late March 2009, the plaintiffs and defendants
reached a basis of settlement which would require a reduction in
the rate payable on the 11.0% Convertible Preferred Shares held by
TRCLP and its affiliates to 95% and an increase in the conversion
price from $10.75 to $12.35.  A Stipulation of Settlement was
filed with the U.S. District Court (SDNY) on April 8, 2009, and a
fairness hearing for approval of the settlement was held May 18,
2009.  At that time, the District Court entered a Final Judgment
approving the Settlement, which was to become effective once the
Delaware Court of Chancery dismisses the Off and Ciszerk matters
with prejudice.

Prior to dismissal of the Off and Ciscerk matters, TRCLP as the
holder of a majority of the 11.0% Preferred Shares, consented to
an amendment and restatement of the certificate of designation for
those series of shares to reflect the changes and the amendment
and restatement was adopted on March 5, 2010.

On December 16, 2009, the Delaware Chancery Court dismissed the
Off matter with prejudice and on April 12, 2010, that court
dismissed the Ciszerk matter with prejudice.  On April 14, 2010,
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
confirmed the effectiveness of the Carfagno settlement.

Attorneys for the defendants are currently seeking voluntary
dismissal of the remaining derivative actions on the basis of res
judicata.

Centerline Holding Company -- http://www.centerline.com/--
provides real estate financial and asset management services,
including institutional debt and equity fund management, mortgage
banking, and primary and special loan servicing.  As of Dec. 31,
2008, it had over $14 billion of assets under management.  It has
four business groups: Affordable Housing, Commercial Real Estate,
Portfolio Management and Credit Risk Products.  Its Corporate
group, consisting of Finance and Accounting, Legal, Corporate
Communications, Operations and Risk Management departments,
supports these business groups.  The Affordable Housing and
Commercial Real Estate groups raise capital through a series of
funds to deploy into an array of real estate debt and equity
investments.  The Credit Risk Products group provides credit
support to affordable housing debt and equity products for its
Affordable Housing group and third-parties. The Portfolio
Management group provides primary and special loan servicing for
commercial real estate.


CHINA ORGANIC: Approval of "Provo" Suit Settlement Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Court approval of a settlement of a class action lawsuit against
China Organic Agriculture, Inc., remains pending, according to the
company's May 14, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31,
2009.

On December 12, 2008, Lance C. Provo, "on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated", filed a class action lawsuit in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York against China Organic Agriculture, Inc., past officers and
directors of the Company, and one current director of the Company.

The suit alleges, among other things, that the Defendants
disseminated false and misleading statements or concealed
materially adverse facts causing members of the class to purchase
the Company's stock at inflated prices, and engaged in other
improper actions, including divesting the Company of its sole
productive asset and acquiring a luxury retreat for the use of the
Defendants. The suit alleges that the Defendants' actions violated
Sections 10(b) and 20A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and Rule 10(b) 5 under the Exchange Act. The suit seeks
as relief civil penalties, attorney's fees, and disgorgement.

The Company has reached a preliminary settlement regarding the
class action lawsuit for $300,000 in cash and $300,000 worth of
stock.  Court approval of the settlement is pending.

China Organic Agriculture, Inc., formerly Industrial Electric
Services, Inc. -- http://www.chinaorganicagriculture.com/-- is
engaged in the business of rice production, processing and
distribution.  China Organic Agriculture, Ltd. is the company's
wholly owned subsidiary.  It operates in three segments: Ankang,
the segment for the trading of agricultural products; ErMaPao,
the one for rice production and processing, and Bellisimo
Vineyard, the segment for wine production.


CONVERTED ORGANICS: Parties Discuss Discovery in Leeseberg Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Converted Organics, Inc., participated in a conference to discuss
discovery issues in connection with a class action lawsuit,
captioned Gerald S. Leeseberg, et al., v. Converted Organics 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 March 31, 2010.

On December 11, 2008, Converted Organics received notice that a
complaint had been filed in a putative class action lawsuit on
behalf of 59 persons or entities that purchased units pursuant to
a financing terms agreement, or FTA, dated April 11, 2006,
captioned Gerald S. Leeseberg, et al. v. Converted Organics, Inc.,
filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware.

The lawsuit alleges breach of contract, conversion, unjust
enrichment, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith in
connection with the alleged failure to register certain securities
issued in the FTA, and the redemption of Converted Organics' Class
A warrants in November 2008. The lawsuit seeks damages related to
the failure to register certain securities, including alleged late
fee payments, of approximately $5.25 million, and unspecified
damages related to the redemption of the Class A warrants.

In February 2009, Converted Organics filed a Motion for Partial
Dismissal of Complaint.

On October 7, 2009, the Court concluded that Leeseberg has
properly stated a claim for actual damages resulting from
Converted Organics' alleged breach of contract but that Leeseberg
has failed to state claims for conversion, unjust enrichment and
breach of the implied covenant of good faith, and the Court
dismissed such claims. On November 6, 2009, Converted Organics
filed its answer to the Complaint with the Court.

On March 4, 2010, the parties participated in a conference, and
began discussing discovery issues.

Converted Organics Inc. -- http://www.convertedorganics.com/--
operates processing facilities that use food waste as raw
material to manufacture all-natural soil amendment products
combining nutritional and disease suppression characteristics.
In addition to its sales in the agribusiness market, the company
sells and distributes its products in the turf management and
retail markets.  As of Dec.31, 2008, the company operated two
facilities: Woodbridge facility and Gonzales facility.  The
company derives revenue from two sources: tip fees and product
sales.  Waste haulers pay the tip fees to the company for
accepting food waste generated by food distributors, such as
grocery stores, produce docks, fish markets and food processors,
and by hospitality venues, such as hotels, restaurants,
convention centers and airports.  In March 2010, the company
acquired a line of poultry-based organic fertilizer products.


COOPER COMPANIES: No Approval Yet of $27 Million Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Cooper Companies, Inc., is awaiting approval of an agreement
settling a class action for $27.0 million, 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.

On Feb. 15, 2006, Alvin L. Levine filed a putative securities
class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, Case No. SACV-06-169 CJC, against the
company, A. Thomas Bender, its Chairman of the Board and a
director, Robert S. Weiss, its Chief Executive Officer and a
director, and John D. Fruth, a former director.

On May 19, 2006, the Court consolidated this action and two
related actions under the heading In re Cooper Companies, Inc.
Securities Litigation and selected a lead plaintiff and lead
counsel pursuant to the provisions of the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act of 1995, 15 U.S.C. Section 78u-4.

The lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint on July 31,
2006.  The consolidated complaint was filed on behalf of all
purchasers of the company's securities between July 28, 2004, and
Dec. 12, 2005, including persons who received company securities
in exchange for their shares of Ocular Sciences, Inc., in the
January 2005 merger pursuant to which the company acquired Ocular.

In addition to the company, Messrs. Bender, Weiss, and Fruth, the
consolidated complaint named as defendants several of the
company's other current officers and directors and former
officers.  On July 13, 2007, the Court granted Cooper's motion to
dismiss the consolidated complaint and granted the lead plaintiff
leave to amend to attempt to state a valid claim.

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

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

On Oct. 23, 2007, the Court granted in-part and denied in-part
Cooper and the individual defendants' motion to dismiss.  The
Court dismissed the claims relating to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
certifications, the company's financial projections and the
Company's accounting of assets acquired in the Ocular merger.

The Court denied the motion as to the claims related to alleged
false statements concerning the Biomedics product line, sales
force integration and the impact of silicone hydrogel lenses.

On Nov. 28, 2007, the Court dismissed all claims against Mr.
Fruth.

On Dec. 3, 2007, the company and Messrs. Bender, Weiss, Neil
and Fryling answered the amended consolidated complaint.  On April
8, 2008, the Court granted a motion by Mr. Neil for judgment on
the pleadings as to him.  On Oct. 20, 2009, the Court reaffirmed
that the plaintiffs' financial projection claims had been
dismissed in its earlier rulings.

On Jan. 6, 2009, the Court granted the plaintiffs' motion for
class certification.  The certified class consists of persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired Cooper common stock between July
28, 2004, and Nov. 21, 2005.  Discovery in this matter has closed.

Cooper and the individual defendants filed summary judgment
motions on Dec. 21, 2009.  On March 4, 2010, the Court denied in
substantial part the motions for summary judgment.

On May 4, 2010, the company announced that it has reached an
agreement in principle to settle the consolidated class action
lawsuit for $27.0 million.  The proposed settlement is subject to
court approval, the timing of which is not set at this time.

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


COWEN GROUP: Awaits Court Decision on Transfer & Remand Motions
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cowen Group, Inc., according to its May 14, 2010, Form 10-Q filing
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2010, is awaiting the outcome of motions to transfer and
remand a putative class action, which its wholly owned subsidiary,
Cowen and Company LLC, is involved in.

On March 5, 2010, Cowen and Company was named as a defendant,
along with several other underwriters, in a putative class action
filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of
San Diego, in connection with an August 2008 follow-on offering
for CardioNet, Inc.  The complaint alleges, among other things,
that the prospectuses for CardioNet's March 2008 IPO (in which
Cowen and Company did not participate) and subsequent follow-on
offering (in which Cowen and Company did participate) were false
and misleading and failed to disclose, among other things, that
CardioNet incorrectly reported revenue and failed to disclose
certain risks relating to Medicare reimbursement rates for
CardioNet's services.

On April 5, 2010, Cowen and Company and the other defendants moved
to remove the case to the United States District Court for the
Southern District of California and, on April 7, 2010, moved to
transfer the case to the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania.  On April 23, 2010, plaintiffs
moved to remand the case back to California state court.  The
motions to transfer and remand remain pending.

Cowen Group, Inc. -- http://www.cowen.com/-- is an investment
bank that provides research, sales and trading, and investment
banking services to companies and institutional investor clients
in the healthcare, technology, media and telecommunications,
alternative energy and consumer sectors.


COWEN GROUP: Unit Faces Class Action Suits Over "Fuqi" Offering
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cowen Group, Inc.'s wholly owned subsidiary Cowen and Company LLC
is facing two putative class actions in New York for its role as
underwriter in a Fuqi International, Inc., follow-on offering,
according to the company's May 14, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,
2010.

In March 2010, Cowen and Company was named, along with several
other underwriters, as a defendant in two putative class actions
filed in the Southern District of New York in connection with a
July 2009 follow-on offering for Fuqi International, Inc.  The
complaint alleges, among other things, that the prospectus for
Fuqi's follow-on offering was false and misleading and contained
materially inaccurate financial statements that overstated the
company's gross profit and net income.

Cowen Group, Inc. -- http://www.cowen.com/-- is an investment
bank that provides research, sales and trading, and investment
banking services to companies and institutional investor clients
in the healthcare, technology, media and telecommunications,
alternative energy and consumer sectors.


DYNCORP INT'L: Faces "Naito" Suit over Delta Tucker Merger
----------------------------------------------------------
DynCorp International Inc., faces a putative class action
complaint, captioned Shawn K. Naito v. DynCorp International Inc.
et al., C.A. No. 5419-VCS, relating to its planned merger with
Delta Tucker Holdings, Inc., according to the company's June 4,
2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended April 2, 2010.

On April 11, 2010, the company entered into an Agreement and Plan
of Merger with Delta Tucker Holdings, Inc. and Delta Tucker Sub,
Inc., each of whom is an affiliate of the private investment firm,
Cerberus Capital Management, L.P.

On April 16, 2010, a putative class action complaint was commenced
against the company, its directors, Cerberus, and Cerberus'
acquisition entities in the Delaware Court.  The Plaintiff
purports to bring the action on behalf of the public stockholders
of the company, and seeks, among other things, equitable relief,
to enjoin the consummation of the Merger, and fees and costs.  The
Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the company's directors
breached their fiduciary duties by, among other things, agreeing
to the proposed Merger in which the consideration is unfair and
inadequate, failing to take steps to maximize stockholder value,
and putting their own interests above those of the company's
stockholders.  The complaint further alleges that Cerberus, Parent
and Merger Sub aided and abetted the directors' alleged breaches
of their fiduciary duties.

On May 7, 2010, the company filed an answer, denying the material
substantive allegations of the complaint.  On May 10, 2010,
Cerberus and its acquisition entities filed an answer, denying the
material substantive allegations of the complaint.

On May 14, 2010, the plaintiff filed a motion to amend its
complaint to assert certain alleged failures of disclosure in the
company's preliminary proxy statement previously filed with the
SEC.  The motion was granted by the Court on May 18, 2010.

The proposed amended complaint continues to challenge the Board's
discharge of its fiduciary duties in connection with the
negotiation of the Merger.  On June 2, 2010, the company and its
directors, as well as Cerberus and its acquisition entities, filed
answers denying the material substantive allegations of the
amended complaint.

The plaintiff on May 17, 2010, filed a motion for preliminary
injunction of the Merger.  The court was slated to adjudicate that
motion on June 17, 2010.

DynCorp International Inc. -- http://www.dyn-intl.com/-- through
its wholly owned subsidiary DynCorp International LLC, is a global
government services provider in support of U.S. national security
and foreign policy objectives, delivering support solutions for
defense, diplomacy, and international development.  DynCorp
operates major programs in logistics, platform support,
contingency operations, and training and mentoring to reinforce
security, community stability, and the rule of law.  DynCorp is
headquartered in Falls Church, Va.


DYNCORP INT'L: Faces "Meehan" Complaint in Virginia
---------------------------------------------------
DynCorp International Inc., faces a putative class action
complaint, captioned Kevin V. Meehan v. Robert McKeon et al., C.A.
No. 1:10CV 446, according to the company's June 4, 2010, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended April 2, 2010.

On April 11, 2010, the company entered into an Agreement and Plan
of Merger with Delta Tucker Holdings, Inc. and Delta Tucker Sub,
Inc., each of whom is an affiliate of the private investment firm,
Cerberus Capital Management, L.P.

On April 30, 2010, the company, its directors and Cerberus'
acquisition entities were named as defendants in a putative class
action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court in the Eastern
District of Virginia.  In the complaint, the plaintiff purports to
represent a class of stockholders and seeks, among other things,
equitable relief, including to enjoin the company and Cerberus'
acquisition entities from consummating the Merger, in addition to
fees and costs.  The plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the
company's directors breached their fiduciary duties by, among
other things, failing to engage in an honest and fair sale
process.  The complaint further alleges that the company and
Cerberus' acquisition entities aided and abetted the directors'
purported breaches.

On May 17, 2010, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint
asserting claims under Section 14a of the Exchange Act,
challenging disclosures and alleged omissions in the company's
proxy statement.  On May 19, 2010, the plaintiff filed a motion to
expedite the case.

On May 21, 2010, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint and, on May 24, filed a motion asking the court
to abstain from proceeding with the case in favor of the
substantively similar and earlier-filed action in Delaware.

On May 27, 2010, the court denied the plaintiff's motion to
expedite discovery.  The Federal Court was slated to consider the
company's dismissal and abstention motions for June 18, 2010.

In addition, following denial of the plaintiff's motion to
expedite discovery, the plaintiff's counsel agreed to coordinate
his discovery efforts with the plaintiffs in the Delaware action.

DynCorp International Inc. -- http://www.dyn-intl.com/-- through
its wholly owned subsidiary DynCorp International LLC, is a global
government services provider in support of U.S. national security
and foreign policy objectives, delivering support solutions for
defense, diplomacy, and international development.  DynCorp
operates major programs in logistics, platform support,
contingency operations, and training and mentoring to reinforce
security, community stability, and the rule of law.  DynCorp is
headquartered in Falls Church, Va.


EASTERN LA REGIONAL: Settles Suit on Autism Treatment Funding
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Los Angeles Superior Court on June 10, 2010, issued an Order
granting preliminary approval of a Settlement Agreement in the
class action lawsuit, Benito R., et al. v. Eastern Los Angeles
Regional Center, et al., which was filed on behalf of hundreds of
children with autism against the Eastern Los Angeles Regional
Center earlier this year, after ELARC terminated funding for
Developmental, Individual Difference, Relationship-based treatment
services.

Among other things, the Judge's Order requires notice to be mailed
to all members of the class, including every parent of a child
diagnosed with or provisionally diagnosed with autism served (or,
if possible, who will be served) by the East Los Angeles Regional
Center so that they know what is required of ELARC under the terms
of the Settlement Agreement.

The Settlement Agreement requires, among other things, that ELARC
continue funding and paying for all DIR or DIR/Floortime treatment
programs for all eligible children who have been diagnosed, or
provisionally diagnosed with autism.  It also enjoins ELARC from:
1) failing to make DIR treatment programs available to Class
Members; 2) classifying, characterizing, identifying or labeling
DIR treatment programs as "experimental," "non-medical therapy,"
"specialized recreation," or "social recreational" as those terms
are used in the Trailer Bill; 3) asking, pressuring, conditioning
or otherwise requiring a Class Member to give up, barter, or
otherwise reduce or terminate another service in order to receive
DIR treatment services; and (4) engaging in any sort of
retaliatory behavior against any Class Member or person associated
with a Class Member.

Earlier this year, the Court issued a preliminary injunction to
reinstate funding for DIR treatment services. The Class Plaintiffs
in this action are represented, on a pro bono basis, by the law
firm of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP and by Public Counsel Law
Center. Additional information about the Class Notices for this
case can be found on ELARC's Web site, beginning on June 15,
http://www.elarc.org/ The Settlement Agreement and the Superior
Court Order are also available at http://www.publiccounsel.org/


EGAIN COMMUNICATIONS: Will Defend vs. IPO Suit if Appeal Filed
--------------------------------------------------------------
eGain Communications Corporation said it will continue to defend
itself in the consolidated initial public offering securities
litigation if its settlement is overturned on appeal, according to
its Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
May 14, 2010.

Beginning on October 25, 2001, a number of securities class action
complaints were filed against the Company, and certain of its then
officers and directors and underwriters connected with its initial
public offering of common stock.  The class actions were filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
The complaints alleged generally that the prospectus under which
those securities were sold contained false and misleading
statements with respect to discounts and excess commissions
received by the underwriters as well as allegations of "laddering"
whereby underwriters required their customers to purchase
additional shares in the aftermarket in exchange for an allocation
of IPO shares.  The complaints sought an unspecified amount in
damages on behalf of persons who purchased the common stock
between September 23, 1999, and December 6, 2000.  Similar
complaints were filed against 55 underwriters and more than 300
other companies and other individuals.  The over 1,000 actions
were consolidated into a single action called In re Initial Public
Offering Sec. Litig.

In 2003, the Company and the other issuer defendants (but not the
underwriter defendants) reached an agreement with the plaintiffs
to resolve the cases as to its liability and that of its officers
and directors.  The settlement involved no monetary payment or
other consideration by the Company or its officers and directors
and no admission of liability.  On August 31, 2005, the Court
issued an order preliminarily approving the settlement.  On April
24, 2006, the Court held a public hearing on the fairness of the
proposed settlement.

Meanwhile the consolidated case against the underwriters
proceeded.  In October 2004, the Court certified a class.  On
December 5, 2006, however, the United States Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit reversed, holding that the class certified by
the District Court could not be certified.  In re Initial Public
Offering Sec. Litig., 471 F.3d 24 (2d Cir. 2006).  The Second
Circuit's holding, while directly affecting only the underwriters,
raised doubt as to whether the settlement class contemplated by
the proposed issuer settlement could be approved.

On June 25, 2007, the district court entered a stipulated order
terminating the proposed issuer settlement.  Thereafter pretrial
proceedings resumed.  In March 2009, all parties agreed on a new
global settlement of the litigation; this settlement included
underwriters as well as issuers.  Under the settlement, which
remains subject to final Court approval, the insurers would pay
the full amount of settlement share allocated to the Company, and
the Company would bear no financial liability.  The Company, as
well as the officer and director defendants, who were previously
dismissed from the action pursuant to a stipulation, would receive
complete dismissals from the case.  On June 10, 2009, the Court
entered an order granting preliminary approval of the settlement.
On September 10, 2009, the Court held a final settlement approval
hearing.  On October 5, 2009, the Court issued an order finally
approving the settlement.

Starting on or about October 23, 2009, some would-be objectors to
the certification of a settlement class (which occurred as part of
the October 5, 2009 order) petitioned the Court for permission to
appeal from the order certifying the settlement class, and on
October 29 and November 2, 2009, several groups of objectors filed
notices of appeal seeking to challenge the Court's approval of the
settlement.  On November 24, 2009, the Court signed, and on,
December 4, 2009, the Court entered final judgment pursuant to the
settlement dismissing all claims involving the Company.

If the settlement and final judgment were to be overturned on
appeal and litigation were to proceed, the Company believes that
it has meritorious defenses to plaintiffs' claims and intend to
defend the action vigorously.

Based in Mountain View, Calif., eGain Communications Corporation
provides multichannel customer service and knowledge management
software for in-house or on-demand deployment, used by global
enterprises and fast-growing businesses.  The Company was
incorporated in Delaware in September 1997.


FIRST DATA: Awaits Outcome of Dismissal Motion of ATM Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
First Data Corporation is awaiting a decision on its motion to
dismiss the third amended complaint in a class action suit filed
against the Company, which alleged violations of antitrust laws,
according to its Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on May 14, 2010.

On July 2, 2004, a class action complaint was filed against the
Company, its subsidiary Concord EFS, Inc., and various financial
institutions.  Plaintiffs claim that the defendants violated
antitrust laws by conspiring to artificially inflate foreign ATM
fees that were ultimately charged to ATM cardholders.  Plaintiffs
seek a declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, compensatory
damages, attorneys' fees, costs and such other relief as the
nature of the case may require or as may seem just and proper to
the court.  Five similar suits were filed and served in July,
August and October 2004.

On August 3, 2007, Concord EFS, Inc., filed a motion for summary
judgment seeking to dismiss plaintiffs' per se claims, arguing
that there are pro-competitive justifications for the ATM
interchange.  On March 24, 2008, the Court entered an order
granting the defendants' motions for partial summary judgment,
finding that the claims raised in this case would need to be
addressed under a "Rule of Reason" analysis.  On February 2, 2009,
the Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint which was
dismissed by the Court on September 4, 2009.  On October 16, 2009,
the Plaintiffs filed a Third Amended Complaint.  The defendants
filed a motion to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint on November
13, 2009 and the Court scheduled a hearing for this motion on May
14, 2010.

The Company believes the complaints are without merit and intends
to vigorously defend them.

First Data Corp. -- http://www.firstdatacorp.com/-- operates
electronic commerce, payment services and customer account
management businesses.  FDC has four main business segments:
First Data Commercial Services Segment, First Data Financial
Institution Services Segment, First Data International Segment
and Integrated Payment Systems Segment, and a fifth segment,
known as All Other and Corporate.


GT SOLAR: Continues to Defend "Braun" Suit in New Hampshire
-----------------------------------------------------------
GT Solar International, Inc., continues to defend an amended
consolidated complaint in the matter Braun et al. v. GT Solar
International, Inc., et al., Case No. 08-cv-00312, according to
the company's June 4, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
April 3, 2010.

Beginning on Aug. 1, 2008, seven putative securities class action
lawsuits were commenced in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Hampshire, against the company, certain of its
officers and directors, certain underwriters of the company's July
24, 2008 initial public offering and others, including certain
investors in the company.

On Oct. 3, 2008, the Court entered an order consolidating the
actions.  The Court selected the lead plaintiff and lead
plaintiff's counsel in the federal class action on Oct. 29, 2008.

The lead plaintiff filed an amended consolidated complaint on Dec.
22, 2008.  The lead plaintiff asserts claims under various
sections of the Securities Act.  The amended consolidated
complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants made
false and materially misleading statements and failed to disclose
material information in certain SEC filings, including the
registration statement and Prospectus for the company's
July 24, 2008, initial public offering, and other public
statements, regarding the status of its business relationship with
LDK Solar, Ltd.  Among other relief, the amended consolidated
complaint seeks class certification, unspecified compensatory
damages, rescission, interest, attorneys' fees, costs and such
other relief as the Court should deem just and proper.

The defendants moved to dismiss the amended consolidated complaint
on Feb. 5, 2009.  On Sept. 22, 2009, the Court denied the
defendants' motion.  Following the Court's denial of the motion,
the parties submitted a proposed joint case management order,
which the Court approved on Nov. 16, 2009.  The case management
order provides for discovery to close on May 25, 2011.

The suit is Braun et al. v. GT Solar International, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 08-cv-00312 (New Hampshire) (Laplante, J.).

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Christopher Cole, Esq.
          Sheehan Phinney Bass & Green
          1000 Elm St., P.O. Box 3701
          Manchester, NH 03105-3701
          Tel: (603) 668-0300
          E-mail: ccole@sheehan.com

               - and -

          Michelle H. Blauner, Esq.
          Shapiro Haber & Urmy
          53 State St, 13th Flr.
          Boston, MA 02109
          Tel: (617) 439-3939
          E-mail: mblauner@shulaw.com

Representing the defendants are:

          W. Daniel Deane, Esq.
          Nixon Peabody LLP
          900 Elm St., 14th Flr
          Manchester, NH 03101-2031
          Tel: (603) 628-4047
          E-mail: ddeane@nixonpeabody.com

               - and -

          William H. Paine, Esq.
          Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr LLP
          60 State St.
          Boston, MA 02109
          Tel: (617) 526-6000
          E-mail: william.paine@wilmerhale.com


GT SOLAR: Continues to Defend "Hamel" Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
GT Solar International, Inc., continues to defend a putative
securities class-action suit captioned, Hamel v. GT Solar
International, Inc., et al., according to the company's June 4,
2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended April 3, 2010.

On Sept. 18, 2008, a putative securities class action was filed in
New Hampshire state court in the Superior Court for Hillsborough
County, Southern District against the company, certain of its
officers and directors and certain underwriters of the company's
July 24, 2008, initial public offering.

The state class action plaintiff asserts claims under various
sections of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.  The state
class action complaint alleges, among other things, that the
defendants made false and materially misleading statements and
failed to disclose material information in certain SEC filings,
including the registration statement for the company's July 24,
2008 initial public offering, and other public statements,
regarding the status of the company's business relationship with
LDK Solar.  Among other relief, the state class action complaint
seeks class certification, unspecified compensatory damages,
rescission, interest, attorneys' fees, costs and such other relief
as the State Court should deem just and proper.

The company removed the state class action to the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Hampshire on Oct. 22, 2008.  The
state class action was consolidated with the federal class action
on Nov. 25, 2008.

On Feb. 2, 2009, the federal court granted the plaintiff's motion
to remand the state class action to New Hampshire State Court.  On
May 4, 2009, the parties agreed to a stay of the state class
action, pending resolution of the motion to dismiss in the
consolidated federal case.

At a case structuring conference on June 3, 2009, the state court
endorsed the proposed joint case management order filed by the
parties which requires coordination of any discovery to be taken
in the state class action with that taken in the federal class
action.  With the denial of the motion to dismiss the federal
action, the parties submitted a proposed joint case management
order to the State Court on Nov. 6, 2009.

On Jan. 12, 2010, the State Court granted a joint motion of the
parties to transfer the state class action to the State Court's
Business and Commercial Dispute Docket.

GT Solar International, Inc. -- http://www.gtsolar.com/-- is
provider of manufacturing equipment and turnkey manufacturing
solutions to the photovoltaic (PV) industry.  The company's
products and solutions are used for production of solar grade
polysilicon, manufacturing of multicrystalline silicon wafers,
production of solar cells and assembly of complete modules.  GT
Solar International, Inc. provides facility and process design and
integration know-how with its equipment.  The company offers its
products and services to PV product manufacturers on a worldwide
basis, and a substantial percentage of its sales are to customers
outside the United States.


HEALTHMARKETS INC: Discovery in Calif. "Privacy" Suit Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in a putative class action lawsuit against
HealthMarkets, Inc., pending in the Superior Court of Los Angeles
County, California, according to HealthMarkets, Inc.'s Form 10-Q
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 13, 2010.

On December 18, 2008, HealthMarkets and its subsidiary The MEGA
Life and Health Insurance Company were named as defendants in a
putative class action brought by Jerry Hopkins (Jerry T. Hopkins,
individually and on behalf all those others similarly situated v.
HealthMarkets, Inc. et al.) pending in the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County, California, Case No. BC404133.  Plaintiff alleges
invasion of privacy in violation of California Penal Code Section
630, et seq., negligence and the violation of common law privacy
arising from allegations that the defendants monitored and
recorded the telephone conversations of California residents
without providing them with notice or obtaining their consent. Mr.
Hopkins seeks an order certifying the suit as a California class
action and seeks compensatory and punitive damages.

On December 3, 2009, plaintiff Jerry Hopkins was dismissed as the
class plaintiff and Jerry Buszek was substituted in his place.

On March 10, 2010, defendants' motion for summary judgment was
denied.  Discovery in this matter is ongoing.

HealthMarkets, Inc. (NYSE:UCI) offers health and life insurance
through its MEGA Life and Health Insurance, Chesapeake Life
Insurance Company, and other subsidiaries. Its targeted
customers are the self-employed, association groups, and small
businesses. Other services include third-party administrative
and distribution services for health care providers and other
insurers.  The company changed its name from UICI to Health
Markets in 2006 after being acquired by a consortium led by the
Blackstone Group.


HILTON LOS ANGELES: Faces Suit for Hiring Low-Wage Workers
----------------------------------------------------------
A proposed class-action lawsuit filed against the Hilton Los
Angeles Airport by two housekeepers claims the hotel was skirting
the city's living-wage ordinance by using a subcontractor to hire
lower-paid, temporary workers, attorneys said on June 16, 2010,
according to Southern California Public Radio.

Howard Fine at Los Angeles Business Journal reports that the
lawsuit, filed in Los Angeles Superior Court late Tuesday, alleges
the Hilton used a temporary employment agency to hire workers and
pay those workers less than the city's living wage, which is
$10.30 per hour for employees who get health benefits or $11.55
per hour for those who don't.  According to Business Journal, the
lawsuit also alleges the temporary employment agency, Norma's
Corp., did not make required contributions to social security,
unemployment and disability benefits.  The suit seeks back pay and
unspecified damages.

"This suit is bringing attention to the ways that this hotel and
employment agency have jointly reaped profits from the
exploitation of low-wage workers," Southern California Public
Radio quotes attorney Marc Coleman as saying.  "Breaking the law
to keep workers locked in poverty is harmful to them, the greater
community and the city.  The Hilton must be held accountable."

Hilton officials could not be reached for comment.  Southern
California Public Radio relates that an official reached by the
Los Angeles Times said she had not seen the lawsuit and could not
comment.

Business Journal recalls the LAX Hilton was the most vocal
opponent of the city's move to extend the living wage law to 13
airport area hotels in 2006.  The city claimed that since the
hotels were benefiting from a city asset -- the nearby Los Angeles
International Airport -- they should be subject to the living wage
law, which applies to city contractors.  After an attempt to
overturn the city's action through referendum fizzled in 2007, all
the other hotels eventually settled with the city and agreed to
abide by the living wage law.  However, the Hilton sued in court
to overturn the law, ultimately losing its challenge on appeal.

The case is Sorto, et al. v. Hilton Los Angeles Airport, Hilton
Hotels Corp., et al., Case No. BC439727 (Calif. Super. Ct., Los
Angeles Cty. June 15, 2010), and the Plaintiffs are represented
by:

     Randy Resnick, Esq.
     Virginia Keeny, Esq.
     Cindy Panucco, Esq.
     HADSELL STORMER KEENY RICHARDSON & RESNICK, LLP
     128 North Fir Oaks Avenue
     Pasadena, CA 91103-3645
     Telephone: 626-585-9600

         - and -

     Mark Coleman, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF MARC COLEMAN
     211 East Ocean Boulevard, SUite 420
     Long Beach, CA 90802
     Telephone: 562-432-8188
     E-mail: marc@marccolemanlaw.com


HORIZON BLUE CROSS: Judge Cuts $2.2MM From Lawyers' Fees
--------------------------------------------------------
New Jersey Law Journal's Henry Gottlieb reports a judge ruled
June 15 that a class action settlement requiring Horizon Blue
Cross Blue Shield of New Jersey to make billing reforms is fair
and reasonable, but he cut $2.2 million from the fee award to the
plaintiffs lawyers.  Superior Court Judge Stephen Bernstein
reduced the fee award to Mazie Slater Katz & Freeman in Roseland,
N.J., to $4.3 million.

Law Journal relates Horizon was prepared to pay $6.5 million in
legal fees to class action lawyers when the case settled.  But
after an appeal by nine doctors groups who objected to the deal,
the case was remanded to the Essex County judge who had approved
it in 2007.

Law Journal says Horizon was the biggest winner in Sutter v.
Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield of New Jersey, Esx-L-385-02, a
class action suit brought on behalf of doctors who alleged the
giant insurer denied legitimate claims and, when it did pay, paid
slowly, increasing providers' administrative costs.

Horizon agreed in the settlement to ease the administrative burden
on doctors, allow physicians to turn away new Horizon patients,
publish a complete schedule of fees for typical services and seek
timely reimbursement of any overpayments to doctors.  But the nine
medical groups objected on grounds that the settlement, as
approved by Judge Bernstein, was flawed because it provided
equitable relief only and that the fee was excessive.  They also
argued that all the reforms were mandated by statute.  They also
said the fee was too high, even though Horizon was willing to pay
it.

Last year, a state appeals court ordered Judge Bernstein to
reconsider the fairness of the overall settlement and make a
thorough review of whether the fee award was reasonable.  When
Judge Bernstein approved the fee in 2007, he found it represented
16.7% of the value of the case to doctors, which he found to be
within the range of reasonable fees in class actions.

But the appeals court said he also should have used the lodestar
method, in which the attorneys' fees and hours are added to the
equation.

On remand, Judge Bernstein found that the 5,056 hours expended by
the lawyers was warranted.  But he rejected Mazie Slater's
argument that he should consider the firm's effective rates -- its
traditional recovery levels for contingency work.

Law Journal says the judge approved a blended rate of $550 per
hour for work by Eric Katz and partner David Mazie and $100 per
hour for work by law clerks, for a total of $2.7 million.  The
judge added a 35% multiplier for the difficulty of the case and
the risk the firm took in pursuing it and added the $600,000 in
out-of-pocket costs expended.

Judge Bernstein reiterated his view that the settlement was fair.
The central question was whether plaintiff's economic expert,
Teresa Waters of the University of Tennessee Health Science
Center, was correct when she pegged the value of the key portions
of the settlement at $35 million or more -- $1,747 per doctor over
the five-year life of the settlement.  The key saving, Ms. Waters
found, would be the reduction in the number of hours doctors'
billing clerks would have to spend handling Horizon claims after
the reforms.

"The Sutter settlement entails real change to Horizon's business
practices, requiring an investment of money, personnel and
resources," Judge Bernstein said in his opinion, according to Law
Journal.  "While objectors contend that the business reforms
stipulated in this settlement have no value because they are
already mandated by statute, this Court finds that the
settlement's significant reforms are not adequately provided for
in any existing law."

"Because Horizon has now posted complete fee information on its
physician website, class members have immediate access to their
reimbursement rates and can download these reimbursement rates
into their practice's management systems for ease of use and
reference," the judge said.

Judge Bernstein also brushed aside the argument that the
settlement had no value because it was made redundant by a
subsequent nationwide Blue Cross class action settlement that
provided for the same reforms.

In that settlement approved in federal district court in
Miami last year, Love v. Blue Cross Blue Shield Association,
03-Civ.21296, the class received monetary benefits, not just
equitable relief as in Sutter.

Judge Bernstein, according to Law Journal, noted that the Love
settlement did not exist when Sutter settled and "it would be
improper to allow objectors to argue in hindsight that they have
received nothing of value because of a subsequent settlement."

"It could be equally argued that the Love settlement may not have
been as valuable had they not copied provisions from the Sutter
settlement," the judge added.

Mr. Katz at Mazie Slater says Judge Bernstein's decision was a
"very well-reasoned opinion that details how terrific the
settlement was," but he is disappointed the fee was cut.  He says
he will not appeal.

Charles Gormally at Brach Eichler in Roseland, N.J., who
represents the objector -- medical societies for podiatrists,
ophthalmologists and other specialists -- says no decision on an
appeal has been made, according to Law Journal.


HOVNANIAN ENT: Additional Portions of Complaint Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida has
dismissed additional portions of the second amended complaint
against a subsidiary of Hovnanian Enterprises, 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 subsidiary of the company has been named as a defendant in a
purported class action suit filed on May 30, 2007, in the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Florida captioned
Randolph Sewell, et al., v. D'Allesandro & Woodyard, et al.,
alleging violations of the federal securities acts, among other
allegations, in connection with the sale of some of the
subsidiary's homes in Fort Myers, Florida.

The Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on Oct. 19, 2007.

The Plaintiffs sought to represent a class of certain home
purchasers in southwestern Florida and sought damages, rescission
of certain purchase agreements, restitution of out-of-pocket
expenses, and attorneys' fees and costs.

The company's subsidiary filed a Motion to Dismiss the amended
complaint on Dec. 14, 2007.  Following oral argument on the Motion
in September 2008, the court dismissed the amended complaint with
leave for the Plaintiffs to amend.

The Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on Oct. 31, 2008.
The company's subsidiary filed a Motion to Dismiss the second
amended complaint.  The Court dismissed portions of the second
amended complaint.

The Court dismissed additional portions of the second amended
complaint on April 28, 2010.

Hovnanian Enterprises, Inc. -- http://www.khov.com/-- designs,
constructs, markets and sells single-family detached homes,
attached townhomes and condominiums, mid-rise and high-rise
condominiums, urban infill and active adult homes in planned
residential developments.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Canadian Lawyers Continue to Follow Case
-----------------------------------------------------------
According to Daryl-Lynn Carlson at The Financial Post, lawyers say
the number of product liability class actions launched against
medical-device manufacturers is on the rise in Canada.  The growth
has been fuelled by one particular case that has both lawyers and
the medical-device industry watching with interest, after a judge
took the initiative to add his own twist in a decision to certify
a lawsuit as a class action.

The case, Serhan Estate v. Johnson and Johnson, involves SureStep
blood glucose monitoring devices manufactured by Johnson
subsidiaries LifeScan Inc.  In 2004, Ontario Superior Court
Justice Maurice Cullity determined that he would certify the case
as a class action based on the doctrine of waiver of tort, even
though the plaintiffs in the case had not raised it in their
claim.

Justice Cullity saw it as the most practical recourse, writing
that, "if proven, [it] could entitle the plaintiff to a remedy on
the basis of the doctrine." The key to any tort claim is proving
damages, which can be difficult because medical devices impact
people differently.  The concept of waiver of tort eliminates that
challenge.  It permits a plaintiff who has suffered little or no
damage from a faulty device to seek restitution through the
disgorgement of the defendant's profits in selling the device
instead of trying to prove traditional damages.

In 2007, the Supreme Court of Canada denied leave to appeal
Justice Cullity's ruling.

Ms. Carlson reports that products liability lawyers continue
watching the case closely to see whether the waiver of tort issue
will be clarified at trial, although the case has been delayed
pending settlement discussions.

According to Ms. Carlson, Kathryn Chalmers, a lawyer at Stikeman
Elliott in Toronto, noted there have since been a number of
medical-device class actions based on the waiver of tort doctrine.
"In waiver of tort, there's a big question whether this is
something that is a standalone cause of action," she said. "So
will this eliminate the necessity of proving that the plaintiffs
suffered damage?" Ms. Chalmers asked.

Several other class actions, including a pharmaceutical case and
an action filed against a credit card company, have settled before
going to trial with restitution based on the waiver of tort
premise.

Ms. Carlson relates Ms. Chalmers said that defense lawyers in
particular are hoping the Serhan case doesn't settle so they can
learn what a court will decide during trial.  "Waiver of tort has
never been explored at the higher levels of court to at least see
what it is," she said.

Ms. Carlson also reports that Paul Martin at Fasken Martineau
DuMoulin pointed out that in the United States, LifeScan Inc.
pleaded guilty 10 years ago to federal charges and paid US$60
million in criminal and civil fines for selling the SureStep
meters and test strips after submitting false information about
defects to the FDA.  As defense counsel, Mr. Martin said, actions
such as the Serhan matter, which might still go to trial in
Canada, make it difficult to explain this country's class action
environment to Americans.

"It's extremely difficult to get these kinds of cases certified in
the U.S.," Mr. Martin said. "So in your typical coordinated cross-
border defense, there is a real education process in many
respects." One of the first medical devices to be subjected to
multi-jurisdictional class actions was the silicon breast implant
manufactured by several companies. Those cases, launched in the
1990s, have been largely concluded, although there are a few
government- related actions still going on.

Ms. Carlson also reports that Tim Buckley, defense counsel at
Borden Ladner Gervais in Toronto, recently concluded what he hopes
will be the last of defense work for BristolMyers Squibb regarding
implants.  He said it's very difficult for plaintiffs to establish
that there are common issues to be tried in a medical-device class
action, because everybody reacts to an implant or device
differently.

"There's a real range of differences in these cases. With the
breast implants, there was the silicone ingredient so maybe
someone can argue there is commonality," Mr. Buckley said. "But
take a defibrillator or a heart implant, that's very different and
it's very difficult to have a common issue at trial with respect
to those types of implants and I think the attempts to try these
cases will be very difficult."

Ms. Carlson also writes that Andrew Bernstein, defense counsel at
Torys in Toronto, acknowledged that the law regarding waiver of
tort in many areas, including medical devices, is "still extremely
unsettled," but it has made certification of class actions easier.
"Waiver of tort helps plaintiffs answer the defense argument that
the case should not be certified because causation and damages are
individual issues.  The defense bar is now in the process of
reacting to waiver of tort," he said.


JONES SODA: Court to Schedule Oral Argument on Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------
Briefing on an appeal regarding the dismissal of a consolidated
class action lawsuit against Jones Soda Co. has concluded and
parties are now preparing for oral argument, according to Jones
Soda's Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on May 14, 2010.

On September 4, 2007, a putative class action complaint was filed
against the Company, its then serving chief executive officer, and
its then serving chief financial officer in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Washington, alleging claims
under Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  The case
was entitled Saltzman v. Jones Soda Company, et al., Case No.
07-cv-1366-RSL, and purported to be brought on behalf of a class
of purchasers of the Company's common stock during the period
March 9, 2007, to August 2, 2007.

Six substantially similar complaints subsequently were filed in
the same court, some of which alleged claims on behalf of a class
of purchasers of the Company's common stock during the period
November 1, 2006, to August 2, 2007.  Some of the subsequently
filed complaints added as defendants certain current and former
directors and another former officer of the Company.  The
complaints generally alleged violations of federal securities laws
based on, among other things, false and misleading statements and
omissions about our financial results and business prospects.  The
complaints sought unspecified damages, interest, attorneys' fees,
costs, and expenses.

On October 26, 2007, these seven lawsuits were consolidated as a
single action entitled In re Jones Soda Company Securities
Litigation, Case No. 07-cv-1366-RSL.  On March 5, 2008, the Court
appointed Robert Burrell lead plaintiff in the consolidated
securities case.  On May 5, 2008, the lead plaintiff filed a First
Amended Consolidated Complaint, which purports to allege claims on
behalf of a class of purchasers of the Company's common stock
during the period of January 10, 2007, to May 1, 2008, against the
Company and Peter van Stolk, its former Chief Executive Officer,
former Chairman of the Board, and former director.  The First
Amended Consolidated Complaint generally alleges violations of
federal securities laws based on, among other things, false and
misleading statements and omissions about the Company's agreements
with retailers, allocation of resources, and business prospects.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on July
7, 2008. After hearing oral argument on February 3, 2009, the
Court granted the motion to dismiss in its entirety on February 9,
2009.  Plaintiffs filed their motion for leave to amend their
complaint on March 25, 2009.  On June 22, 2009, the Court issued
an order denying plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend and
dismissed the case with prejudice.  On July 7, 2009, the Court
entered judgment in favor of the Company and Mr. van Stolk.

On August 5, 2009, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the
Court's orders dismissing the complaint and denying plaintiffs'
motion for leave to amend, and the resulting July 7, 2009
judgment.  The parties' briefing on the appeal was completed on
March 4, 2010.  The court has not yet scheduled a date for oral
argument on the appeal.

Jones Soda Co. -- http://www.myjones.com/-- develops, produces,
markets and distributes a range of beverages, which includes Jones
Pure Cane Soda, a carbonated soft drink; Jones 24C, a water
beverage; Jones GABA, a tea juice blend; Jones Organics, a ready-
to-drink organic tea; Jones Naturals, a non-carbonated juice and
tea, and Whoop Ass Energy Drink, a citrus energy drink.  The
company sells and distributes its products primarily throughout
the United States and Canada through its network of independent
distributors, national retail accounts, as well as through
licensing and distribution arrangements. It also sells various
products online.


LPL FINANCIAL: Sued for Broker's Misrepresentations
---------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a pair of Nebraska investors
filed a class-action lawsuit against LPL Financial, saying that
one of the company's brokers misled them about the costs and
benefits of annuities.  J.L. Spray, one of the investors'
attorneys, said in court documents that broker Bob Bennie made
multiple misrepresentations about the $366,500 in annuities he
sold to Richard and Carol Ripley.

The AP notes Mr. Bennie, who used to lead the Lancaster County
Republican Party, has helped organize tea party events in the
state this year.


Michael Rhodes, with the law firm defending LPL, says LPL believes
the lawsuit has no merit and plans to vigorously defend itself.

LPL officials declined to discuss details.

Boston, Mass.-based LPL Financial is a diversified financial
services company and independent broker/dealer supporting more
than 12,000 financial advisors nationwide.  LPL is also an
enabling partner to a broad range of banks and credit unions, as
well as broker/dealers at leading financial services companies.


META FINANCIAL: Court Certifies Class in "Guardian Angel" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire has
certified the class in a class action complaint filed by Guardian
Angel Credit Union against MetaBank and Meta Financial Group Inc.,
according to Meta Financial's Form 10-Q/A filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 14, 2010.

Lawsuits against MetaBank involving the sale of purported MetaBank
certificates of deposit continue to be addressed.  In all, nine
cases have been filed to date, and of those nine, two have been
dismissed, and three have been settled for payments that the
Company deemed reasonable under the circumstances, including the
costs of litigation.  Of the four remaining cases, two are class
action cases.  On May 5, 2010, in one of these two cases, Guardian
Angel Credit Union v. MetaBank et al., Case No. 08-cv-261-PB
(USDC, District of NH), the court granted the plaintiff's motion
to certify the class.

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


MICHAEL FOODS: Motions to Dismiss Complaints Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Michael Foods, Inc., is awaiting a decision on its motions to
dismiss two amended complaints against the company, according to
its May 14, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 3, 2010.

In late 2008 and early 2009, some 22 class-action lawsuits were
filed in various federal courts against Michael Foods Inc. and
approximately 20 other defendants (producers of shell eggs,
manufacturers of processed egg products, and egg industry
organizations) alleging violations of federal and state antitrust
laws in connection with the production and sale of shell eggs and
processed-egg products. Plaintiffs seek to represent nationwide
classes of direct and indirect purchasers, and allege that
defendants conspired to reduce the supply of eggs by participating
in animal husbandry, egg-export and other programs of various egg-
industry associations.

In December 2008, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
ordered the transfer of all cases to the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.
Michael Foods currently has two motions to dismiss pending before
the Court: (1) a motion to dismiss the direct-purchaser
plaintiffs' Second Consolidated Amended Complaint against Michael
Foods, Inc.; and (2) a motion to dismiss the indirect-purchaser
plaintiffs' Second Consolidated Amended Complaint against Michael
Foods, Inc. and subsidiary Papetti's Hygrade Egg Products, Inc.
Michael Foods is also a party to various other motions, filed by
multiple defendants, to dismiss portions of the complaints. A
decision on these motions is not expected until July 2010 or
later.

Michael Foods, Inc. -- http://www.michaelfoods.com/-- is one of
the leading US producers of shell eggs and value-added egg
products (frozen, liquid, pre-cooked, dried).  It has other
operations, but eggs account for 70% of its sales.  The spuds
come in with its Northern Star subsidiary, which pre-shreds and
mashes potatoes.  The company's Crystal Farms subsidiary
packages and distributes cheese, butter and other dairy products.
Michael's customers include food processors, foodservice
distributors, and retail grocery stores throughout North America,
as well as in the Far East, South America, and Europe. Investment
firm, Thomas H. Lee Partners, owns almost 90% of the company.


MONTGOMERY COUNTY: Judge Rejects Md. Speed Cameras Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Hayley Peterson at The Washington Examiner reports that Judge
David Boynton of the Circuit Court for Montgomery County,
Maryland, dismissed on June 15, 2010, a two-year-old class-action
lawsuit against speed cameras in Montgomery County, Rockville,
Chevy Chase Village and Gaithersburg, calling off a two-week trial
set to begin July 12.

The Class Action Reporter published on May 26, 2010, a notice of
the July 12 Speed Camera Trial.

Timothy Leahy, Esq., at Byrd & Byrd, LLC, filed suit in May 2008
saying the jurisdictions have been operating their speed camera
programs illegally by paying their camera contractors on a per-
ticket basis.  In March 2009, Judge Boynton permitted Mr. Leahy to
pursue the claim as a class-action suit -- involving anyone who
has received a ticket from Montgomery's cameras.

According to the Examiner, Montgomery gives 40% of its ticket
revenues -- or $16.25 per ticket -- to its contractor, Affiliated
Computer Services.  Maryland law prohibits per-ticket payments to
camera operators to avoid financial incentive for issuing more
tickets.

Judge Boynton ruled in each case that the jurisdictions, rather
than the camera contractors, operate the systems.

"The message is clear," said Patrick Lacefield, spokesman for
Montgomery County Executive Ike Leggett, according to the
Examiner.  "Slow down."  He said the county had been confident it
would prevail.

"We're the operators of the system because we are the final
authority when a citation is issued," Mr. Lacefield said,
according to the Examiner.  Montgomery generates about $1.2
million in camera ticket revenue per month.

The Examiner notes that Montgomery's contract with ACS says the
compensation rate is based on ACS providing "digital speed camera
vehicles, equipment and personnel to service the technology six
days a week for two eight-hour shifts per day."  ACS also is
responsible for recording, printing and mailing citations as well
as collecting ticket payments.  After two ACS employees verify a
camera ticket and accompanying license plate photo, a police
officer in the relevant jurisdiction will approve the citation for
ACS to print and mail, according to the contract.

Mr. Leahy declined to comment following Boynton's ruling
Wednesday, the Examiner says.

According to the Examiner, Mr. Lacefield said the speed camera
program in Montgomery won't be swayed by a legal challenge.
"There is broad public support for speed cameras," he said. "If
people don't like tickets they should slow down."


NEUROMETRIX INC: Appeal on Dismissal of Mass. Suit Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal on the dismissal of a consolidated amended class action
complaint against Neurometrix, Inc., remains pending, 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.

On March 17, 2008, a putative securities class action complaint
was filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts against the Company and certain of its current and
former officers. On March 27, 2008, a related putative securities
class action complaint was filed in the same court, against the
same defendants. These two actions were subsequently consolidated,
and the court appointed a lead plaintiff.

On November 10, 2008, a consolidated amended class action
complaint was filed, which alleged, among other things, that
between October 27, 2005, and February 12, 2008, the defendants
violated the federal securities laws by allegedly making false and
misleading statements and failing to disclose material information
to the investing public. The plaintiffs sought unspecified
damages.

On January 30, 2009, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint on the grounds, among others, that
it failed to state a claim on which relief can be granted. On
December 8, 2009, the Court entered an order granting defendants'
motion to dismiss and dismissing the consolidated amended
complaint in its entirety with prejudice. The plaintiffs filed a
notice of appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the
First Circuit on January 6, 2010. The appeal is currently pending.

NeuroMetrix, Inc. -- http://www.neurometrix.com/-- is a science-
based health care company transforming patient care through
neurotechnology.  The company provides innovative products for
preservation and restoration of nerve and spinal cord function,
and pain control.


NEXCEN BRANDS: Seeks to Dismiss "Granatelli" Suit in New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
NexCen Brands, Inc., is awaiting the outcome of its motion to
dismiss an amended consolidated class action complaint filed in
New York, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 17, 2010.

A total of four putative securities class actions were filed in
May, June and July 2008 in the United States District Court for
Southern District of New York against NexCen and certain of its
former officers and a current director for alleged violations of
the federal securities laws.

On March 5, 2009, the court consolidated the actions under the
caption, In re NexCen Brands, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 08-
cv-04906, and appointed Vincent Granatelli as lead plaintiff and
Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC as lead counsel.  On August 24,
2009, plaintiff filed an Amended Consolidated Complaint.
Plaintiff alleges that defendants violated federal securities laws
by misleading investors in the Company's public filings and
statements during a putative class period that begins on March 13,
2007, when the Company announced the establishment of the credit
facility with BTMU Capital Corporation, and ends on May 19, 2008,
when the Company's stock fell in the wake of the Company's
disclosure of the previously undisclosed terms of a January 2008
amendment to the credit facility, the substantial doubt about the
Company's ability to continue as a going concern, the Company's
inability to timely file its periodic report and the expected
restatement of its Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2007, initially filed on March 21, 2008.  The Amended
Consolidated Complaint asserts claims under Section 10(b) of the
Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5, and also asserts that the
individual defendants are liable as controlling persons under
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.  Plaintiff seeks damages and
attorneys' fees and costs.

On October 8, 2009, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint.  Plaintiff filed his opposition on
December 14, 2009, and the Company filed a reply on January 27,
2010.  The court has rescheduled the hearing on the motion to
dismiss for June 8, 2010.

NexCen Brands, Inc. -- http://www.nexcenbrands.com/-- is a
global brand management and franchising company.  The company is
focused on managing, developing and acquiring intellectual
property (IP) and IP-centric businesses.  It owns, licenses,
franchises and markets a portfolio of brands including Bill
Blass, Waverly,  The Athlete's Foot, Shoebox New York, Great
American Cookies, MaggieMoo's, Marble Slab Creamery, Pretzel
Time and Pretzelmaker.  It licenses and franchises these brands
to a network of retailers, manufacturers and franchisees that
includes segments of retail distribution from the luxury market
to the mass market in the U.S. and in over 50 countries around
the world.  The company's franchise network consists of
approximately 1,900 retail stores.  NexCen Brands operates in
three segments: Consumer Branded Products, Retail Franchising
and Quick Service Restaurant Franchising (QSR).


NOVA SCOTIA: Supreme Court to Webcast Pollution Suit Hearing
------------------------------------------------------------
Nancy King, writing for The Cape Breton Post in Nova Scotia,
reports that a hearing that will determine whether a lawsuit
against the federal and provincial governments will be certified
as a class action will be broadcast via the Internet, beginning
this week.  This is a first for the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia,
the Post says.  Details of the live broadcast were released
Wednesday by the Nova Scotia judiciary.

According to the Post, legal arguments to have the proposed suit
declared a class action due to health issues related to the legacy
of the Sydney tar ponds and coke ovens will be heard in the Nova
Scotia Supreme Court beginning Monday.  The parties involved have
agreed to the webcast.  Nine days have been set aside for the
matter.

Ms. King notes that Ray Wagner of Wagners, one of the two law
firms representing the residents, originally sought to have the
hearing held in Sydney, Nova Scotia.  According to Ms. King, Mr.
Wagner said recently he was satisfied with the new arrangement,
saying it's important for the people of Sydney to see what is
being argued.

The proceedings will be presided over by Justice John D. Murphy.
The motion will be heard at the Law Courts on Upper Water Street
in Halifax beginning Monday at 9:30 a.m.  The live webcast can be
accessed through the Courts of Nova Scotia Web site at
http://www.court.ns.ca/

"Webcasting these proceedings live on the Internet will enable the
plaintiffs, most of whom are in Cape Breton, to view what goes on
in the courtroom without having to travel to Halifax," John
Piccolo, director of communications for the Nova Scotia Judiciary,
said in a news release.

"It is also more convenient for them and less of a draw on court
resources than doing it by videoconferencing link between the
Halifax Law Courts and the courthouse in Sydney."

The province's Court of Appeal broadcast one of its hearing on the
Internet for the first time in February 2009.  The recent fatality
inquiry into the death of Howard Hyde was the most recent court-
related hearings to be webcast in Nova Scotia.

The Post relates the proposed suit would bring more than 400
claimants under one umbrella for a single trial.  If the action is
certified, it will represent everyone in the class, which would be
about 30,000 people.  The claim was filed on behalf of people who
live or lived in the neighborhoods immediately surrounding the
former Sydney steel plant, former coke ovens operations, and tar
ponds.  It seeks compensation for property damage, funds to
establish a medical mechanism to monitor the risks posed by the
toxic emissions and compensation for exposure to pollution.


NOVASTAR FINANCIAL: Court Approves Settlement of "Jones" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Missouri has approved a settlement of a class action lawsuit
against Novastar Financial, Inc., according to the company's Form
10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 17,
2010.

On July 7, 2008, plaintiff Jennifer Jones filed a purported class
action case in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Missouri against the Company, certain former and
current officers of the Company, and unnamed members of the
Company's "Retirement Committee".  Plaintiff, a former employee of
the Company, seeks class action certification on behalf of all
persons who were participants in or beneficiaries of the Company's
401(k) plan from May 4, 2006, until November 15, 2007, and whose
accounts included investments in the Company's common stock.
Plaintiff seeks monetary damages alleging that the Company's
common stock was an inappropriately risky investment option for
retirement savings, and that defendants breached their fiduciary
duties by allowing investment of some of the assets contained in
the 401(k) plan to be made in the Company's common stock.

On November 12, 2008, the Company filed a motion to dismiss which
was denied by the Court on February 11, 2009.  On April 6, 2009,
the Court granted the plaintiff's motion for class certification.
The Company sought permission from the 8th Circuit Court of
Appeals to appeal the order granting class certification.  On May
11, 2009, the Court of Appeals granted the Company permission to
appeal the class certification order.

On November 9, 2009 the Company reached a settlement with the
plaintiff.  The settlement provides for payment by the Company's
insurer of $0.9 million.  The Court approved the settlement on
April 22, 2010.

NovaStar Financial, Inc. -- http://www.novastarfinancial.com/--
and its subsidiaries holds non-conforming residential mortgage
securities.  The company previously originated, purchased,
securitized, sold, invested in and serviced residential
nonconforming mortgage loans and mortgage backed securities.  It
retained, thorough the mortgage securities investment portfolio,
interests in the nonconforming loans, originated and purchased,
and through the servicing platform, serviced all of the loans in
which it retained interests.


ONVIA INC: Awaits Briefing Schedule on Appeals to Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
Onvia, Inc., relates in its Form 10-Q filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 17, 2010, that a briefing schedule
has yet to be set in relation to appeals filed against approval of
its settlement of a consolidated securities class action lawsuit
in New York.

In 2001, five securities class action suits were filed against
Onvia, certain former executive officers, and the lead underwriter
of Onvia's Initial Public Offering, Credit Suisse First Boston.
The suits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of all persons who acquired
securities of Onvia between March 1, 2000, and December 6, 2000.
In 2002, a consolidated complaint was filed. The complaint charged
defendants with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder) and Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933,
for issuing a Registration Statement and Prospectus that failed to
disclose and contained false and misleading statements regarding
certain commissions purported to have been received by the
underwriters, and other purported underwriter practices in
connection with their allocation of shares in the offering.  The
complaint sought an undisclosed amount of damages, as well as
attorneys' fees.  This action is being coordinated with
approximately 300 other nearly identical actions filed against
other companies.  At the Court's request, plaintiffs selected six
"focus" cases, which do not include Onvia.  The Court indicated
that its decisions in the six focus cases are intended to provide
strong guidance for the parties in the remaining cases.

The parties in the coordinated cases, including Onvia's case,
reached a settlement.  The insurers for the issuer defendants in
the coordinated cases will make the settlement payment on behalf
of the issuers, including Onvia.  On October 5, 2009, the Court
granted final approval of the settlement.  A group of three
objectors to the settlement filed a petition to the Second Circuit
seeking permission to appeal the District Court's final approval
order.  Plaintiffs filed an opposition to the petition.  Six
notices of appeal to the Second Circuit have also been filed by
different groups of objectors, including the objectors that filed
the petition.  The time to file additional notices of appeal has
run.  The briefing schedule for the appeals has not been set.

Onvia, Inc. -- http://www.onvia.com/-- provides information
products and research tools that help companies plan, market, and
sell to targeted markets in the United States. Its products and
services provide access to company's Onvia Online Database of
project specific information, as well as offer specialized tools
for analyzing information relevant to customer's businesses.


ORCHARD ENTERPRISES: Class Suit Seeks to Stop Dimensional Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Orchard Enterprises, Inc., is facing a class action lawsuit
over its planned merger with Dimensional Associates, LLC,
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.

On March 25, 2010, a putative class action civil suit was filed in
the Delaware Court of Chancery against the Company, the individual
directors of the Company, Dimensional Associates, LLC, and Orchard
Merger Sub, Inc., in connection with the proposed merger of Merger
Sub with and into the Company pursuant to the terms of the
Agreement and Plan of Merger dated as of March 15, 2010, as
amended, among the Company, Dimensional and Merger Sub.

The complaint asserts, purportedly on behalf of the public
stockholders of the Company, other than those affiliated with
Dimensional Associates, LLC, claims of breaches of fiduciary
duties and other violations of Delaware law against the directors
and against Dimensional, as the controlling stockholder of the
Company, and Merger Sub, its wholly owned subsidiary. No specific
claim is made against the Company, although it is named as a
defendant. The complaint seeks equitable relief and does not
specify the amount of any damages sought.

The Company has engaged Delaware counsel to represent the Company
and Bradley Navin, the Chief Executive Officer and a director of
the Company. The Special Committee of the board created on October
19, 2009, has engaged separate Delaware counsel to represent the
directors who are members of the Special Committee.

On May 5, 2010, plaintiff filed an amended complaint and on
May 6, 2010, plaintiff filed two motions seeking expedited
proceedings and a preliminary injunction with the Delaware Court
of Chancery. The court scheduled a hearing on the motion to
expedite proceedings for May 21, 2010. No date has been set for
the hearing on the motion for a preliminary injunction.

The Orchard Enterprises, Inc. is engaged in digital media
services, controlling and distributing more than 1.8 million music
and audio recordings and approximately 5,000 titles of video
programming and other materials through hundreds of digital stores
(Amazon, eMusic, Hulu, iTunes, Rhapsody, YouTube) and mobile
carriers (Orange, Telefonica, Verizon, 3) worldwide. The Company
performs four basic business activities: license or acquire
digital rights and, in some instances, physical rights to music
and video content from labels and other content providers; ingest,
manage and deliver this content to its digital retail and other
clients; develop and manage a global digital retail channel
network to exploit its controlled catalogue and then proactively
market to this channel network, and drive additional value to its
content suppliers, digital retailers and other clients.


PACIFIC WEBWORKS: Seeks to Dismiss Consumer Class Suits
-------------------------------------------------------
Pacific WebWorks, Inc., intends to oppose class certification
of four similar lawsuits filed by different plaintiffs alleging
violations of consumer laws, according to the company's Form
10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
May 17, 2010.

During November 2009, three lawsuits were filed against Pacific
WebWorks in various jurisdictions.  The legal actions allege
similar claims related to procedures the Company uses to sell its
products in its ordinary course of business.  On November 9, 2009,
Barbara Ford filed an action in the Circuit Court of Cook County,
Illinois, Chancery Division.  A second action was filed on
November 12, 2009, by Deanna Pelletier in the Superior Court of
the State of California, County of Solano.  A third action was
filed by Lisa Rasmussen on November 20, 2009, in the Superior
Court of Washington, Snohomish County.

All plaintiffs in these cases are being represented by the same
legal firm and each complaint seeks class action certification.
The complaints allege that Pacific WebWorks violated consumer
protection and federal RICO laws, committed fraud and used
deceptive trade practices in relation to the manner in which
Pacific WebWorks charges for purchases of its products.  Each
action seeks compensatory and punitive damages, plus reasonable
costs and attorney fees.

In response to these actions, Pacific WebWorks retained the law
firm of Snell and Wilmer as legal counsel to vigorously defend the
Company in these lawsuits.  Discovery is beginning on the class
certification phase in the Illinois, Washington and California
lawsuits.  The Company's legal counsel intends to oppose class
certification and move to dismiss all claims.

On January 5, 2010, another similar lawsuit was filed by Song Que
Hahn, a California resident, in the United States District Court
for the District of Utah.  On February 8, 2010, the Company's
legal counsel filed a motion to strike the class allegations and a
motion to dismiss all claims, except the breach of contract
claims.  On March 9, 2010, Song Que Hahn filed an opposition to
the Company's motions and counsel intends to refute the arguments
presented in the oppositions.

Pacific WebWorks, Inc. -- http://www.pacificwebworks.com/-- is
an application service provider and software development firm
that develops business software technologies and services for
business merchants and organizations using Internet and other
technologies.  The company specializes in turnkey applications
allowing small to medium sized businesses to expand over the
Internet.  Its product family provides tools for Website
creation, management and maintenance, electronic business
storefront hosting and Internet payment systems for the small to
medium sized business and organization.  The company has four
wholly owned operating subsidiaries: Intellipay, Inc., TradeWorks
Marketing, Inc., FundWorks, Inc. and Pacific WebWorks
International, LTD.


PINNACLE GAS: Delaware Court Consolidates Class Action Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Delaware Court of Chancery issued an order consolidating two
putative stockholder class action lawsuits under the caption In re
Pinnacle Gas Resources Shareholder Litigation, C.A. No.
5313-CC (Del. Ch.), according to Pinnacle Gas Resources Inc.'s May
14, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

Two putative stockholder class action lawsuits related to the
Company's planned merger have been filed in the Delaware Court of
Chancery.

On February 23, 2010, the Company entered into an Agreement and
Plan of Merger with Powder Holdings, LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company and Powder Acquisition Co., a Delaware
corporation and a direct, wholly owned subsidiary of Powder
Holdings.  Powder Holdings is controlled by an investor group led
by Scotia Waterous (USA) Inc. and includes certain members of the
Company's management team. On April 2, 2010, the Company filed a
preliminary proxy statement relating to the merger, with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

On March 24, 2010, the Delaware Court of Chancery entered an order
consolidating the two actions under the caption In re Pinnacle Gas
Resources Shareholder Litigation, C.A. No. 5313-CC (Del. Ch.) and
appointing co-lead counsel.

The consolidated complaint generally alleges that Pinnacle Gas'
directors breached their fiduciary duties by, among other things,
taking actions designed to deter higher offers from other
potential acquirers and failing to maximize the value of Pinnacle
to its stockholders. In addition, the lawsuit alleges that DLJ, as
a controlling stockholder of Pinnacle, violated fiduciary duties
to Pinnacle stockholders and that Powder and Merger Sub aided and
abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by the other
defendants.  The lawsuit seeks, among other relief, injunctive
relief prohibiting the Merger, and costs of the action including
reasonable attorneys' fees.

Pinnacle Gas Resources, Inc. -- http://www.pinnaclegas.com/-- is
an independent energy company engaged in the acquisition,
exploration and development of domestic onshore natural gas
reserves.  The company focuses on the development of coalbed
methane (CBM) properties located in the Rocky Mountain region,
and is a holder of CBM acreage in the Powder River Basin.  In
addition, the company owns over 94% of the rights to develop
conventional and unconventional oil and natural gas in zones
below its existing CBM reserves.  Substantially all of its
undeveloped acreage as of Dec. 31, 2008, was located in the
northern end of the Powder River Basin in northeastern Wyoming
and southern Montana.


PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE: Counsel Gets $138,000 After Suit Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------------
According to NorthJersey.com, Craig Kozan, Esq., at Witham and
Kozan P.A., was able to net $138,000 in attorney fees after a
judge dismissed the Gerard Ward vs. Prudential, et al. class
action lawsuit without having to go to trial.  Judge Daniel M.
Waldman with the Monmouth County Superior Court granted the motion
on June 1.

"(Judge Waldman) agreed with me that the lawsuit was frivolous and
entered an order awarding the defendants approximately $138,000 in
attorney's fees, to be paid by the plaintiffs and their
attorneys," Mr. Kozan said.

NorthJersey.com reports Mr. Kozan explained that the lawsuit began
due to Prudential Insurance "demutualizing," or becoming a
publicly traded company in 2000.  According to Mr. Kozan, a
Prudential life insurance policy held by The Port Authority of New
York and New Jersey covering its employees became demutualized in
2000.  The policy was previously capitalized, or funded, by the
payment of premiums from its policyholders, and when it went to a
publicly traded company, it became capitalized by the sale of
shares to stockholders, Mr. Kozan said.

The report relates Mr. Kozan was hired to represent the Port
Authority Police Lieutenants Benevolent Association, the Port
Authority Police Sergeants Benevolent Association, and the Port
Authority Police Detectives Endowment Association, which were the
three unions that had negotiated benefits as part of their
contracts in the 1970s, including life insurance.

The PANYNJ decided to send out $2,000 to its then active employees
after Prudential paid the equivalent of $14 million in premiums
since 1951, which led to the lawsuit from employees that retired
before the demutualization happened and didn't receive this $2,000
bonus.

"The retirees' theories included that the unions owed their
retired, former members a fiduciary duty, like a stockbroker owes
to its clients," Mr. Kozan said.

Mr. Kozan said that Prudential had originally been named as a
defendant, but was let out of the case early on, since Prudential
had followed the rules regarding the disbursement of funds
resulting from its demutualization.

The discovery process took almost four years, according to Mr.
Kozan.  After the case was dismissed, Mr. Kozan filed a motion for
attorney fees and sanctions, arguing that the lawsuit was
"frivolous" from the outset.


QUEBEC: Superior Ct. Rejects Class Suit Bid on Noise Pollution
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of Quebec dismissed a motion for authorization
to institute a class action filed by residents living alongside
the Laurentian Autoroute in Quebec City, in Canada.  The
individuals, according to an article posted at law firm Fasken
Martineau, had asked the Superior Court to authorize a class
action against the Quebec government on behalf of a group of about
a thousand people living near the Laurentian Autoroute who
complained of noise pollution caused by highway traffic.

Fasken Martineau says the group was seeking an injunction against
the Quebec government; more specifically, they were petitioning
the court to order the Ministere des Transports to take measures
to reduce noise levels below 55 dBALeq per 24 hours (equivalent
continuous noise over a 24-hour period).

The group was also seeking C$10,000 per year in damages.

Fasken Martineau says the petitioners argued that traffic noise
constitutes an abnormal neighborhood annoyance within the meaning
of article 976 of the Civil Code of Quebec.  They maintained,
moreover, that the Ministere des Transports' inaction constituted
a civil fault under article 1457 of that code.

According to Fasken Martineau, the court agreed that the
requirement of article 1003(a) of Quebec's Code of Civil Procedure
was met, namely that the claims presented by the members of the
group share common factual elements and points of law.

The court was not convinced, however, that the motion met the
requirement of article 1003(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure,
namely that obtaining powers of attorney or proceeding by joinder
of actions would be difficult or impracticable. Indeed, the
petitioners knew the people in the neighborhood and had circulated
petitions.

This is why, the court emphasized, that there was no doubt as to
the group's ability to manage the recourse, Fasken Martineau says.
The requirement of article 1003(d) was therefore met.

According to Fasken Martineau, the main problem with the class
action (and reason for which it failed) was that it did not meet
the condition of article 1003(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure --
which holds that the facts alleged in the motion for authorization
to institute a class action must seem to justify the conclusions
sought.

According to the engineering firm study filed by the petitioners,
42% of residents suffered an annoyance level equal to or greater
than the 55 dBA standard.  They cited a Ministere des Transports
policy which states that protection measures are called for in
cases of high acoustic annoyance levels.  Here, though, only 9% of
the sector's residents were exposed to such levels.

Another consideration, Fasken Martineau says, is the fact that
setting priorities for government action is a political decision
for which the government is accountable to its constituents. In
other words, the courts bear no judgment on the government's
budgetary decisions.  And the petitioners were not accusing the
government of bad faith, fraud, abuse of right, discrimination or
violation of any fundamental right.

"What they did argue was that the government had failed to take
appropriate measures to mitigate noise. The Superior Court refused
to encroach on the government's jurisdiction and dismissed the
motion," Fasken Martineau says.

"It remains to be seen whether the petitioners will be appealing
this matter.  They have until mid-June to decide.

"What is surprising is that this judgment, which deals with the
theory of neighborhood annoyances, makes no mention whatsoever of
the Supreme Court of Canada's Barrette v. Ciment du Saint-Laurent.

"It would seem that, in the wake of the Court of Appeal's decision
in the matter of Entreprises Auberge du parc ltee v. Site
historique du Banc-de-peche de Paspebiac, petitioners have met
with nothing but failure in their attempts to apply the theory of
neighborhood annoyances following the Supreme Court decision."


QUICKLOGIC CORP: Objectors File Appeals on Settlement Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
Quicklogic Corporation discloses in its Form 10-Q filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 14, 2010, that certain
objectors have filed appeals to the approval of a settlement of a
securities class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

On October 26, 2001, a putative securities class action was filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
against certain investment banks that underwrote QuickLogic's
initial public offering, QuickLogic and some of QuickLogic's
officers and directors.  The complaint alleges excessive and
undisclosed commissions in connection with the allocation of
shares of common stock in QuickLogic's initial and secondary
public offerings and artificially high prices through "tie-in"
arrangements which required the underwriters' customers to buy
shares in the aftermarket at pre-determined prices in violation of
the federal securities laws.  Plaintiffs seek an unspecified
amount of damages on behalf of persons who purchased QuickLogic's
stock pursuant to the registration statements between October 14,
1999, and December 6, 2000.

Various plaintiffs have filed similar actions asserting virtually
identical allegations against over 300 other public companies,
their underwriters, and their officers and directors arising out
of each company's public offering.  These actions, including the
action against QuickLogic, have been coordinated for pretrial
purposes and captioned In re Initial Public Offering Securities
Litigation, 21 MC 92, or IPO Securities Litigation.

In June 2004, a stipulation of settlement and release of claims
against the issuer defendants, including QuickLogic, was submitted
to the court for approval.  On August 31, 2005, the Court
preliminarily approved the settlement.  In December 2006, the
appellate Court overturned the certification of classes in the six
test cases that were selected by the underwriter defendants and
plaintiffs in the coordinated proceedings.  Because class
certification was a condition of the settlement, it was unlikely
that the settlement would receive final Court approval.  On June
25, 2007, the Court entered an order terminating the proposed
settlement based upon a stipulation among the parties to the
settlement.  Plaintiffs have filed amended master allegations and
amended complaints, in the six test cases.  On March 26, 2008, the
Court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss the amended
complaints.

On October 5, 2009, the Court issued an opinion and order granting
final approval of the settlement, plan of allocation and class
certification.  Under the terms of the settlement, the insurers
are responsible for paying the full amount of settlement share
allocated to the Company, and the Company bears no financial
liability.  The Company, as well as the officer and director
defendants who were previously dismissed from the action pursuant
to tolling agreements, have received complete dismissals from the
case.

Certain objectors have filed appeals.

QuickLogic Corporation, a fabless semiconductor company, develops
and markets programmable solutions that enable customers to add
features to their mobile, consumer, and industrial products. It
offers customer specific standard products (CSSPs), field
programmable gate arrays, and application solutions, as well as
associated design software and programming hardware.  The company
was founded in 1988 and is headquartered in Sunnyvale, California.


RADIO ONE: Shareholders File Appeal on Settlement of IPO Cases
--------------------------------------------------------------
Radio One, Inc., disclosed in its Form 10-Q filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 17, 2010, that certain
shareholders have filed appeals from an order approving a global
settlement of a consolidated securities class action lawsuit in
New York.

In November 2001, Radio One and certain of its officers and
directors were named as defendants in a class action shareholder
complaint filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, captioned, In re Radio One, Inc.
Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, Case No. 01-CV-
10160.  Similar complaints were filed in the same court against
hundreds of other public companies (Issuers) that conducted
initial public offerings of their common stock in the late 1990s.
In the complaint filed against Radio One (as amended), the
plaintiffs claimed that Radio One, certain of its officers and
directors, and the underwriters of certain of its public offerings
violated Section 11 of the Securities Act. The plaintiffs' claim
was based on allegations that Radio One's registration statement
and prospectus failed to disclose material facts regarding the
compensation to be received by the underwriters, and the stock
allocation practices of the underwriters. The complaint also
contains a claim for violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 based on allegations that these omissions
constituted a deceit on investors.  The plaintiffs seek
unspecified monetary damages and other relief.

In July 2002, Radio One joined in a global motion, filed by the
Issuers, to dismiss the IPO Lawsuits. In October 2002, the court
entered an order dismissing the Company's named officers and
directors from the IPO Lawsuits without prejudice, pursuant to an
agreement tolling the statute of limitations with respect to Radio
One's officers and directors until September 30, 2003. In February
2003, the court issued a decision denying the motion to dismiss
the Section 11 and Section 10(b) claims against Radio One and most
of the Issuers.

In July 2003, a Special Litigation Committee of Radio One's board
of directors approved in principle a tentative settlement with the
plaintiffs. The proposed settlement would have provided for the
dismissal with prejudice of all claims against the participating
Issuers and their officers and directors in the IPO Cases and the
assignment to plaintiffs of certain potential claims that the
Issuers may have against their underwriters. In September 2003, in
connection with the proposed settlement, Radio One's named
officers and directors extended the tolling agreement so that it
would not expire prior to any settlement being finalized.  In June
2004, Radio One executed a final settlement agreement with the
plaintiffs.

In 2005, the court issued a decision certifying a class action for
settlement purposes and granting preliminary approval of the
settlement. On February 24, 2006, the court dismissed litigation
filed against certain underwriters in connection with the claims
to be assigned to the plaintiffs under the settlement.  On
April 24, 2006, the court held a Final Fairness Hearing to
determine whether to grant final approval of the settlement.

On December 5, 2006, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals vacated
the district court's earlier decision certifying as class actions
the six IPO Cases designated as "focus cases." Thereafter, the
district court ordered a stay of all proceedings in all of the IPO
Cases pending the outcome of plaintiffs' petition to the Second
Circuit for rehearing en banc and resolution of the class
certification issue. On April 6, 2007, the Second Circuit denied
plaintiffs' rehearing petition, but clarified that the plaintiffs
may seek to certify a more limited class in the district court.
Accordingly, the settlement was terminated pursuant to stipulation
of the parties and did not receive final approval.

Plaintiffs filed amended complaints in the six "focus cases" on or
about August 14, 2007.  Radio One is not a defendant in the focus
cases.  In September 2007, Radio One's named officers and
directors again extended the tolling agreement with plaintiffs. On
or about September 27, 2007, plaintiffs moved to certify the
classes alleged in the "focus cases" and to appoint class
representatives and class counsel in those cases. The focus cases
issuers filed motions to dismiss the claims against them in
November 2007 and an opposition to plaintiffs' motion for the
class certification in December 2007.  On March 16, 2008, the
district court denied the motions to dismiss in the focus cases.

In August 2008, the parties to the IPO Cases began mediation
toward a global settlement of the IPO Cases.  In September 2008,
Radio One's board of directors approved in principle participation
in a tentative settlement with the plaintiffs.  On October 2,
2008, the plaintiffs withdrew their class certification motion.
In April 2009, a global settlement was reached in the IPO Cases
and submitted to the district court for approval.  On June 9,
2009, the court granted preliminary approval of the proposed
settlement and ordered that notice of the settlement be published
and mailed to class members.

On September 10, 2009, the court held a Final Fairness Hearing.
On October 6, 2009, the court certified the settlement class in
each IPO Case and granted final approval of the settlement.

On or about October 23, 2009, three shareholders filed a Petition
for Permission to Appeal Class Certification Order, challenging
the court's certification of the settlement classes.  Beginning on
October 29, 2009, a number of shareholders also filed direct
appeals, objecting to final approval of the settlement.

If the settlement is affirmed on appeal, the settlement will
result in the dismissal of all claims against Radio One and its
officers and directors with prejudice, and its pro rata share of
the settlement fund will be fully funded by insurance.

Radio One, Inc. operates as an urban-oriented multi-media company
in the United States. It principally engages in the radio
broadcasting operation that primarily targets African-American and
urban listeners. As of December 31, 2009, it owned and operated 53
radio stations located in 16 urban markets in the United States.
The company also has approximately 37% ownership interest in TV
One, LLC, an African-American targeted cable television network;
and a 53.5% ownership interest in Reach Media, Inc., which
operates the Tom Joyner Morning Show. Further, it owns Interactive
One, LLC, an online platform serving the African-American
community through social content, news, information, and
entertainment; and Community Connect, LLC, an online social
networking company. The company was founded in 1980 and is based
in Lanham, Maryland.


ROSS FIALKOW: Accused of Selling Unregistered Securities
--------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a class action claims Ross
Fialkow Capital Partners LLP, Jay Lawrence Fialkow and Jeffrey P.
Ross offered securities in "a multimillion-dollar Ponzi scheme
perpetrated by Richard Elkinson, of Framingham, Mass.," in Suffolk
County Court, Boston.

Beth Healy, writing for The Boston Globe, reports that a group of
investors alleges that Messrs. Fialkow and Ross failed to do
adequate due diligence on Mr. Elkinson, a Framingham man who told
investors he was raising money to finance a uniform business.  In
fact, the business never existed.

According to Ms. Healy, Mr. Elkinson was arrested in Mississippi
in January on charges that he defrauded 130 people out of $29
million.  He is facing an 18-count indictment and is being held at
a Rhode Island prison.  He also is facing civil charges brought by
securities regulators.

The lead plaintiff in the class action is Newton resident Sidney
L. Sherter, a trustee for three trusts that allegedly lost money
in the scheme.  The lawsuit says the trusts lost hundreds of
thousands of dollars.  A spokeswoman for Messrs. Ross and Fialkow
said the case has no merit, according to the Globe.

A copy of the Complaint in Sherter, et al. v. Ross Fialkow Capital
Partners, LLP, et al., Case No. 10-1888 (Mass. Super. Ct., Suffolk
Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/06/16/Securities.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Edward F. Haber, Esq.
          Michelle Blauner, Esq.
          Ian J. McLoughlin, Esq.
          SHAPIRO HABER & URMY LLP
          53 State St.
          Boston, MA 02109
          Telephone: 617-439-3939
          E-mail: ehaber@shulaw.com
                  mblauner@shulaw.com
                  imcloughlin@shulaw.com


SOURCE FOR PUBLIC DATA: Settles Missouri Data Privacy Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
A proposed settlement has been reached with Shadowsoft, Inc. and
The Source for Public Data L.P. to resolve a case filed July 21,
2008, over the alleged acquisition and unlawful use of "highly
restricted personal information" belonging to some Missouri
drivers.  The Plaintiffs in the action claimed that the
defendants' alleged actions violated the Driver's Privacy
Protection Act and the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act.
Shadowsoft, Inc. and The Source for Public Data L.P. have denied
any violation of the law and any liability, but have agreed to
settle this action.

As part of the settlement terms, the Corporate Defendants have
agreed to return the drivers license data at issue.  "Due to the
limited financial assets of the defendants, the settlement does
not include individual monetary compensation to class members,"
says attorney Mitch Burgess, who represents the plaintiffs.

The Plaintiffs also filed suit against several individuals who are
past or present employees of the Missouri Department of Revenue.
The Plaintiffs claim that these individual defendants disclosed
the highly restricted personal information from the Missouri
Department of Revenue in violation of the Driver's Privacy
Protection Act.  The Plaintiffs' claims against the individual
defendants remain pending.

Class members affected by the settlement, and the continuing
litigation against the individual defendants, are all licensed
drivers in the state of Missouri whose highly restricted personal
information from their motor vehicle record was obtained,
disclosed, or used by the defendants, from July 21, 2004, to
present, in violation of the Driver's Privacy Protection Act.

A hearing is scheduled for October 28, 2010, in the United States
District Court Western District of Missouri in Jefferson City, to
determine if the proposed settlement is fair to all parties.
Attorney Mitch Burgess noted that class members may obtain more
information about the proposed settlement and pending litigation
by contacting his law firm, Burgess & Lamb, P.C., in Kansas City,
Missouri or by visiting the firm's Web site and viewing the Mo
Drivers Litigation Link at http://www.burgessandlamb.com/

The case is Roberts, et al. v. The Source for Public Data, et al.,
Case No. 08-cv-04167 (W.D. Mo.), and the Plaintiffs are
represented by:

     Mitch Burgess, Esq.
     BURGESS & LAMB, P.C.
     1000 Broadway, Suite 400
     Kansas City, Missouri 64105
     Telephone: (816) 471-9700


SUNPOWER CORP: Faces Consolidated Securities Lawsuit in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
SunPower Corporation is facing a consolidated securities class
action lawsuit in California, according to SunPower's Form 10-Q
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 13, 2010.

Three securities class action lawsuits were filed against the
Company and certain of its current and former officers in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California on behalf of a class consisting of those who acquired
the Company's securities from April 17, 2008, through
November 16, 2009.  The cases are captioned Plichta v. SunPower
Corp. et al., Case No. CV-09-5473-RS (N.D. Cal.) (filed November
18, 2009); Cao v. SunPower Corp. et al., Case No. CV-09-5488-RS
(N.D. Cal.) (filed November 18, 2009); and Parrish v. SunPower
Corp. et al., Case No. C-09-05520-RS (N.D. Cal.) (filed November
20, 2009).  The Cao lawsuit also includes the Company's
independent registered public accounting firm,
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, as a defendant. The actions arise from
the Audit Committee's investigation announcement on November 16,
2009.  The complaints allege that the defendants made material
misstatements and omissions concerning the Company's financial
results for 2008 and 2009, seek an unspecified amount of damages,
and allege violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The cases were consolidated as Plichta v. SunPower Corp. et al.,
Case No. CV-09-5473-RS (N.D. Cal.), and lead plaintiff and lead
counsel were appointed, on March 5, 2010.  Lead plaintiff was
scheduled to file a consolidated complaint on or before May 28,
2010.

SunPower Corporation (Nasdaq: SPWRA and SPWRB) --
http://us.sunpowercorp.com/-- designs, manufactures and delivers
high-performance solar electric systems worldwide for residential,
commercial and utility-scale power plant customers. SunPower high-
efficiency solar cells and solar panels generate up to 50 percent
more power than conventional solar technologies and have a
uniquely attractive, all-black appearance. With headquarters in
San Jose, Calif., SunPower has offices in North America, Europe,
Australia and Asia.


TLC VISION: Units Face RICO Class Suit in South Carolina
--------------------------------------------------------
TLC Vision Corporation's subsidiaries, according to its Form
10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
May 17, 2010, are being sued for violating the Federal Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

Charles Benjamin Dickerson filed a class action in the United
States District Court for the District of South Carolina, against
various subsidiaries and affiliates of the Company in connection
with laser vision correction surgeries performed at TLC centers.
The suit alleges violation of the Federal Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act and seeks, among other things,
unspecified monetary damages and declaratory relief.

While the ultimate result of the litigation cannot be predicted
with certainty, the Company believes the suit is without merit and
intends to vigorously defend the suit.

Based in Chesterfield, Mo., TLC Vision Corporation
-- http://www.tlcvision.com/-- is North America's premier eye
care services company, providing eye doctors with the tools and
technologies needed to deliver high-quality patient care.  Through
its centers' management, technology access service models,
extensive optometric relationships, direct to consumer advertising
and managed care contracting strength, TLC Vision maintains
leading positions in Refractive, Cataract and Eye Care markets.


TORO COMPANY: Court Gives Preliminary Nod to Settlement Pact
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin gave
its preliminary approval to the agreement entered into by The Toro
Company settling a consolidated consumer fraud class action
against, 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.

In June 2004, individuals who claim to have purchased lawnmowers
in Illinois and Minnesota filed a class action lawsuit in Illinois
state court against the company and other defendants alleging that
the horsepower labels on the products the plaintiffs purchased
were inaccurate.  Those individuals later amended their complaint
to add additional plaintiffs and an additional defendant.

The plaintiffs asserted violations of the federal Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and state statutory and
common law claims.  The plaintiffs sought certification of a class
of all persons in the United States who, beginning Jan. 1, 1994
through the present, purchased a lawnmower containing a two-stroke
or four-stroke gas combustible engine up to 30 horsepower that was
manufactured or sold by the defendants.  The amended complaint
also sought an injunction, unspecified compensatory and punitive
damages, treble damages under RICO, and attorneys' fees.

In May 2006, the case was removed to federal court in the Southern
District of Illinois.

In August 2006, the company, together with the other defendants
other than MTD Products Inc., filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint.  Also in August 2006, the plaintiffs filed a
motion for preliminary approval of a settlement agreement with MTD
and certification of a settlement class.  In December 2006,
another defendant, American Honda Motor Company, notified the
company and the other defendants that it had reached a settlement
agreement with the plaintiffs.

In May 2008, the court issued a memorandum and order that (i)
dismissed the RICO claim in its entirety; (ii) dismissed all non-
Illinois state-law claims but with instructions that such claims
could be re-filed in local courts; and (iii) rejected the proposed
settlement with MTD.  The proposed Honda settlement was not under
consideration by the court and was not addressed in the memorandum
and order.  Also in May 2008, the plaintiffs (i) re-filed the
Illinois claims with the court; and (ii) filed non-Illinois claims
in federal courts in the District of New Jersey and the Northern
District of California with essentially the same state law claims.

In June 2008, the plaintiffs filed a motion with the U.S. Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation that (i) stated their intent to
file lawsuits in all 50 states and the District of Columbia; and
(ii) sought to have all of the cases transferred for coordinated
pretrial proceedings.  In August 2008, the MDL Panel issued an
order denying the transfer request.  Additional lawsuits, some of
which included additional plaintiffs, were filed in various
federal and state courts asserting essentially the same state law
claims. Lawsuits were subsequently filed in federal and state
courts throughout the United States, which collectively assert
claims under the laws of each state.

In September 2008, the company and other defendants filed a motion
with the MDL Panel that sought to transfer the multiple actions
for coordinated pretrial proceedings.  In early December 2008, the
MDL Panel issued an order that (i) transferred 23 lawsuits, which
collectively asserted claims under the laws of 16 states, for
coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings; (ii) selected
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Wisconsin as the transferee district; and (iii) provided that
additional lawsuits will be treated as "tag-along" actions in
accordance with its rules.

An initial hearing was held in the U.S District Court for the
Eastern District of Wisconsin in January 2009. At that hearing,
the Court (i) appointed lead plaintiffs' counsel, and (ii) entered
a stay of all litigation so that the parties could explore
mediation.

Formal mediation proceedings were commenced, settlement
discussions were conducted, and ultimately all defendants entered
into various settlement agreements with the plaintiffs in February
2010.

The settlement agreement entered into by the company and certain
other defendants provides for, among other things, (i) a monetary
settlement, (ii) an additional warranty period for some engines
that are subject to the litigation, and (iii) injunctive relief
relating to power rating labeling practices.

The plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary approval of the
settlement agreement and certification of a settlement class, and
the court granted the motion.

The settlement is not final for all purposes until after members
of the proposed settlement class receive notice of the settlement,
the Court determines that the settlement is fair, reasonable and
adequate, and applicable appeal periods expire without appeal.

The Court has scheduled a hearing in June 2010, at which it is
expected that the Court will consider whether the settlement is
fair, reasonable and adequate.

The Toro Company -- http://www.toro.com/-- is engaged in
designing, manufacturing and marketing professional turf
maintenance equipment and services, turf and micro irrigation
systems, landscaping equipment, and residential yard products.
The company classifies its operations in two business segments:
professional and residential.  A third segment called other
consists of domestic company-owned distributorships, corporate
functions, and Toro Credit Company, a wholly owned financing
subsidiary.  The company's products are advertised and sold at the
retail level under the trademarks of Toro, Exmark, Irritrol,
Hayter, Pope, Lawn-Boy and Lawn Genie.  Toro manufactures its
products in the United States, Mexico, Australia, Italy, and the
United Kingdom.


TORO COMPANY: Faces Suit in Canada Over Lawnmower HP Labels
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Toro Company faces a class action litigation in Canada over
horsepower labels on its lawnmowers, 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.

In March 2010, individuals who claim to have purchased lawnmowers
in Canada filed class action litigation against the company and
other defendants that (i) contains allegations under applicable
Canadian law that are similar to the allegations made by the
United States plaintiffs, (ii) seeks certification of a class of
all persons in Canada who, beginning January 1, 1994 through the
present, purchased a lawnmower containing a gas combustible engine
up to 30 horsepower that was manufactured or sold by the
defendants, and (iii) seeks under applicable Canadian law
unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, attorneys' costs
and fees, and equitable relief.

Management continues to evaluate this litigation.

The Toro Company -- http://www.toro.com/-- is engaged in
designing, manufacturing and marketing professional turf
maintenance equipment and services, turf and micro irrigation
systems, landscaping equipment, and residential yard products.
The company classifies its operations in two business segments:
professional and residential.  A third segment called other
consists of domestic company-owned distributorships, corporate
functions, and Toro Credit Company, a wholly owned financing
subsidiary.  The company's products are advertised and sold at the
retail level under the trademarks of Toro, Exmark, Irritrol,
Hayter, Pope, Lawn-Boy and Lawn Genie.  Toro manufactures its
products in the United States, Mexico, Australia, Italy, and the
United Kingdom.


TRAILER BRIDGE: Puerto Rico Court Grants Dismissal Motion
---------------------------------------------------------
Trailer Bridge, Inc., obtained a court order dismissing it with
prejudice as to claims asserted in a consolidated class action
lawsuit in Puerto Rico, according to Trailer Bridge's Form 10-Q
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 17, 2010.

On April 17, 2008, the Company received a subpoena from the
Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice seeking
documents and information relating to a criminal grand jury
investigation of alleged anti-competitive conduct by Puerto Rico
ocean carriers.  Company representatives have met with United
States Justice Department attorneys and pledged the Company's full
and complete cooperation with the DOJ investigation.  The Company
has made document submissions to the DOJ in response to the
subpoena.  To date, neither the company nor any of its employees
has been charged with any wrongdoing in this investigation and we
will continue to cooperate with government officials.

Following publicity about the DOJ investigation, beginning on
April 22, 2008, shippers in the Puerto Rico trade lane, and in one
case indirect consumer purchasers within Puerto Rico, have filed
at least 41 purported class actions against domestic ocean
carriers, including Horizon Lines, Sea Star Lines, Crowley Liner
Services and the Company. The actions alleged that the defendants
inflated prices and engaged in other allegedly anti-competitive
conduct in violation of federal antitrust laws and seek treble
damages, attorneys' fees and injunctive relief.

The actions, which were filed in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida, the United States District
Court for the Middle District of Florida, and the United States
District Court for the District of Puerto Rico, were consolidated
into a single multi-district litigation proceeding (MDL 1960) in
the District of Puerto Rico for pretrial purposes.  Plaintiffs'
lead counsel has filed a number of amended class action complaints
under seal.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss that complaint with the
court.  On April 30, 2010, in a non-final order, the Court granted
the Company's motion to be dismissed with prejudice as to the
claims of the named plaintiffs.  This order will not become final
and appealable until a further order or judgment is entered by the
Court.

Trailer Bridge, Inc. -- http://www.trailerbridge.com/-- provides
integrated trucking and marine freight service to and from all
points in the lower 48 states and Puerto Rico and Dominican
Republic, bringing efficiency, service, security and
environmental and safety benefits to domestic cargo in that
traffic lane.  This total transportation system utilizes its own
trucks, drivers, trailers, containers and U.S. flag vessels to
link the mainland with Puerto Rico via marine facilities in
Jacksonville, San Juan and Puerto Plata.


UNITED COMPONENTS: Unit Faces 2nd Amended Complaint in Illinois
---------------------------------------------------------------
United Components, Inc.'s wholly owned subsidiary, Champion
Laboratories, Inc., is facing a consolidated second amended
complaint in a purported class-action in Illinois on behalf of a
purported class of California gasoline retailers, according to the
company's May 14, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the Securities &
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

On January 12, 2009, Champion, but not UCI, was named as one of 10
defendants in a related action filed in the Superior Court of
California, for the County of Los Angeles on behalf of a purported
class of direct and indirect purchasers of aftermarket filters.
On March 5, 2009, one of the defendants filed a notice of removal
to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California,
and then subsequently requested that the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation transfer this case to the Northern
District of Illinois for coordinated pre-trial proceedings, which
the JPML granted.

On February 25, 2010, the plaintiff filed a Consolidated Second
Amended Class Action Complaint in the Northern District of
Illinois on behalf of a purported class of California gasoline
retailers who indirectly purchase filters from defendants for
resale.

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 COMPONENTS: Suit on Filter Sales in Ontario Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
United Components, Inc.'s wholly owned subsidiary, Champion
Laboratories, Inc., still faces a putative class-action suit
related to the sale of aftermarket filters in Ontario, Canada.

Champion, but not UCI, was named as one of 14 defendants in a
class action filed on May 21, 2008, in Ontario, Canada.  This
action alleges civil conspiracy, intentional interference with
economic interests, and conspiracy violations under the Canadian
Competition Act related to the sale of aftermarket filters.  The
plaintiff seeks joint and several liability against the 14
defendants in the amount of $150 million in general damages and
$15 million in punitive damages.  The plaintiff is also seeking
authorization to have the matter proceed as a class proceeding,
which motion has not yet been ruled on.

No further updates were reported in the company's May 14, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the Securities & Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2010.

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 COMPONENTS: Lawsuit Over Filter Sales Pending in Quebec
--------------------------------------------------------------
United Components, Inc.'s wholly owned subsidiary, Champion
Laboratories, Inc., continues to face a putative class-action suit
related to the sale of aftermarket filters in Quebec, Canada.

Champion, but not UCI, was named as one of five defendants in a
class action filed in Quebec, Canada. This action alleges
conspiracy violations under the Canadian Competition Act and
violations of the obligation to act in good faith (contrary to
art. 6 of the Civil Code of Quebec) related to the sale of
aftermarket filters.  The plaintiff seeks joint and several
liability against the five defendants in the amount of $5.0
million in compensatory damages and $1.0 million in punitive
damages.  The plaintiff is seeking authorization to have the
matter proceed as a class proceeding, which motion has not yet
been ruled on.

No further updates were reported in the company's May 14, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the Securities & Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2010.

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.


VERIFONE SYSTEMS: Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
VeriFone Systems, Inc.'s motion to dismiss a second amended
complaint remains pending before the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California, 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.

On or after Dec. 4, 2007, several securities class action claims
were filed against the company and certain of its officers, former
officers, and a former director.  The lawsuits were consolidated
as In re VeriFone Holdings, Inc. Securities Litigation, C 07-6140
MHP.

The original actions were:

     -- Eichenholtz v. VeriFone Holdings, Inc. et al.,
        C 07-6140 MHP;

     -- Lien v. VeriFone Holdings, Inc. et al., C 07-6195 JSW;

     -- Vaughn et al. v. VeriFone Holdings, Inc. et al.,
        C 07-6197 VRW (Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed this
        complaint on March 7, 2008);

     -- Feldman et al. v. VeriFone Holdings, Inc. et al.,
        C 07-6218 MMC;

     -- Cerini v. VeriFone Holdings, Inc. et al., C 07-6228 SC;

     -- Westend Capital Management LLC v. VeriFone Holdings,
        Inc. et al., C 07-6237 MMC;

     -- Hill v. VeriFone Holdings, Inc. et al., C 07-6238 MHP;

     -- Offutt v. VeriFone Holdings, Inc. et al., C 07-6241 JSW;

     -- Feitel v. VeriFone Holdings, Inc., et al., C 08-0118 CW.

On Aug. 22, 2008, the court appointed plaintiff National Elevator
Fund lead plaintiff and its attorneys lead counsel.
Plaintiff filed its consolidated amended class action complaint on
October 31, 2008, which asserts claims under the Securities
Exchange Act Sections 10(b), 20(a), and 20A and Securities and
Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5 for securities fraud and control
person liability against the company and certain of its current
and former officers and directors, based on allegations that the
company and the individual defendants made false or misleading
public statements regarding its business and operations during the
putative class periods and seeks unspecified monetary damages and
other relief.

The company filed a motion to dismiss on Dec. 31, 2008.  The court
granted that motion on May 26, 2009, and dismissed the
consolidated amended class action complaint with leave to amend
within 30 days of the ruling.  The proceedings were stayed pending
a mediation held in October 2009 at which time the parties failed
to reach a mutually agreeable settlement.
Plaintiffs' first amended complaint was filed on Dec. 3, 2009,
followed by a second amended complaint filed on Jan. 19, 2010.

The company filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint
and the hearing on that motion was held on May 17, 2010.  The
motion is currently pending ruling by the court.

Although discovery has not yet commenced in this action, on Nov.
20, 2009, plaintiffs filed a motion to partially lift the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act discovery stay in order to obtain
documents produced by the company to the SEC in connection with
the SEC's investigation into the restatement of the company's
fiscal year 2007 interim financial statements.
The company filed its opposition to this motion in January 2010
and at a hearing in February 2010 the court denied the plaintiffs'
motion to lift the discovery stay.

VeriFone Systems, Inc. -- http://www.verifone.com/-- is the
global leader in secure electronic payment solutions.  VeriFone
provides expertise, solutions and services that add value to the
point of sale with merchant-operated, consumer-facing and self-
service payment systems for the financial, retail, hospitality,
petroleum, government and healthcare vertical markets.  VeriFone
solutions are designed to meet the needs of merchants, processors
and acquirers in developed and emerging economies worldwide.


VERIFONE SYSTEMS: Proceedings in Israel Class Action Stayed
-----------------------------------------------------------
The parties in a class action complaint pending before the Central
District Court in Tel Aviv, Israel, have agreed to stay the
proceedings pending resolution of the U.S. securities class action
captioned In re VeriFone Holdings, Inc. Securities Litigation, C
07-6140 MHP, according to VeriFone Systems, Inc.'s June 4, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended April 30, 2010.

On Jan. 27, 2008, a class action complaint was filed against the
company in the Central District Court in Tel Aviv, Israel on
behalf of purchasers of the company's stock on the Tel Aviv Stock
Exchange.  The complaint seeks compensation for damages allegedly
incurred by the class of plaintiffs due to the publication of
erroneous financial reports.

The company filed a motion to stay the action on March 31, 2008,
in light of the proceedings already filed in the United States.  A
hearing on the motion was held on May 25, 2008.

Further briefing in support of the stay motion, specifically with
regard to the threshold issue of applicable law, was submitted on
June 24, 2008.  On Sept. 11, 2008, the Israeli District Court
ruled in the company's favor, holding that U.S. law would apply in
determining the company's liability.

On Oct. 7, 2008, the plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to appeal
the District Court's ruling to the Israeli Supreme Court.

The company's response to the plaintiffs' appeal motion was filed
on Jan. 18, 2009.  The District Court has stayed its proceedings
until the Supreme Court rules on plaintiffs' motion for leave to
appeal.

On Jan. 27, 2010, after a hearing before the Supreme Court, the
court dismissed the plaintiff's motion for leave to appeal and
addressed the case back to the District Court.  The Supreme Court
instructed the District Court to rule whether the Israeli class
action should be stayed, under the assumption that the applicable
law is U.S. law.

The plaintiff subsequently filed an application for
reconsideration of the District Court's ruling that U.S. law is
the applicable law.  Following a hearing on the plaintiff's
application, on April 12, 2010, the parties agreed to stay the
proceedings pending resolution of the U.S. securities class
action, without prejudice to the plaintiff's right to appeal the
District Court's decision regarding the applicable law to the
Supreme Court.

VeriFone Systems, Inc. -- http://www.verifone.com/-- is the
global leader in secure electronic payment solutions.  VeriFone
provides expertise, solutions and services that add value to the
point of sale with merchant-operated, consumer-facing and self-
service payment systems for the financial, retail, hospitality,
petroleum, government and healthcare vertical markets.  VeriFone
solutions are designed to meet the needs of merchants, processors
and acquirers in developed and emerging economies worldwide.


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Suit Complains About Defective Headlamps
----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Volkswagen's high intensity
gas discharge headlamps turn off intermittently while the car is
being driven, a class action claims in Los Angeles Federal Court.

A copy of the Complaint, Davis v. Volkswagen Group of America,
Inc., Case No. 10-cv-04397 (C.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/06/16/VW.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Payam Shahian, Esq.
          STRATEGIC LEGAL PRACTICES, APC
          11601 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 500
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Telephone: 310-575-1845
          E-mail: pshahian@slpattorney.com

               - and -

          Robert L. Starr, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT L. STARR
          23277 Ventura Blvd.
          Woodland Hills, CA 91364-1002
          Telephone: 818-225-9040
          E-mail: starresq@hotmail.com

               - and -

          Dara Tabesh, Esq.
          201 Spear St. Suite 1100
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: 415-595-9208
          E-mail: dtabesh@hotmail.com

                            *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills,
Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland
USA.  Gracele D. Canilao, Leah Felisilda, Rousel Elaine Fernandez,
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  * * *