CAR_Public/100623.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Wednesday, June 23, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 122

                            Headlines

ADVANCED ENVIRONMENTAL: Has $7.4MM Remaining for Settlement
AMBAC FINANCIAL: Discovery in Consolidated Suit Ongoing
AMBAC FINANCIAL: Court Hears Oral Argument in "Tolin" Suit
ASTRA ZENECA: $103 Million Settlement Reached in AWP Cases
AVX CORP: Property Damage Suit Still Pending in South Carolina

BANNER SUPPLY: Found Negligent; Fla. Jury Awards $2.46MM to Couple
BELL MICROPRODUCTS: Faces Nine Suits After Merger Announcement
BERLINER COMMUNICATIONS: FLSA Suit in Tennessee Still Pending
BP PLC: British Shareholders to Join U.S. Class Suit
BP PLC: New York Mulls Class Suit on Pension Fund Losses

BP PLC: Seeks Stay of Oil Spill Suits in South Carolina
CANADIAN SOLAR: Class Suit Expands to Include More Shareholders
CHASE HOME: N.Y. Suit Complains About Insurance Sales Practices
CHINA NORTH: Pomerantz Files Securities Class Suit
COMVERGE INC: Recalls 6,300 Thermostat Communication Module

DOLLAR GENERAL: Defends "Richter" Complaint in Alabama
DOLLAR GENERAL: Continues to Defend "Brickey" in New York
DOLLAR GENERAL: Seeks Decertification of Equal Pay Act Class
DOLLAR GENERAL: Court Denies Class Certification in "Cox" Suit
GAP INC: Continues to Face Suits Over Wage and Hour Violations

GLOBAL VISION: Partial Settlement in Avacor Hair Regrowth Suit
GOLDMAN SACHS: Gardy & Notis Files Securities Class Suit
HECKMANN CORP: Shuman Files Class Suit on China Water Deal
HEWLETT-PACKARD: "Skold" Appeal for Class Certification Pending
HEWLETT-PACKARD: "Bagget" Plaintiff's Appeal Remains Pending

HEWLETT-PACKARD: Defends "Rich" Suit in California
HEWLETT-PACKARD: EDS Faces Labor-Related Lawsuits in California
HEWLETT-PACKARD: EDS Faces Labor-Related Lawsuits in New York
HEWLETT-PACKARD: Defends "Blennis" Suit in California
HEWLETT-PACKARD: Certification Hearing in Inkjet Suit Postponed

HEWLETT-PACKARD: One Suit in Quebec Voluntarily Dismissed
HOLTROP & MCINDOO: Recalls 450 Infant Onesies and Rompers
HOUSTON NORTHWEST MEDICAL: Notice of ADA Litigation Settlement
INTEGRATED SILICON: Settlement Pact Gets Court Approval
KOSS CORP: Securities Class Action Suit Still Pending in Wis.

MYLAN PHARMA: Lawyer Asks Court to Reconsider Class Rejection
NATIONAL WESTERN: Awaits Court Approval of $17MM Settlement
NATIONAL WESTERN: Deferred Annuities Litigation Still Pending
NEW LEAF: Still a Defendant in Suit Over Calif. Proposition 65
NEXTWAVE WIRELESS: Seeks Dismissal of Calif. Consolidated Suit

NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL: Sued for Illegal Deductions for Expenses
NOVELL INC: Board of Directors Face Two Suits in Massachusetts
NUTREX RESEARCH: Accused in N.J. Suit of False Advertising
PLACENTIA-LINDA HOSPITAL: Notice of ADA Litigation Settlement
RAMSEY COUNTY: Settles Prisoners' Tuberculosis Exposure Lawsuit

REGAL LAGER: Recalls 3,100 CYBEX 2.GO Infant Carriers
RHODE ISLAND: 1st Circuit Reinstates Foster Care Suit
SAINT FRANCIS HOSPITAL: Notice of ADA Litigation Settlement
SINGAPORE POWER: Faces Class Action for Australian Bushfires
SKILLED HEALTHCARE: Testimony, Arguments Phase Conclude

STATION CASINOS: Reaches Initial Terms on Global Settlement
SUNOPTA INC: Court Okays Ontario and New York Suit Settlements
TAM S.A.: Remains Party to Four Class Actions
TARGET CORP: Recalls 105,150 Boys' and Girls' Belts
TOWERS WATSON: Unit Faces $800 Million Settlement Demand

YTB INTERNATIONAL: Remains a Defendant in Illinois Fraud Suit
ZYNEX INC: Remains a Defendant in Securities Suit in Colorado


                            *********

ADVANCED ENVIRONMENTAL: Has $7.4MM Remaining for Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
Advanced Environmental Recycling Technologies, Inc., estimates it
has $7.4 million remaining for a claims resolution process and
legal fees relating to the settlement of a class action lawsuit,
according to the company's Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington,
Seattle Division approved a class action settlement in January
2009 related to a purported class action lawsuit seeking to
recover on behalf of purchasers of ChoiceDek(R) composite decking
for damages allegedly caused by mold and mildew stains on their
decks. The settlement includes decking material purchased from
January 1, 2004 through December 31, 2007, along with decking
material purchased after December 31, 2007 that was manufactured
before October 1, 2006, the date a mold inhibitor was introduced
in the manufacturing process.

At March 31, 2010, AERT had a total remaining balance in accrued
expenses and notes payable of $7.4 million associated with the
settlement of the class action lawsuit. The estimate included $6.6
million remaining for the claims resolution process and $0.8
million remaining to be paid for plaintiffs' attorney fees in
2010.

The deadline for submitting new claims has now passed.  The claim
resolution process will have an annual net cost limitation to AERT
of $2.0 million until the claim resolution process is completed.

Based in Springdale, Arizona, Advanced Environmental Recycling
Tech. (NASDAQ:AERT) -- http://www.aertinc.com/-- develops,
manufactures and markets composite building materials that are
used in place of traditional wood or plastic products for exterior
applications in building and remodeling homes and for certain
other industrial or commercial building purposes.


AMBAC FINANCIAL: Discovery in Consolidated Suit Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------
Discovery in a consolidated securities class action lawsuit
against Ambac Financial Group, Inc., et al., is ongoing in New
York, according to the company's May 17, 2010, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2010.

Ambac Financial Group, Inc., and certain of its present or former
officers or directors have been named in lawsuits that allege
violations of the federal securities laws or state law.
Various putative class action suits alleging violations of the
federal securities laws have been filed against the company and
certain of its present or former directors or officers.  These
suits include four class actions filed in January and February of
2008 in the United States District Court for the Southern District
of New York that were consolidated on May 9, 2008, under the
caption In re Ambac Financial Group, Inc. Securities Litigation,
Lead Case No. 08-cv-411.

On July 25, 2008, another suit, Painting Industry Insurance and
Annuity Funds v. Ambac Assurance Corporation, et al., case No. 08-
cv-6602, was filed in the United States District for the Southern
District of New York.

On August 22, 2008, a consolidated amended complaint was filed in
the consolidated action.  The consolidated amended complaint
includes the allegations presented by the original four class
actions, the allegations presented by the Painting Industry
action, and additional allegations.  The consolidated amended
complaint purports to be brought on behalf of purchasers of
Ambac's common stock from October 25, 2006 to April 22, 2008, on
behalf of purchasers of Ambac's "DISCS", issued in February of
2007, and on behalf of purchasers of equity units and common stock
in Ambac's March 2008 offerings.  The suit names as defendants the
company, the underwriters for the three offerings, the Company's
independent Certified Public Accountants and certain present and
former directors and officers of the company.  The complaint
alleges, among other things, that the defendants issued materially
false and misleading statements regarding Ambac's business and
financial results and guarantees of CDO and MBS transactions and
that the Registration Statements pursuant to which the three
offerings were made contained material misstatements and omissions
in violation of the securities laws.

On August 27, 2009, the company and the individual defendants
named in the consolidated securities action moved to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint.

On February 22, 2010, the Court dismissed the claims arising out
of the March 2008 equity units and common stock offering
(resulting in the dismissal of the company's independent Certified
Public Accountants from the action), and otherwise denied the
motions to dismiss.

On March 8, 2010, the company and the individual defendants moved
for certification of the order denying in part the motion to
dismiss for interlocutory appeal and moved for reconsideration of
the order to the extent reconsideration of any aspect of the order
is necessary in order to provide appropriate relief.

On April 15, 2010, the Court ordered a Discovery Plan and Proposed
Pretrial Schedule, pursuant to which discovery was to commence May
10, 2010, with dispositive motions due by Dec. 2, 2011.

Ambac Financial Group, Inc. -- http://www.ambac.com/-- is a
primarily a holding company.  The company, through its
subsidiaries, provides financial guarantees and financial
services to clients in both the public and private sectors
worldwide.  Ambac's activities are divided into two business
segments. The Financial Guarantee segment provides financial
guarantees (including credit derivatives) for public finance,
structured finance and other obligations.


AMBAC FINANCIAL: Court Hears Oral Argument in "Tolin" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
heard oral argument on the motion to dismiss a putative class-
action suit, entitled Stanley Tolin et al. v. Ambac Financial
Group, Inc., et al., on June 1, 2010.

On December 24, 2008, a complaint in a putative class action
entitled Stanley Tolin et al. v. Ambac Financial Group, Inc. et
al., asserting alleged violations of the federal securities laws
was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York against Ambac, and one former officer and
director and one former officer, Case No. 08 CV 11241.

An amended complaint was subsequently filed on January 20, 2009.

This action is brought on behalf of all purchasers of Structured
Repackaged Asset-Backed Trust Securities, Callable Class A
Certificates, Series 2007-1, STRATS(SM) Trust for Ambac Financial
Group, Inc. Securities 2007-1 from June 29, 2007 through April 22,
2008.  The STRATS are asset-backed securities that were allegedly
issued by a subsidiary of Wachovia Corporation and are allegedly
collateralized solely by Ambac's DISCS.  The complaint alleges,
among other things, that the defendants issued materially false
and misleading statements regarding Ambac's business and financial
results and Ambac's guarantees of CDO and MBS transactions, in
violation of the securities laws.

On April 15, 2009, the company and the individual defendants named
in Tolin moved to dismiss the amended complaint.

On December 23, 2009, the Court initially denied defendants'
motion to dismiss, but later recalled that decision and requested
further briefing from parties in the case before it rendered a
decision on the motion to dismiss.

The additional briefing was completed on March 5, 2010.  Oral
argument was scheduled June 1, according to Ambac's May 17, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

Ambac Financial Group, Inc. -- http://www.ambac.com/-- is a
primarily a holding company.  The company, through its
subsidiaries, provides financial guarantees and financial
services to clients in both the public and private sectors
worldwide.  Ambac's activities are divided into two business
segments. The Financial Guarantee segment provides financial
guarantees (including credit derivatives) for public finance,
structured finance and other obligations.


ASTRA ZENECA: $103 Million Settlement Reached in AWP Cases
----------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro has reached a proposed $103 million
settlement with Astra Zeneca on behalf of consumers and third
party purchasers.  The class-action lawsuit claimed Astra Zeneca
inflated the Average Wholesale Price, which is used as a benchmark
for almost all prescription drug sales in the United States.

Astra Zeneca agreed to pay $103 million in two different but
related settlements stemming from claims brought by HBBS.  The
settlement adds to a series of victories and verdicts in the AWP
cases filed by HBSS that has returned hundreds of million dollars
to consumers and third-party payers from an array of
pharmaceutical defendants.

This proposed settlement provides $13 million for two classes of
plaintiffs: third-party payers who paid some or all of their
insured's Medicare co-insurance for Zoladex and/or Pulmicort
Respules in Massachusetts, and a second class that includes
consumers and third-party payers who paid cash or a co-pay for
these AZ drugs outside of Medicare in Massachusetts.

The settlement also provides $90 million to class members in the
US outside Massachusetts who purchased these drugs and fit the
same class descriptions.

In both the national settlement and the Massachusetts settlement,
consumers will receive 11 percent of the settlement fund with the
balance going to third-party payers.

These settlements follow a trial of Massachusetts's claims
resulting in a verdict for the Massachusetts plaintiffs in
November 2007. AZ appealed that verdict to the First Circuit. In
September 2009 the First Circuit rejected AZ's appeal, leading to
the settlement of both Massachusetts claims and national claims.

"We began working on AWP cases nearly a decade ago, and over those
10 years we have made lasting positive change in the way big drug
companies market and price their products," said Steve Berman,
managing partner of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro. "This settlement
is such a case; we are putting millions of dollars back in the
pockets of consumers."

Joan E. Solsman at Dow Jones Newswires reports that AstraZeneca
spokesman Tony Jewell said Friday that although the company denies
any liability and wrongdoing, the settlement is the best way to
resolve the matter and focus on its core business.  "AstraZeneca
is committed to adhering to all government laws and regulations
concerning drug pricing, including the proper reporting of drug
pricing as required by law."

Last September, AstraZeneca lost its appeal of a ruling in favor
of the plaintiffs claiming the price inflation, leading to the
class-action settlement.  The case was originally filed in 2002
over the price of the company's cancer drug Zoladex.

The proposed settlement will need court approval before it becomes
final.  A court date has yet to be set.

Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP -- http://www.hbsslaw.com/-- is a
consumer-rights class-action law firm with offices in San
Francisco, Seattle, Chicago, Boston, Los Angeles, and Phoenix.
Since 1993, HBSS continues to successfully fight for consumer
rights in large, complex litigation.


AVX CORP: Property Damage Suit Still Pending in South Carolina
--------------------------------------------------------------
A purported class-action lawsuit over the alleged migration of
certain pollutants from AVX Corp.'s South Carolina factory to
neighboring properties remains pending, according to the
company's May 20, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2010.

The suit was filed in the South Carolina State Court on Nov. 27,
2007, by certain individuals seeking certification as a class-
action suit, which has not yet been determined.  In essence, the
suit claims that property value had been negatively impacted by
alleged migration of certain pollutants from the company's
property.  The suit was removed to the U.S. District Court for the
District of South Carolina.

The company said at this early stage of the litigation, there has
not been a determination as to responsible parties or the amount,
if any, of damages.  With respect to the related environmental
assessment, the company is in the process of a feasibility study
to evaluate possible remedies and at this stage has not been able
to determine what measures may have to be undertaken or the likely
costs of any such measures.

AVX Corp. -- http://www.avx.com/-- is a worldwide manufacturer
and supplier of a line of passive electronic components and
related products.  Virtually all types of electronic devices use
the Company's passive component products to store, filter or
regulate electric energy.  AVX's passive electronic component
products include ceramic and tantalum capacitors, film
capacitors, varistors and non-linear resistors manufactured in
its facilities throughout the world and passive components
manufactured by Kyocera Corp. of Japan (Kyocera), its majority
stockholder, which owns approximately 71% of AVX's outstanding
common stock.  The Company also manufactures and sells
electronic connectors and inter-connect systems, and distributes
and sells certain electronic connectors manufactured by Kyocera.
The Company has three segments: Passive Components, Kyocera
Electronic Devices Resale and Connectors.


BANNER SUPPLY: Found Negligent; Fla. Jury Awards $2.46MM to Couple
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Pagliery, writing for Daily Business Review, reports that a
Florida jury on Friday awarded $2.46 million to a Miami couple who
claimed their house was ruined by gas emitted by imported Chinese
drywall in the nation's first trial against a domestic
distributor.  Jurors concluded that Miami-based Banner Supply
knowingly sold defective wallboard that was installed in the
Coconut Grove, Fla., home of Chevron attorney Armin Seifart and
Lisa Gore, who asked for $4.4 million in damages for repairs and
the inconvenience of temporarily losing access to their $1.66
million home.

"It's a strong victory in favor of consumers," said family
attorney Ervin Gonzalez, Esq. at Colson Hicks Eidson in Coral
Gables, Fla.  "The American public won't tolerate companies that
cheat."

Jurors decided Banner was negligent, knowingly sold defective
wallboard and violated Florida's deceptive and unfair trade law,
and that its product will reduce the home's resale value.

The couple's case is considered a bellwether because of the
potential for recovery.  Chinese companies generally are immune to
U.S. court judgments, leaving U.S. companies as the only reliable
financial source for plaintiff recovery.

The case was strengthened by accusations of a cover-up.  Banner
signed a secret deal in 2007 with Chinese drywall manufacturer
Knauf Plasterboard Tianjin.  The Chinese company agreed to replace
Banner's tainted supply with U.S.-made board as long as Banner
kept quiet about problems.

Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Joseph P. Farina unsealed the agreement
shortly before the weeklong trial.

"It could have been avoided.  It should have been avoided. And it
would have been avoided if Banner had done the right thing. But
they didn't," Mr. Gonzalez said during closing arguments Thursday.
"Profits over people; sales over safety," he repeated several
times.  "It's good for the business to keep it quiet."

Because of a domestic wallboard shortage, Banner switched from
selling U.S.-made drywall to a Chinese brand using gypsum that was
naturally high in sulfur.

Testimony in the first Chinese drywall trial wrapped up last
Wednesday after the president of Banner denied a cover-up.  The
Associated Press says jurors deliberated about four hours Thursday
and were to be back again Friday.

Banner has insisted the Seifarts' claim is too much and that only
direct expenses should be paid.  Banner vice president Jack
Landers has testified his company was "in no way in cahoots with
Knauf to hide this from anybody."

"I would have gone after Knauf," Mr. Landers said during
questioning by his company's attorney, Todd Ehrenreich, Esq.,
managing partner at Weinberg Wheeler Hudgins Gunn & Dial's Miami
office.

"But you can't now, can you?" asked Mr. Ehrenreich.

"I can't," Mr. Landers said.

Mr. Ehrenreich said an appeal would be considered.  "We're very
disappointed in the verdict," he said.

"That defect was hidden, latent and undetectable," said Mr.
Ehrenreich in closing arguments. "It doesn't rear its ugly head
until sometimes years later."

The jury found that Banner was 55% liable for the Seifarts'
problems and that Knauf and two related entities bore the rest of
the responsibility.  That could reduce the Seifarts' ultimate
payout because Knauf was not a defendant in their case, but
Gonzalez said he will push to have Banner pay the full $2.4
million.

Class action lawsuits filed in 2009 against Knauf Plasterboard
Tianjin Co., LTD, The Knauf Group, Rothchilt International Limited
and the Banner Supply Co., allege that fly ash residue from
Chinese power plants was used in drywall, which were in turn used
to build Florida homes in 2004 to 2006. According to a complaint
provided to the South Florida Business Journal by Jordan Chaikin,
Esq., a plaintiff's attorney, "Defendants' drywall was made with
waste material from scrubbers on coal-fired power plants, also
called 'fly ash.'  These materials can leak in the air and emit
one of several sulfur compounds including sulfur dioxide and
hydrogen sulfide."

Banner was defended by:

     Jeffrey A. Backman, Esq.
     Jan Douglas Atlas, Esq.
     ADORNO & YOSS
     350 East Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1700
     Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
     Telephone: 954.763.1200
     E-mail: jbackman@adorno.com
             jda@adorno.com

          - and -

     Peter Spillis, Esq.
     Todd Ehrenreich, Esq.
     WEINBERG WHEELER HUDGINS GUNN & DIAL
     2601 South Bayshore Drive, Suite 850
     Miami, FL 33133
     Telephone: 305.455.9509
     E-mail: pspillis@wwhgd.com
             tehrenreich@wwhgd.com


BELL MICROPRODUCTS: Faces Nine Suits After Merger Announcement
--------------------------------------------------------------
After the public announcement of Bell Microproducts Inc.'s
proposed merger with Avnet, Inc., between March 30, 2010, and
May 6, 2010, a number of putative class actions were filed by
alleged shareholders of the company in the Superior Court for the
State of California, County of Santa Clara, according to the
company's May 17, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2010.

Those cases are:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In addition to asserting claims against the company, the
plaintiffs in these actions have also named as defendants in one
or more of the complaints, members of the company's board of
directors, certain of the company's executive officers and former
board members, as well as Avnet, Inc. and AVT Acquisition Corp.
The plaintiffs in these actions allege, among other things, that
the consideration being offered in the merger is inadequate and
that the directors breached their fiduciary duties by agreeing to
the merger and permitting certain terms to be included in the
merger agreement, including the termination fee and provisions
relating to possible competing proposals.  The plaintiffs also
allege that the company or Avnet and AVT Acquisition aided and
abetted the individual defendants in their actions.

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

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

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

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

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


BERLINER COMMUNICATIONS: FLSA Suit in Tennessee Still Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Berliner Communications, Inc.'s subsidiaries assert that the
claims in the suit entitled Monroe et al. v. FTS USA, LLC and
UniTek USA, LLC, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act, have no merit, and the damages claim is grossly above any
potential exposure they may face in the case, according to the
company's May 18, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter year ended April 3, 2010.

On Feb. 15, 2008, plaintiffs, former employees of FTS USA, a
UniTek subsidiary, filed a class action in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Tennessee, alleging violations
of the FLSA related to overtime payments.  Conditional class
certification was granted, and plaintiffs have made a claim for
damages of $3.2 million.

The Berliner Subsidiaries said they intend to defend the case
vigorously.

Berliner Communications, Inc. -- http://www.bcisites.com/-- is a
self-performing, service vendor to the wireless communications
industry, providing a range of services, on a nationwide basis.
Its activities include site acquisition and zoning;
infrastructure equipment construction and installation; network
services; radio frequency and network design and engineering;
radio transmission base station installation and modification,
and in-building network design, engineering and construction.
The company provides some combination of these services primarily
to companies in the wireless telecommunications and/or data
transmission industries, cable operators, original equipment
manufacturers (OEMs), and, to a lesser extent, to utility
companies and government entities.  Berliner conducts its
operations though its wholly owned subsidiary, BCI
Communications, Inc. (BCI).  The company operates in two business
segments: infrastructure construction and technical services, and
site acquisition and zoning.


BP PLC: British Shareholders to Join U.S. Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------
Tim Webb, writing for the Guardian in U.K., reports that British
shareholders are to join a U.S. class action lawsuit pursuing BP
for alleged securities fraud over the Gulf of Mexico oil disaster.

American lawyers have already filed more than 180 lawsuits related
to the spill, mostly against the company over the environmental
and economic damage caused across the region.  BP shareholders --
the majority of them based outside the more litigious U.S. -- have
been slower to table their own claims.

Robert Schachter, Esq., partner at Zwerling, Schachter & Zwerling,
said that several British institutional investors had contacted
him about joining the class action his New York-based firm
recently filed.  He said he was confident that at least one
British investor would be named as a plaintiff next month in order
to make it more likely that British institutions would share in
any payout.

However, BP could challenge the right of British and other non-
U.S. investors to recover damages through the US courts.

Lawyers will allege that BP's management, led by its chief
executive, Tony Hayward, misrepresented the company's true safety
record, thereby artificially inflating its share price.  When Mr.
Hayward took over in 2007, he promised to focus "like a laser" on
safety after the 2005 explosion at BP's Texas City refinery, which
killed 15 workers, and the oil spill from a BP-owned Alaska
pipeline in 2006.

But U.S. politicians have been hearing evidence that BP engineers
did not follow correct drilling procedures before the Gulf of
Mexico explosion on April 20.  Mr. Hayward admitted last month
that the company did not have a proper plan in place to deal with
such an accident.

BP agreed last week to set up a $20 billion escrow account to fund
the clean-up and damages for those affected, such as people
working in the fishing and tourism industries.

Daniel Becnel, Esq., at Becnel Law Firm, known as the "Tort King"
because of his track record securing substantial damages from
companies, said that he and other lawyers would pursue those
claims against BP not covered by the escrow account in the courts.

BP and lawyers such as Mr. Becnel are already wrangling over where
the majority of these cases will be heard.  BP wants them to be
heard in Houston, where its U.S. operations are based.  But Mr.
Becnel wants most claims to be heard near where those affected
live, for example in New Orleans.

The amount of oil being captured from the leaking well -- BP is
aiming to collect 50,000 barrels a day by the end of the month --
could also expose the company to further litigation.  BP has
promised that all the profits it generates from the collected oil
will go towards the clean-up, but it is not clear if this is in
addition to what the company has to pay anyway.

Camilo Salas, Esq., a New Orleans-based attorney, said that the
faulty well, which was drilled for exploration purposes, should
now be classified as a production well and BP stripped of its
license to operate the lease.  This could lead to a further legal
battle over the ownership of what is likely to be a huge oil find.

BP has beefed up its in-house legal department by hiring the
Chicago-based Kirkland & Ellis, one of the largest corporate law
firms in the U.S.


BP PLC: New York Mulls Class Suit on Pension Fund Losses
--------------------------------------------------------
Frank Lombardi and Kenneth Lovett at New York Daily News report
that New York is moving toward a lawsuit against BP after state
and city pension funds lost millions of dollars as the company's
stock tanked.  The state pension fund lost $30 million on its
slumping BP shares since the April 20 explosion sent oil gushing
into the Gulf of Mexico, officials said.  The city's five pension
funds appear to have taken an even bigger hit.

"We're weighing our legal options, up to and including civil
action," said Dennis Tompkins, spokesman for state Controller
Thomas DiNapoli.

Mr. Tompkins said a class-action lawsuit is one of the options
being considered.  State officials also are exploring a government
crackdown to minimize the risk to shareholders.

The $133 billion state fund holds 17.5 million shares of BP, which
on June 17 closed at $31.71 a share -- down from $60.48 the day of
the disaster.

The city's five pension funds, valued at about $100 billion, hold
$110 million in BP stock, said Sharon Lee, a spokeswoman for city
Controller John Liu.  That's less than half of the $228 million
the city held a month before the disaster.  Ms. Lee refused to
provide specifics about the city's BP losses, citing
confidentiality restrictions.

But officials note the city pension funds sold off 10 million BP
shares since the beginning of April, and now hold about 15 million
shares.

Other pension systems around the country have taken similar
beatings.  Florida officials said last week they have lost $67
million.

New Jersey, however, played the market perfectly.  Garden State
officials dumped BP stock before the disaster and pocketed $5.5
million.


BP PLC: Seeks Stay of Oil Spill Suits in South Carolina
-------------------------------------------------------
WPDE NewsChannel 15's Joel Allen says BP Plc has asked for a stay
on three class action lawsuits filed by Grand Strand area tourism
businesses.  The suits filed June 6 by attorneys Ed Bell and Tommy
Brittain claim the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico has adversely
affected business and tourism along the South Carolina coast.
They say based on news reports of the oil possibly coming ashore,
property values along the South Carolina coast have started to
decline and other tourism-related businesses have started to
suffer revenue loss.

BP filed a request in U.S. District court Thursday, asking the
court to delay the suit until all of the 200 or so suits arising
from the oil spill can be consolidated and brought before one
multi-district court.

BP's motion says more than 200 cases have been filed in various
state and federal courts since the spill happened April 20.

A hearing will be held on BP's request in Boise, Idaho on July 29.


CANADIAN SOLAR: Class Suit Expands to Include More Shareholders
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman filed a class-action lawsuit against Canadian Solar,
Inc. on behalf of investors who purchased the common stock of CSIQ
expands its "Class Period" from May 26, 2009 to June 1, 2010.  The
longer Class Period allows more CSIQ purchasers to benefit from
the ongoing and in-depth investigation by Hagens Berman.

CSIQ purchasers are encouraged to provide information at
http://www.hbsslaw.com/canadian-solar/ Hagens Berman intends to
file a separate suit shortly that will include new and more
detailed findings.

The original lawsuits were filed after a June 1, 2010 press
release in which the company revealed that the SEC issued
subpoenas relating to 2009 sales transactions.  The complaints
allege that Canadian Solar, Arthur Chien and Shawn Qu made false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose information
that made the company's financial statements materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

To serve as a lead plaintiff in this class-action lawsuit, you
must move the Court no later than August 2, 2010.  Any investor
who purchased during the Class Period may move the Court to serve
as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice.  Investors also
may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member.

If you would like to discuss your legal rights or move to be a
lead plaintiff, you may e-mail or call:

     Reed Kathrein, Esq., Managing Partner
     HAGENS BERMAN LLP
     Telephone: (510) 725-3000
     E-mail: csiq@hbsslaw.com

Hagens Berman also welcomes any information you may have that
would advance the investigation.

To learn more about Hagens Berman, please visit
http://www.hbsslaw.com/, or visit its law blog at
http://www.meaningfuldisclosure.com/

Hagens Berman LLP -- http://www.hbsslaw.com/-- is a shareholder-
rights class-action law firm with offices in San Francisco,
Seattle, Chicago, Boston, Los Angeles, and Phoenix. Since 1993,
HBSS continues to successfully fight for consumer rights in large,
complex litigation.


CHASE HOME: N.Y. Suit Complains About Insurance Sales Practices
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Morgan Chase Bank and Chase
Home Finance made homebuyers buy more flood insurance than they
needed and more than required by law, a class action claims in
Manhattan Federal Court.

The case is Warren v. Chase Home Finance, LLC, et al., Case No.
10-cv-04718 (S.D.N.Y.) (Batts, J.).


CHINA NORTH: Pomerantz Files Securities Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Haudek Grossman & Gross LLP has filed a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York against China North East Petroleum Holdings
Ltd., certain of its top officials and a director.  The class
action (Civil Action No.:10-cv-4775) was filed on behalf of
purchasers of China North securities between August 14, 2009 and
May 26, 2010, both dates inclusive.  The Complaint alleges
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

China North is engaged in the exploration and production of crude
oil in Northern China.  On March 8, 2010, China North disclosed
that the Company had determined that its financial statements for
the year ended December 31, 2008, and each interim quarter within
that year and for the quarters ended March 31, 2009, June 30, 2009
and September 30, 2009 needed to be restated.  As further
disclosed on April 20, 2010, the total adjustments to the
Company's net income for the year 2008 and the first three
quarters of 2009 are estimated to be more than $28 million. In
addition, it is alleged that senior officers of the Company have
embezzled monies from the Company.

On May 25, 2010, the Company was delisted from the NYSE AMEX.
Thereafter, on May 27, 2010, the Company disclosed the resignation
of the Company's Chairman of the Board, CFO, a director, and the
placement of the CEO on administrative leave due to preliminarily
findings that in 2009, unauthorized cash transfers occurred
between the bank accounts of the Company and its subsidiaries and
the personal bank accounts of the Company's CEO and a director who
is also the mother of the CEO.

If you are a shareholder who purchased the securities of China
North during the Class Period, you have until August 10, 2010 to
ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff for the class. A
lead plaintiff is a representative party that acts on behalf of
other class members in directing the litigation. Under certain
circumstances, one or more class members may together serve as
"lead plaintiff."  Your ability to share in any recovery is not
affected by your decision whether or not to serve as lead
plaintiff. Shareholders outside the United States may join the
action, regardless of where they live or which exchange was used
to purchase the securities. A copy of the Complaint can be
obtained at http://www.pomerantzlaw.com/ To discuss this action,
contact Nicola Brown at 888-476-6529 toll free or emailing
info@Pomlaw.com  Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to
include their mailing address and telephone number.

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


COMVERGE INC: Recalls 6,300 Thermostat Communication Module
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Comverge Inc. of Norcross, Ga., announced a voluntary recall of
about 6,300 Programmable thermostat communication module.
Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless
otherwise instructed.

The communication module in the thermostat can overheat, posing a
risk of fire hazard.

Comverge Inc. is aware of 10 incidents of the communication module
overheating and damaging the thermostat, in at least one incident
there was minor smoke damage to the wall.  Comverge Inc. has not
received any reports of injuries.

This recall involves Comverge Inc. communication modules inside
programmable thermostats sold by TXU Energy with a serial number
between 1015857 and 1022518.  The serial number can be found on
the top of the thermostat's plastic housing.  The thermostats have
"TXU Energy" and "White Rodgers" printed on the front faceplate.
Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10743.html

The recalled products were manufactured in Mexico and sold through
TXU Energy to customers in North Texas.

Consumers should contact Comverge Inc. for a replacement
communication module.  The company will install a new
communication module for consumers free of charge.  Consumers
should not attempt to disable or replace the communication module.
Comverge is directly contacting consumers who own the recalled
communication module.  For more information, contact Comverge Inc.
toll-free at (866) 277-7001 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m.,
Central Time, Monday through Friday or visit the firm's Web site
at http://www.comverge.com/recall/


DOLLAR GENERAL: Defends "Richter" Complaint in Alabama
------------------------------------------------------
Dollar General Corporation continues to defend the suit entitled
Cynthia Richter, et al. v. Dolgencorp, Inc., et al., Case No.
7:06-cv-01537-LSC, pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Alabama, according to the company's June 8,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended April 30, 2010.

The suit was filed on Aug. 7, 2006, in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Alabama.  Plaintiff alleges that she and
other current and former Dollar General store managers were
improperly classified as exempt executive employees under the Fair
Labor Standards Act and seeks to recover overtime pay, liquidated
damages, and attorneys' fees and costs.

On Aug. 15, 2006, the Richter plaintiff filed a motion in which
she asked the court to certify a nationwide class of current and
former store managers.  The company opposed the plaintiff's
motion.  On March 23, 2007, the court conditionally certified a
nationwide class.

On May 30, 2007, the court stayed all proceedings in the case,
including the sending of a notice to the class, to evaluate, among
other things, certain appeals pending in the Eleventh Circuit
involving claims similar to those raised in this action.
During the stay, the statute of limitations was tolled for
potential class members.  The stay was extended on several
occasions, the last of which expired on Oct. 31, 2009.

On Dec. 2, 2009, notice was mailed to over 28,000 current or
former Dollar General store managers, and approximately 3,860
individuals opted into the lawsuit.

The company believes that its store managers are and have been
properly classified as exempt employees under the FLSA and that
this action is not appropriate for collective action treatment.
The company intends to vigorously defend this action and expects
to ask the court to decertify the class at the conclusion of the
discovery period.

Dollar General Corporation -- http://www.dollargeneral.com/-- is
a discount retailer.  As of Feb. 26, 2010, the company had 8,877
stores located in 35 states, primarily in the southern,
southwestern, midwestern and eastern United States.  The company
offers a selection of merchandise, including consumables,
seasonal, home products and apparel.  Its merchandise includes
national brands from manufacturers, such as such as Procter &
Gamble, Kimberly Clark, Unilever, Kellogg's, General Mills,
Nabisco, Coca-Cola and PepsiCo, as well as private brand
selections.  The company is a subsidiary of Buck Holdings, L.P., a
limited partnership controlled by Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co.,
L.P. (KKR), which owns over 85% of the company's outstanding
common stock.


DOLLAR GENERAL: Continues to Defend "Brickey" in New York
---------------------------------------------------------
Dollar General Corporation continues to defend a lawsuit entitled
Tammy Brickey, Becky Norman, Rose Rochow, Sandra Cogswell and
Melinda Sappington v. Dolgencorp, Inc. and Dollar General
Corporation, Case No. 6:06-cv-06084-DGL, filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of New York.

On May 18, 2006, the company was served with a lawsuit
entitled Tammy Brickey, Becky Norman, Rose Rochow, Sandra Cogswell
and Melinda Sappington v. Dolgencorp, Inc. and Dollar General
Corporation (Western District of New York, Case No. 6:06-cv-06084-
DGL, originally filed on Feb. 9, 2006 and amended on May 12, 2006.

The Brickey plaintiffs seek to proceed collectively under the FLSA
and as a class under New York, Ohio, Maryland and North
Carolina wage and hour statutes on behalf of, among others,
assistant store managers who claim to be owed wages (including
overtime wages) under those statutes.  At this time, it is not
possible to predict whether the court will permit this action to
proceed collectively or as a class.

However, the company believes that this action is not appropriate
for either collective or class treatment and that the company's
wage and hour policies and practices comply with both federal and
state law.

No further updates were reported in the company's June 8, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended April 30, 2010.

Dollar General Corporation -- http://www.dollargeneral.com/-- is
a discount retailer.  As of Feb. 26, 2010, the company had 8,877
stores located in 35 states, primarily in the southern,
southwestern, midwestern and eastern United States.  The company
offers a selection of merchandise, including consumables,
seasonal, home products and apparel.  Its merchandise includes
national brands from manufacturers, such as such as Procter &
Gamble, Kimberly Clark, Unilever, Kellogg's, General Mills,
Nabisco, Coca-Cola and PepsiCo, as well as private brand
selections.  The company is a subsidiary of Buck Holdings, L.P., a
limited partnership controlled by Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co.,
L.P. (KKR), which owns over 85% of the company's outstanding
common stock.


DOLLAR GENERAL: Seeks Decertification of Equal Pay Act Class
------------------------------------------------------------
Dollar General Corporation intends to move for the decertification
of the Equal Pay Act class in the complaint entitled Janet Calvert
v. Dolgencorp, Inc., Case No. 2:06-cv-00465-VEH, according to the
company's June 8, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 30, 2010.

On March 7, 2006, a complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Alabama in which the
plaintiff, a former store manager, alleged that she was paid less
than male store managers because of her sex, in violation of the
Equal Pay Act and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as
amended.

The complaint subsequently was amended to include additional
plaintiffs, who also allege to have been paid less than males
because of their sex, and to add allegations that the company's
compensation practices disparately impact females.  Under the
amended complaint, Plaintiffs seek to proceed collectively under
the Equal Pay Act and as a class under Title VII, and request back
wages, injunctive and declaratory relief, liquidated damages,
punitive damages and attorney's fees and costs.

On July 9, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a motion in which they asked
the court to approve the issuance of notice to a class of
current and former female store managers under the Equal Pay Act.
The company opposed plaintiffs' motion.

On Nov. 30, 2007, the court conditionally certified a nationwide
class of females under the Equal Pay Act who worked for Dollar
General as store managers between Nov. 30, 2004 and Nov. 30, 2007.

The notice was issued on Jan. 11, 2008, and persons to whom the
notice was sent were required to opt into the suit by March 11,
2008.  Approximately 2,100 individuals have opted into the
lawsuit.

On April 19, 2010, the plaintiffs moved for class certification
relating to their Title VII claims.  The company filed its
response to the certification motion in June 2010, and will move
for decertification of the Equal Pay Act class.

Dollar General Corporation -- http://www.dollargeneral.com/-- is
a discount retailer.  As of Feb. 26, 2010, the company had 8,877
stores located in 35 states, primarily in the southern,
southwestern, midwestern and eastern United States.  The company
offers a selection of merchandise, including consumables,
seasonal, home products and apparel.  Its merchandise includes
national brands from manufacturers, such as such as Procter &
Gamble, Kimberly Clark, Unilever, Kellogg's, General Mills,
Nabisco, Coca-Cola and PepsiCo, as well as private brand
selections.  The company is a subsidiary of Buck Holdings, L.P., a
limited partnership controlled by Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co.,
L.P. (KKR), which owns over 85% of the company's outstanding
common stock.


DOLLAR GENERAL: Court Denies Class Certification in "Cox" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for Dallas County, Iowa, has denied class
certification in the suit captioned Julie Cox, et al. v.
Dolgencorp, Inc., et al. Case No. LACV-034423, according to the
company's June 8, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
April 30, 2010.

On July 30, 2008, the company was served with a complaint  in
which the plaintiff, a former store manager, alleges that the
company discriminates against pregnant employees on the basis of
sex and retaliates against employees in violation of the Iowa
Civil Rights Act.

Cox seeks to represent a class of "all current, former and future
employees from the State of Iowa who are employed by Dollar
General who suffered from, are currently suffering from or in the
future may suffer from" alleged sex/pregnancy discrimination and
retaliation and seeks declaratory and injunctive relief as well as
equitable, compensatory and punitive damages and attorneys' fees
and costs.

On April 5, 2010, the Court denied the plaintiff's motion for
class certification.

Dollar General Corporation -- http://www.dollargeneral.com/-- is
a discount retailer.  As of Feb. 26, 2010, the company had 8,877
stores located in 35 states, primarily in the southern,
southwestern, midwestern and eastern United States.  The company
offers a selection of merchandise, including consumables,
seasonal, home products and apparel.  Its merchandise includes
national brands from manufacturers, such as such as Procter &
Gamble, Kimberly Clark, Unilever, Kellogg's, General Mills,
Nabisco, Coca-Cola and PepsiCo, as well as private brand
selections.  The company is a subsidiary of Buck Holdings, L.P., a
limited partnership controlled by Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co.,
L.P. (KKR), which owns over 85% of the company's outstanding
common stock.


GAP INC: Continues to Face Suits Over Wage and Hour Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Gap, Inc. continues to face class action lawsuits in which
plaintiffs allege that the company violated federal and state wage
and hour and other laws.  The plaintiffs in some actions seek
unspecified damages or injunctive relief, or both.  These actions
are in various procedural stages, and some are covered in part by
insurance.

No specific details regarding the pending lawsuits were disclosed
in the company's June 8, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended May 1,
2010.

The Gap, Inc. -- http://www.gapinc.com/-- is a global specialty
retailer offering clothing, accessories and personal care
products for men, women, children and babies under the Gap, Old
Navy, Banana Republic, Piperlime and Athleta brands.  The
company operates stores in the United States, Canada, the United
Kingdom, France, Ireland and Japan.  It also has franchise
agreements with unaffiliated franchisees to operate Gap and Banana
Republic stores in many other countries worldwide.


GLOBAL VISION: Partial Settlement in Avacor Hair Regrowth Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
If you bought the Avacor hair regrowth system, you could get a
payment from a class action settlement.

A proposed settlement is pending in a class action lawsuit
relating to the marketing and sale of the Avacor hair regrowth
system. The lawsuit is entitled Thomas v. Global Vision Products,
Inc., et al., Alameda County Superior Court Case No. RG03091195.
The defendants include Global Vision Products, Inc., Anthony
Imbriolo, David L. Gordon, Robert N. DeBenedictis
("DeBenedictis"), Henry Edelson and Powertel Technologies, Inc.
This settlement is with Defendant DeBenedictis only but will
release the class's claims against Defendant Edelson as well.

ARE YOU AFFECTED?

You are a class member if you purchased Avacor from January 1,
2000 through April 12, 2007 while you were a California resident.

WHAT IS THIS CASE ABOUT?

This lawsuit is about whether the defendants violated California's
Unfair Competition Law and the California Consumers Legal Remedies
Act by making unsubstantiated, false and misleading statements in
connection with the marketing and sale of Avacor.  The lawsuit
also alleges that certain individual defendants used the corporate
form of Global Vision Products, Inc. for fraudulent purposes.

WHAT DOES THE SETTLEMENT PROVIDE?

Class members who submit a timely and valid claim form will
receive $190.00 in cash. DeBenedictis will transfer cash and
assets to a Settlement Trust. The cash and assets so contributed
by DeBenedictis will be used for the payment of valid and timely
class member claims and administrative expenses, including
expenses of notice and administration, attorneys' fees and
expenses and incentive awards. The settlement also provides for
the payment by DeBenedictis of attorneys'' fees and expenses of up
to $9,963,000.

WHAT ARE MY LEGAL RIGHTS?

You have three options:

Remain in the settlement class. If you are a class member and you
do not exclude yourself from the settlement class, you will be
bound by the terms of the settlement and give up your right to sue
regarding issues in this case. You will also have the right to
file a claim for $190 in cash. Claims must be received by the
settlement administrator on or before December 31, 2010. Claim
forms, with instructions for filing, are available at
http://www.avacorlawsuit.com/

Request to be excluded. The Court will exclude you from the
settlement class if you mail a request for exclusion to
Defendant's Counsel and Class Counsel at the addresses below.
Requests must be received by August 17, 2010.

Object to the Settlement. If you do not exclude yourself from the
settlement class, you may object to it by yourself or through an
attorney that you hire at your own expense. Objections must be
written and mailed to the Court at Clerk of the Court, Alameda
County Superior Court, 1225 Fallon Street, Oakland, CA 94612, and
Class Counsel and Defendant's Counsel at the addresses below.
Objections received by August 17, 2010, will be considered at the
fairness hearing. You will be bound by the terms of the settlement
even if your objection is rejected. The Court will determine
whether to approve the settlement at a fairness hearing held on
September 16, 2010. If you filed an objection through an attorney,
your attorney may appear at the hearing to explain your objection.

HOW CAN YOU GET MORE INFORMATION?

If you have questions or want a detailed notice or other documents
about this lawsuit and your rights, visit
http://www.avacorlawsuit.com/or contact the toll free hotline
866-820-0118 or write to:

         Avacor Class Action Settlement
         P.O. Box 24389
         Jacksonville, FL 32241-4389

You can also find additional information about the case at the
Court's Web site: http://www.alameda.courts.ca.gov/domainweb.
Please do not contact the Court directly concerning this lawsuit.

Class Counsel:

         Scott A. Bursor, Esq.
         Law Offices of Scott A. Bursor
         369 Lexington Avenue, 10th Floor
         New York, NY 10017
         http://www.bursor.com/

Defense Counsel:

         Michael T. Conway, Esq.
         LeClair Ryan, LLP
         830 Third Avenue, Fifth Floor
         New York, NY 10022


GOLDMAN SACHS: Gardy & Notis Files Securities Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Gardy & Notis, LLP has filed a class action lawsuit in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York on
behalf of all purchasers of shares of common stock of The Goldman
Sachs Group Inc. during a class period of December 14, 2006, to
June 9, 2010.

The class action seeks to recover damages on behalf of plaintiff
and a class of all other individual and institutional investors
who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of Goldman Sachs common
stock during the class period.  The defendants in the case are The
Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Lloyd C. Blankfein, David A. Viniar and
Gary D. Cohn.  The complaint alleges that defendants violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by
issuing a series of materially false and misleading statements
concerning Goldman Sachs' business model and reasons for Goldman
Sachs' business success during the class period.

If you purchased shares of Goldman Sachs common stock between
December 14, 2006 and June 9, 2010, you may, no later than June
25, 2010, request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff for
the class.  A lead plaintiff is a representative party that acts
on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. You
must meet certain legal requirements to serve as a lead plaintiff.

For more information regarding the lawsuit, or to obtain a copy of
the complaint filed in the lawsuit, please contact plaintiff's
counsel:

     James S. Notis, Esq.
     Charles A. Germershausen, Esq.
     GARDY & NOTIS, LLP
     560 Sylvan Avenue
     Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey 07632
     Telephone: (201) 567-7377
     Facsimile: (201) 567-7337
     E-mail: jnotis@gardylaw.com
             cgermershausen@gardylaw.com


HECKMANN CORP: Shuman Files Class Suit on China Water Deal
----------------------------------------------------------
The Shuman Law Firm said a class action has been commenced in the
United States District Court for the District of Delaware on
behalf of purchasers of Heckmann Corporation common stock during
the period between May 20, 2008 and May 8, 2009, and all persons
or entities who held Heckmann common stock on September 15, 2008
and were eligible to vote on Heckmann's acquisition of China Water
and Drinks, Inc.

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions
concerning this notice or your rights and interests with respect
to this matter, please contact Kip B. Shuman or Rusty E. Glenn
toll-free at 866-974-8626 or e-mail Mr. Shuman at
kip@shumanlawfirm.com or Mr. Glenn at rusty@shumanlawfirm.com

The complaint charges Heckmann and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
for alleged material misstatements and omitted material
information in the Joint Proxy.  The complaint alleges that on May
20, 2008, the Company announced that it had struck a deal to
acquire China Water and Drinks, Inc.  On October 2, 2008, the
Company filed a Joint Proxy and Information Statement/Prospectus,
which represented that Heckmann had conducted extensive due
diligence on China Water and recommended that Heckmann
shareholders vote in favor of the Merger.  The defendants
allegedly solicited votes from stockholders necessary to complete
the Merger by means of the Joint Proxy and other public
statements.  The Company's stockholders overwhelmingly approved
the Merger at an October 30, 2008 special meeting of stockholders.

Thereafter, on May 8, 2009, the Company announced its financial
results for the first fiscal quarter of 2009, including a net loss
for the quarter of $186.2 million and a $184 million impairment
charge.  The release also reported that the Company had discovered
what it believed to be "financial misconduct and the diversion of
cash deposits by former management of China Water."  On this news
the Company's stock price declined, reaching as low as $3.38 per
share in July 2009, compared to more than $10 per share shortly
after the Merger was announced.

If you purchased Heckmann common stock during the Class Period or
held Heckmann common stock on September 15, 2008 and were eligible
to vote on the Merger, you may request that the Court appoint you
as lead plaintiff of the Class no later than 60 days from May 6,
2010. A lead plaintiff is a class member that acts on behalf of
other class members in directing the litigation. Although your
ability to share in any recovery is not affected by the decision
whether or not to seek appointment as a lead plaintiff, lead
plaintiffs make important decisions which could affect the overall
recovery for class members.

The Shuman Law Firm represents investors throughout the nation,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative actions.


HEWLETT-PACKARD: "Skold" Appeal for Class Certification Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs' appeal to a decision denying a class certification
motion in a lawsuit against Hewlett-Packard Co. in California with
regards to the performance of Intel Corp.'s Pentium 4 processor
remains pending.

The suit, "Skold, et al. v. Intel Corp. and Hewlett Packard Co.,"
generally alleges that the company along with Intel, misled the
public by suppressing and concealing the alleged material fact
that systems that use the Pentium 4 processor are
less powerful and slower than systems using the Pentium III
processor and processors made by a competitor of Intel.

The company was added to the lawsuit on June 14, 2004.  It was
initially filed in state court in Alameda County, California,
based upon factual allegations similar to those in the Illinois
cases.

The plaintiffs in the Skold matter seek unspecified damages,
restitution, attorneys' fees and costs, and certification of a
nationwide class.

The Skold case has since been transferred to state court in Santa
Clara County, California.

The trial court denied plaintiffs' motion for class certification
on March 27, 2008, but granted plaintiffs' leave to file a new
motion for class certification.

On Feb. 27, 2009, the court denied without prejudice plaintiffs'
motion for nationwide class certification for a third time.

The plaintiffs have appealed the court's decision

No further updates were reported in the company's June 8, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended April 30, 2010.

Hewlett-Packard Co. -- http://www.hp.com/-- is a global provider
of products, technologies, software, solutions and services to
individual consumers, small- and medium-sized businesses (SMBs)
and large enterprises, including customers in the government,
health and education sectors.  The company's offerings span multi-
vendor customer services, including infrastructure technology and
business process outsourcing, technology support and maintenance,
application development and support services, and consulting and
integration services; enterprise information technology
infrastructure, including enterprise storage and server
technology, networking products and resources, and software that
optimizes business technology investments; personal computing and
other access devices, and imaging and printing-related products
and services.


HEWLETT-PACKARD: "Bagget" Plaintiff's Appeal Remains Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiff's appeal of the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California's summary judgment ruling in the matter
Kelsea Baggett v. Hewlett-Packard Company et al., remains pending.

The suit is a consumer class action filed against HP on June 6,
2007 alleging that HP employs a technology in its LaserJet color
printers whereby the printing process shuts down prematurely, thus
preventing customers from using the toner that is allegedly left
in the cartridge.

The plaintiffs also allege that HP fails to disclose to consumers
that they will be unable to utilize the toner remaining in the
cartridge after the printer shuts down.

The complaint seeks certification of a nationwide class of
purchasers of all HP LaserJet color printers and seeks
unspecified damages, restitution, disgorgement, injunctive relief,
attorneys' fees and costs.

On Sept. 29, 2009, the court granted HP's motion for summary
judgment against the named plaintiff and denied plaintiff's
motion for class certification as moot.

On Nov. 3, 2009, the court entered judgment against the named
plaintiff.

On Nov. 17, 2009, plaintiff filed an appeal of the court's summary
judgment ruling with the United States Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit.

No further updates were reported in the company's June 8, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended April 30, 2010.

The suit is Kelsea Baggett v. Hewlett-Packard Company et al., Case
No. 07-cv-00667 (C.D. Calif.) (Guilford, J.).

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Brian S. Kabateck, Esq.
         KABATECK BROWN KELLNER
         644 South Figueroa Street
         Los Angeles, CA 90017
         Phone: (213) 217-5000
         E-mail: bsk@kbklawyers.com

              - and -

         Darren T Kaplan, Esq.
         CHITWOOD HARLEY HARNES
         1230 Peachtree Street, Suite 2300
         Atlanta, GA 30309
         Phone: (404) 873-3900
         E-mail: dkaplan@chitwoodlaw.com

Representing the defendant are:

         Samuel G. Liversidge, Esq.
         GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER
         333 South Grand Avenue
         Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197
         Phone: (213) 229-7000
         E-mail: sliversidge@gibsondunn.com

              - and -

         Robert Particelli, Esq.
         MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
         1701 Market Street
         Philadelphia, PA 19103
         Phone: (215) 963-5000
         Fax: 215-963-5001
         E-mail: rparticelli@morganlewis.com


HEWLETT-PACKARD: Defends "Rich" Suit in California
--------------------------------------------------
Hewlett-Packard Co. continues to defend the suit captioned Rich v.
Hewlett-Packard Company, pending in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California, according to the company's
June 8, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 30, 2010.

The suit is a consumer class action filed against HP on May 22,
2006, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California.  The suit alleges that HP designed its color inkjet
printers to unnecessarily use color ink in addition to black ink
when printing black and white images and text.

The plaintiffs are seeking to certify a nationwide injunctive
class and a California-only damages class.

A class certification hearing was scheduled for May 7, 2010, but
has been taken off of the calendar.

The suit is Rich v. Hewlett-Packard Company, Case No. 06-cv-03361
(N.D. Calif.) (Fogel, J.).

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Brian S. Kabateck, Esq.
         KABATECK BROWN KELLNER, LLP
         644 South Figueroa Street
         Los Angeles, CA 90071
         Phone: (213) 217-5000
         Fax: (213) 217-5010
         E-mail: bsk@kbklawyers.com

              - and -

         Stephen Michael Garcia, Esq.
         GARCIA LAW FIRM
         One World Trade Center,  Suite 1950
         Long Beach, CA 90831
         Phone: (562) 216-5270
         E-mail: jmobley@lawgarcia.com

Representing the defendants is:

         Christopher Chorba, Esq.
         GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
         333 South Grand Avenue
         Los Angeles, CA 90071
         Phone: (213) 229-7000
         Fax: (213) 229-7520
         E-mail: cchorba@gibsondunn.com


HEWLETT-PACKARD: EDS Faces Labor-Related Lawsuits in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hewlett-Packard Co.'s subsidiary, Electronic Data Systems
Corporation, faces several purported class actions alleging labor
related violations.

The plaintiffs are seeking unpaid overtime compensation and other
damages based on allegations that various employees of EDS or HP
have been misclassified as exempt employees under the Fair Labor
Standards Act and/or the California Labor Code.

Heffelfinger, et al. v. Electronic Data Systems Corporation is a
class action filed in November 2006, in California Superior
Court, claiming that certain EDS information technology workers in
California were misclassified exempt employees.

The case was subsequently transferred to the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California, which, on Jan. 7, 2008,
certified a class of information technology workers in California.

On June 6, 2008, the court granted the defendant's motion for
summary judgment.

The plaintiffs subsequently filed an appeal with the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which is pending.

Two other purported class actions originally filed in California
Superior Court, Karlbom, et al. v. Electronic Data Systems
Corporation, which was filed on March 16, 2009, and George, et al.
v. Electronic Data Systems Corporation, which was filed on April
2, 2009, allege similar facts.  The  Karlbom case is pending in
San Diego County Superior Court, and the  George case is pending
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

No further updates were reported in the company's June 8, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended April 30, 2010.

Hewlett-Packard Co. -- http://www.hp.com/-- is a global provider
of products, technologies, software, solutions and services to
individual consumers, small- and medium-sized businesses (SMBs)
and large enterprises, including customers in the government,
health and education sectors.  The company's offerings span multi-
vendor customer services, including infrastructure technology and
business process outsourcing, technology support and maintenance,
application development and support services, and consulting and
integration services; enterprise information technology
infrastructure, including enterprise storage and server
technology, networking products and resources, and software that
optimizes business technology investments; personal computing and
other access devices, and imaging and printing-related products
and services.


HEWLETT-PACKARD: EDS Faces Labor-Related Lawsuits in New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
Hewlett-Packard Co.'s subsidiary, Electronic Data Systems
Corporation, faces several purported class actions alleging
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The plaintiffs are seeking unpaid overtime compensation and other
damages based on allegations that various employees of EDS or HP
have been misclassified as exempt employees under the FLSA.

Cunningham and Cunningham, et al. v. Electronic Data Systems
Corporation is a purported collective action filed on May 10,
2006, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New
York claiming that current and former EDS employees involved in
installing and/or maintaining computer software and hardware were
misclassified as exempt employees.

Two other purported class actions, Steavens, et al. v. Electronic
Data Systems Corporation, filed on Oct. 23, 2007, and Azar v.
Electronic Data Systems Corporation, filed on Feb. 20, 2009, are
also pending in the same court alleging similar facts.

No further updates were reported in the company's June 8, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended April 30, 2010.

Hewlett-Packard Co. -- http://www.hp.com/-- is a global provider
of products, technologies, software, solutions and services to
individual consumers, small- and medium-sized businesses (SMBs)
and large enterprises, including customers in the government,
health and education sectors.  The company's offerings span multi-
vendor customer services, including infrastructure technology and
business process outsourcing, technology support and maintenance,
application development and support services, and consulting and
integration services; enterprise information technology
infrastructure, including enterprise storage and server
technology, networking products and resources, and software that
optimizes business technology investments; personal computing and
other access devices, and imaging and printing-related products
and services.


HEWLETT-PACKARD: Defends "Blennis" Suit in California
-----------------------------------------------------
Hewlett-Packard Co. continues to defend the matter styled Blennis
v. HP, according to the company's June 8, 2010, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended April 30, 2010.

The lawsuit was filed on Jan. 17, 2007, in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California where the plaintiffs are
seeking class certification, restitution, damages (including
enhanced damages), injunctive relief, interest, costs, and
attorneys' fees.

The lawsuits alleges breach of express and implied warranty,
unjust enrichment, deceptive advertising and unfair business
practices where the plaintiffs have alleged, among other things,
that HP employed a "smart chip" in certain inkjet printing
products in order to register ink depletion prematurely and to
render the cartridge unusable through a built-in expiration date
that is hidden, not documented in marketing materials to
consumers, or both.  The plaintiffs have also contended that
consumers received false ink depletion warnings and that the smart
chip limits the ability of consumers to use the cartridge
to its full capacity or to choose competitive products.

A class certification hearing was scheduled for May 21, 2010 but
has been taken off of the calendar.

Hewlett-Packard Co. -- http://www.hp.com/-- is a global provider
of products, technologies, software, solutions and services to
individual consumers, small- and medium-sized businesses (SMBs)
and large enterprises, including customers in the government,
health and education sectors.  The company's offerings span multi-
vendor customer services, including infrastructure technology and
business process outsourcing, technology support and maintenance,
application development and support services, and consulting and
integration services; enterprise information technology
infrastructure, including enterprise storage and server
technology, networking products and resources, and software that
optimizes business technology investments; personal computing and
other access devices, and imaging and printing-related products
and services.


HEWLETT-PACKARD: Certification Hearing in Inkjet Suit Postponed
---------------------------------------------------------------
A hearing on the plaintiffs' motion for class certification in a
consolidated lawsuit captioned In re HP Inkjet Printer Litigation,
has been postponed, according to Hewlett-Packard Co.'s June 8,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended April 30, 2010.

The lawsuit is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.

The lawsuits alleges breach of express and implied warranty,
unjust enrichment, deceptive advertising and unfair business
practices where the plaintiffs have alleged, among other things,
that HP employed a "smart chip" in certain inkjet printing
products in order to register ink depletion prematurely and to
render the cartridge unusable through a built-in expiration date
that is hidden, not documented in marketing materials to
consumers, or both.  The plaintiffs have also contended that
consumers received false ink depletion warnings and that the smart
chip limits the ability of consumers to use the cartridge
to its full capacity or to choose competitive products.

The plaintiffs are seeking class certification, restitution,
damages (including enhanced damages), injunctive relief,
interest, costs, and attorneys' fees.

On Jan. 4, 2008, the court heard plaintiffs' motions for class
certification and to add a class representative and HP's motion
for summary judgment.  On July 25, 2008, the court denied all
three motions.

On March 30, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a renewed motion for class
certification.

A hearing on the plaintiffs' motion for class certification
scheduled for April 9, 2010 was postponed, and no new date has
been scheduled.

Hewlett-Packard Co. -- http://www.hp.com/-- is a global provider
of products, technologies, software, solutions and services to
individual consumers, small- and medium-sized businesses (SMBs)
and large enterprises, including customers in the government,
health and education sectors.  The company's offerings span multi-
vendor customer services, including infrastructure technology and
business process outsourcing, technology support and maintenance,
application development and support services, and consulting and
integration services; enterprise information technology
infrastructure, including enterprise storage and server
technology, networking products and resources, and software that
optimizes business technology investments; personal computing and
other access devices, and imaging and printing-related products
and services.


HEWLETT-PACKARD: One Suit in Quebec Voluntarily Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------
One purported class action lawsuit against Hewlett-Packard Co.
commenced in Quebec has been voluntarily dismissed by the
plaintiff, according to the company's June 8, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended April 30, 2010.

The four class actions against HP and its subsidiary, Hewlett-
Packard (Canada) Co., pending in Canada are:

     -- one commenced in British Columbia in February 2006,

     -- two commenced in Quebec in April 2006 and May 2006,
        respectively, and

     -- one commenced in Ontario in June 2006.

The lawsuits alleges breach of express and implied warranty,
unjust enrichment, deceptive advertising and unfair business
practices where the plaintiffs have alleged, among other things,
that HP employed a "smart chip" in certain inkjet printing
products in order to register ink depletion prematurely and to
render the cartridge unusable through a built-in expiration date
that is hidden, not documented in marketing materials to
consumers, or both.  The plaintiffs contend that consumers
received false ink depletion warnings and that the smart chip
limits the ability of consumers to use the cartridge to its full
capacity or to choose competitive products.  The plaintiffs seek
class certification, restitution, declaratory relief, injunctive
relief and unspecified statutory, compensatory and punitive
damages.

A class authorization hearing for one of the cases pending in
Quebec was tentatively scheduled for Dec. 10, 2009; that hearing
has been postponed and no new date has been set by the court.

In March 2010, one of the Quebec cases was voluntarily dismissed
by the plaintiff.

Hewlett-Packard Co. -- http://www.hp.com/-- is a global provider
of products, technologies, software, solutions and services to
individual consumers, small- and medium-sized businesses (SMBs)
and large enterprises, including customers in the government,
health and education sectors.  The company's offerings span multi-
vendor customer services, including infrastructure technology and
business process outsourcing, technology support and maintenance,
application development and support services, and consulting and
integration services; enterprise information technology
infrastructure, including enterprise storage and server
technology, networking products and resources, and software that
optimizes business technology investments; personal computing and
other access devices, and imaging and printing-related products
and services.


HOLTROP & MCINDOO: Recalls 450 Infant Onesies and Rompers
---------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Holtrop & McIndoo LLC dba Kiwi Industries, of Albuquerque, N.M.,
announced a voluntary recall of about 450 Infant onesies and
rompers.  Consumers should stop using recalled products
immediately unless otherwise instructed.

Snaps on the onesies and rompers can detach from the garment,
posing a choking hazard to young children.

The firm has received two reports of snaps detaching. No injuries
have been reported.

This recall involves onesies and rompers sold in eight colors and
prints: eggplant with kiwi green binding, floral print with
eggplant binding, kiwi green with eggplant binding, pacific blue
with kiwi green binding, crisscross print and kiwi green with
pacific blue binding.  The onesies were sold in sizes 0 to 3
months up to 12 to 18 months.  The rompers were sold in sizes 0 to
3 months up to 18 to 24 months. "Kiwi industries" is printed on a
tag sewn inside the garment's collar.  Pictures of the recalled
products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10266.html

The recalled products were manufactured in the United States and
sold through children's specialty stores nationwide from March
2010 through May 2010 for between $24 and $28.

Consumers should immediately stop using the garments and contact
Kiwi Industries for an exchange.  The firm will provide a postage-
free package for the return of the recalled garment.  For
additional information, contact Kiwi Industries toll-free at (877)
509-4891 between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Mountain Time, Monday
through Friday, or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.kiwiindustries.com/ Consumers can also email the firm
at info@kiwiindustries.com


HOUSTON NORTHWEST MEDICAL: Notice of ADA Litigation Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
               NOTICE OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

TO: ALL PEOPLE IN THE UNITED STATES WITH DISABILITIES AS THAT
   TERM HAS BEEN DEFINED BY 42 U.S.C. Sec. 12102(2),
   INCLUDING THOSE PERSONS WHO HAVE AN IMPAIRMENT THAT
   SUBSTANTIALLY LIMITS A MAJOR LIFE FUNCTION, INCLUDING
   BUT NOT LIMITED TO MOBILITY, HEARING, AND SIGHT, WHO SEEK,
   HAVE SOUGHT, OR WILL SEEK ACCESS TO OR USE OF ANY GOOD,
   SERVICE, PROGRAM, FACILITY, PRIVILEGE, OR ACCOMMODATION
   OF THE FACILITIES OF HOUSTON NORTHWEST MEDICAL CENTER.

You are covered by and will be bound by the settlement of a class
action lawsuit involving physical access barriers at the
facilities of Houston Northwest Medical Center.  This Notice is to
inform you of facts that affect your legal rights.

SUMMARY OF LAWSUIT

A class action lawsuit entitled Access Now, Inc. et al. v. AMH
CGH, Inc. et al., Case No. 98-3004-CIV-GOLD/SIMONTON, is currently
pending in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Florida involving disability access at the facilities
of Houston Northwest Medical Center ("the Hospital"). The
complaint alleges on behalf of all disabled individuals that the
Hospital is in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act
because it has failed to provide equal access for persons with
disabilities to the Hospital's facilities. The Hospital denies
these allegations. By entering into a settlement of this action,
the Hospital does not admit that it engaged in any wrongful action
or inaction. This lawsuit has been certified by the Court as a
class action. The named plaintiffs serve as class representatives,
and their counsel are Miguel M. de la O and David E. Marko of the
law firm de la O, Marko, Magolnick, Leyton. Those lawyers serve as
counsel for the class. The Hospital is represented by the law firm
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP.

DEFINITION OF THE CLASS

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

SUMMARY OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT

The named plaintiffs and the Hospital have reached a proposed
settlement of this class action lawsuit, which provides that the
Hospital will make modifications and alterations to its facilities
with the purpose of providing equal access to and usability of the
facilities by persons with disabilities. No money damages are to
be paid to members of the class.

PROCEDURES CONCERNING THE SETTLEMENT

Court Hearing. On August 6, 2010, at 11:00 AM, the court will hold
a hearing at the United States District Court, Southern District
of Florida, Courtroom 11-1, located at 400 North Miami Avenue,
Miami, Florida 33128, to determine whether the proposed settlement
agreement is fair and reasonable.

Objections to the Settlement. If you believe the Court should not
approve the settlement, you may advise the Court of your
objections. In order to be considered, your objections must be in
writing, signed, and sent via first-class mail to: Clerk of the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida,
Courtroom 11-1, 400 North Miami Avenue, Miami, Florida 33128. A
copy should also be mailed to counsel for the class at the address
set forth below. Objections will not be considered by the Court
unless received on or before July 6, 2010. Your written statement
should specify in detail the factual basis and/or legal grounds on
which you base your objections. If you provide written objections,
you may appear in person at the hearing before the Court on August
6, 2010, as described above, to express your views concerning the
settlement. An attorney may also appear at the hearing on your
behalf. If you and/or your attorney intend to appear at the
hearing, you should so advise the Court in the written statement
of your objections. Any class member who fails to file a timely
written objection may not appear before the Court at the hearing
to voice objections relating to the adequacy and/or fairness of
the proposed settlement.

Entry of Judgment. If the settlement is approved by the Court, the
order approving the settlement and a judgment dismissing this
action with prejudice as to Placentia-Linda Hospital will be
entered. You should not expect to receive any further notices
concerning the entry of such order and judgment.

All class members will be bound by the judgment, which will bar
class members from asserting any claims against the Hospital
concerning physical, communication, structural, and program access
barrier. All class members are deemed to have waived the
protection provided by any state law with respect to unknown
claims at the time of a general release, and the general release
forever discharges any claims relating to physical, communication,
structural, and program access barriers, if any, at the Hospital
by a class member whether known or unknown to the class member at
the time of the settlement agreement.

FURTHER INFORMATION

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

         Miguel M. de la O, Es.q
         David E. Marko, Esq.
         de la O, Marko, Magolnick, Leyton
         3001 SW 3rd Ave.
         Miami, FL 33129

or by consulting the public file on the case at the Office of the
Clerk of the Court, United States District Court, Southern
District of Florida, 400 North Miami Avenue, Miami, Florida.

PLEASE FOLLOW THE PROCEDURES SET OUT ABOVE.

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE JUDGE OR THE CLERK OF THE COURT WITH ANY
QUESTION ABOUT THE SETTLEMENT.


INTEGRATED SILICON: Settlement Pact Gets Court Approval
-------------------------------------------------------
Integrated Silicon Solution, Inc., obtained preliminary court
approval of its settlement agreement in three lawsuits brought by
direct purchasers in the U.S. relating to the sale and pricing of
static random access memory products, according to the company's
May 17, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2010.

Thirty-three purported class action lawsuits were filed by U.S.
Direct-Purchaser and U.S. Indirect-Purchaser Plaintiffs against
the company and other SRAM suppliers in various U.S. federal
courts alleging violations of the Sherman Act, violations of state
unfair competition laws, and unjust enrichment relating to the
sale and pricing of SRAM products.

The U.S. lawsuits have been consolidated in a single federal court
for coordinated pre-trial proceedings.  The U.S. lawsuits seek
treble damages for the alleged damages sustained by purported
class members, in addition to restitution, costs and attorneys'
fees, as well as an injunction against the allegedly unlawful
conduct.

As of August 30, 2007, the company was voluntarily dismissed from
all lawsuits brought by the U.S. Indirect-Purchaser Plaintiffs
pursuant to a Tolling Agreement between the company and the U.S.
Indirect-Purchaser Plaintiffs.  The U.S. Indirect-Purchaser
Plaintiffs agreed not to name the company as a defendant unless
the Tolling Agreement is terminated according to terms specified
in that agreement.

On January 9, 2008, the company was voluntarily dismissed without
prejudice from one of the lawsuits brought by the U.S. Direct-
Purchaser Plaintiffs.  The company remains a defendant in three
lawsuits brought by the U.S. Direct-Purchaser Plaintiffs.

On September 29, 2008, the court certified a class of direct
purchasers.

On October 5, 2009, the company entered into a settlement
agreement with the U.S. Direct-Purchaser Plaintiffs that remains
subject to approval by the court before it becomes final.

The court issued an order granting preliminary approval of the
settlement on March 19, 2010.  As part of the agreement, the
company will receive a release for all Direct-Purchaser SRAM
claims and will not admit any wrongdoing or liability.

Integrated Silicon Solution, Inc. -- http://www.issi.com/-- is a
fabless semiconductor company that designs and markets high-
performance integrated circuits for various markets, such as
digital consumer electronics, networking, mobile communications
and automotive electronics.  The company's primary products are
high-speed and low-power static random access memory and low-and
medium-density dynamic random access memory.  It also designs and
markets electrically erasable programmable ready only memory,
SmartCards, controller chips for flash memory sticks and card
reader-writers, and wireless chipsets.


KOSS CORP: Securities Class Action Suit Still Pending in Wis.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Koss Corp. continues to face a class action complaint in Wisconsin
for allegedly violating securities law, according to the company's
Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

On January 15, 2010, a class action complaint was filed in federal
court in Wisconsin against the Company, Michael Koss and Sujata
Sachdeva.  The suit alleges violations of Section 10(b), Rule 10b-
5 and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act relating to the
unauthorized transactions and requests an award of compensatory
damages in an amount to be proven at trial.

The complaint is styled David A Puskala v. Koss Corporation, et
al., Case No. 2:2010cv00041, filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Wisconsin.

Koss Corporation -- http://www.koss.com/-- is engaged in the
design, manufacture and sale of stereo headphones and related
accessory products.  The company's products are sold through
audio specialty stores, the Internet, direct mail catalogs,
regional department store chains, discount department stores,
military exchanges, prisons and national retailers under the Koss
name and dual label.  The company also sells products to
distributors for resale to school systems and directly to other
manufactures for inclusion with their own products.


MYLAN PHARMA: Lawyer Asks Court to Reconsider Class Rejection
-------------------------------------------------------------
Legal Newsline says ludicrous claims shouldn't have caused U.S.
District Joseph Goodwin to reject a class action over economic
damages from heart medicine Digitek, according to Fred Thompson,
Esq., at Motley Rice.

On June 8, Mr. Thompson asked Judge Goodwin to reconsider a May 25
order denying certification of a class action against drug maker
Actavis Totowa and distributor Mylan Pharmaceuticals.  Mr.
Thompson wrote that Judge Goodwin "seized upon a few outrageous
damages requests" to find that individual issues predominated over
class issues.

"None of the items cited by the court have actually been requested
in the present class litigation, however, and the claims
administration process could easily reject such ludicrous claims
should any potential class member attempt to make one," he wrote.

As reported by the Class Action Reporter on June 1, 2010, Steve
Korris at LegalNewsLine.com said Judge Goodwin sternly rejected a
consumer class action over Digitek heart medicine last week.
"There is a big imbalance between common and individual issues,"
Judge Goodwin wrote in an order denying class certification.
"Complex conflict of law questions are involved."

Legal Newsline says Mr. Thompson wrote, "Plaintiffs believe the
court misunderstood the types of economic damages for which
plaintiffs seek to recover on behalf of themselves and class
members."

"In actuality, none of the class representatives has requested the
court to provide them compensation for any of the anecdotal items
highlighted by defendants and the court -- gas money, eyeglasses,
trip insurance, or even enemas," he wrote.

"Class representatives need not be legal scholars and, as
plaintiffs indicated in their reply brief, many of the class
representatives here are unsophisticated," he wrote.

"Accordingly, the fact that some of the class representatives may
have unrealistic expectations about what kinds of damages can be
recovered from a class action does not render them inadequate or
their claims atypical," he wrote.

Judge Goodwin presides over Digitek suits from federal courts
around the nation by appointment of the U.S. Judicial Panel on
Multi District Litigation.  Litigation began in 2008, after
Actavis Totowa discovered 20 pills of double thickness in a batch
at its plant in Little Falls, New Jersey.  Actavis Totowa recalled
the batch, and no plaintiff has produced a double thick pill.
Some plaintiffs nevertheless claimed personal injuries and
wrongful death.  Others claimed only economic damages.

Mr. Thompson sought certification of a national economic damages
class or single state classes in West Virginia, New Jersey, Kansas
and Kentucky.  Judge Goodwin denied both.  Judge Goodwin declined
Mr. Thompson's request to apply New Jersey law nationwide and
wrote, "The transactions at issue here relate only minimally to
New Jersey."

Judge Goodwin wrote that he and colleagues in state courts have
taken great care to track Digitek litigation for a just and
efficient resolution.  "Adding a complex certified class to these
already complicated state and federal proceedings makes little
sense," he wrote.

Plaintiffs' counsel may be reached at:

     Fred Thompson III, Esq.
     MOTLEY RICE LLC
     Charleston Area 28 Bridgeside Blvd.
     Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464
     Telephone: (843) 216-9118
     Facsimile: (800) 768-4026
     E-mail: fthompson@motleyrice.com


NATIONAL WESTERN: Awaits Court Approval of $17MM Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
National Western Life Insurance Co.'s $17 million settlement
agreement with certain California policyholders to resolve a class
action lawsuit is still pending court approval, according to the
company's Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

The Company was a defendant in a class action lawsuit initially
filed on September 17, 2004, in the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Los Angeles.  The California state
court certified a class consisting of certain California
policyholders age 65 and older alleging violations under
California Business and Professions Code section 17200.  The court
additionally certified a subclass of 36 policyholders alleging
fraud against their agent, and vicariously against the Company.
The California Insurance Department had intervened in this case
asserting that the Company has violated California insurance laws.
The parties to this case had been involved in court-ordered
mediation and ongoing negotiations.

On February 22, 2010, the Company reported in a Form 8-K filing a
settlement agreement with the plaintiffs and plaintiff in
intervention providing a settlement benefit of approximately $17
million which was included in the Company's legal accrual
provision at December 31, 2009.  The settlement agreement is
subject to final court approval.

National Western Life Insurance Company --
https://www.nationalwesternlife.com/ -- is a stock life insurance
company and doing business in 49 states, the District of Columbia,
and four United States territories or possessions.  The company is
also licensed in Haiti, and although not otherwise licensed,
accepts applications from and issues policies to residents of
various countries in Central and South America, the Caribbean, the
Pacific Rim, Eastern Europe and Asia.  Such policies are
underwritten, accepted, and issued in the United States upon
applications submitted by independent contractors.  It provides
life insurance products for the savings and protection needs of
approximately 148,000 policyholders and for the asset accumulation
and retirement needs of 117,000 annuity contract holders.  It
offers a portfolio of individual whole life, universal life and
term insurance plans, and annuities, including supplementary
riders.  It manages its business between Domestic Insurance
Operations and International Insurance Operations.


NATIONAL WESTERN: Deferred Annuities Litigation Still Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
National Western Life Insurance Co. continues to defend itself in
a class action lawsuit alleging RICO violations, unjust enrichment
and breach of fiduciary duty, among others, in California,
according to the company's Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

The Company is a defendant in a class action lawsuit pending as of
June 12, 2006, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California.  The case is titled In Re National Western
Life Insurance Deferred Annuities Litigation and is in the
discovery phase.

The complaint asserts claims for RICO violations, Financial Elder
Abuse, Violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code 17200, et seq,
Violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code 17500, et seq, Breach of
Fiduciary Duty, Aiding and Abetting Breach of Fiduciary Duty,
Fraudulent Concealment, Cal. Civ. Code 1710, et seq, Breach of the
Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing, and Unjust Enrichment and
Imposition of Constructive Trust.

The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses in this case
and intends to vigorously defend itself against the asserted
claims.

National Western Life Insurance Company --
https://www.nationalwesternlife.com/ -- is a stock life insurance
company and doing business in 49 states, the District of Columbia,
and four United States territories or possessions.  The company is
also licensed in Haiti, and although not otherwise licensed,
accepts applications from and issues policies to residents of
various countries in Central and South America, the Caribbean, the
Pacific Rim, Eastern Europe and Asia.  Such policies are
underwritten, accepted, and issued in the United States upon
applications submitted by independent contractors.  It provides
life insurance products for the savings and protection needs of
approximately 148,000 policyholders and for the asset accumulation
and retirement needs of 117,000 annuity contract holders.  It
offers a portfolio of individual whole life, universal life and
term insurance plans, and annuities, including supplementary
riders.  It manages its business between Domestic Insurance
Operations and International Insurance Operations.


NEW LEAF: Still a Defendant in Suit Over Calif. Proposition 65
--------------------------------------------------------------
New Leaf Brands, Inc., remains a defendant in a class action
lawsuit under California Proposition 65.

On January 29, 2009, New Leaf was named as a defendant, along with
54 other defendants, in a class action lawsuit under California
Proposition 65 for allegedly failing to disclose the amount of
lead in one of its products.  New Leaf believes this case is
without out merit and plans to defend it vigorously.  New Leaf
believes this suit will not have a material adverse effect on its
results of operations, cash flows or financial condition.

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

New Leaf Brands, Inc. -- http://www.newleafbrands.com/--
formerly Baywood International, Inc., develops, markets and
distributes ready-to-drink (RTD) beverages and nutraceutical
products. The Company operates through the combination of a
diversified nutraceutical company (LifeTime brand) and a RTD tea
company (New Leaf brand).


NEXTWAVE WIRELESS: Seeks Dismissal of Calif. Consolidated Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
NextWave Wireless, Inc., is seeking the dismissal of a second
amended consolidated complaint in a securities class action
lawsuit filed California, according to the company's May 18, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended April 3, 2010.

On September 16, 2008, a putative class action lawsuit, captioned
"Sandra Lifschitz, On Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. NextWave Wireless Inc. et al.,
Defendants," was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California against the company and certain of the
company's officers.  The suit alleges that the defendants made
false and misleading statements or omissions in violation of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  The suit seeks unspecified
damages, interest, costs, attorneys' fees, and injunctive,
equitable or other relief on behalf of a purported class of
purchasers of the company's common stock during the period from
March 30, 2007 to August 7, 2008.

A second putative class action lawsuit captioned "Benjamin et al.
v. NextWave Wireless Inc. et al." was filed on October 21, 2008
alleging the same claims on behalf of purchasers of the company's
common stock during an extended class period, from November 27,
2006 through August 7, 2008.

On February 24, 2009, the Court issued an Order consolidating the
two cases and appointing a lead plaintiff pursuant to the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act.

On May 15, 2009, the lead plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint,
and on June 29, 2009, the company filed a Motion to Dismiss that
Amended Complaint. On March 5, 2010, the Court granted the Motion
to Dismiss without prejudice, permitting the lead plaintiff to
file an Amended Complaint.

On March 26, 2010, the lead plaintiff filed a Second Amended
Consolidated Complaint.

On April 30, 2010, NextWave filed the Motion to Dismiss the Second
Amended Complaint and currently is awaiting the lead plaintiff's
expected Opposition to that Motion.

NextWave Wireless Inc. -- http://www.nextwave.com/-- is a
holding company engaged in wireless technology that develops,
produces, and markets mobile multimedia and consumer electronic
connectivity products, including device-embedded software for
mobile handsets, client-server media platforms, media sharing
software for consumer electronics and pocket-sized mobile
broadcast receivers, and manages and maintains wireless spectrum
licenses.  The company's customers include handset and wireless
service providers. NextWave has two segments: Multimedia,
consisting of the operations of its wholly owned subsidiary
PacketVideo Corporation (PV) and Strategic Initiatives, focused
on the management of its wireless spectrum interests.


NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL: Sued for Illegal Deductions for Expenses
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Fossum, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company, et al., Case No.
10-cv-02657 (N.D. Calif. June 17, 2010), accuses the mutual
insurance company of making unlawful deductions from the
commission checks of its Financial Representatives for necessary
business expenses, including fees for cubical rent, telephone,
computer, faxes, parking, marketing materials, and clerical
assistance, in violation of California law; failing to provide
itemized wage statements; failing to pay all wages due upon
resignation or termination of employment; unlawful conversion of
rightfully earned wages for defendants' own use and benefit; and
unlawful business practices in violation of the California
Business and Professions Code.  Mr. Fossum was employed as a
Financial Representative of NML from April 27, 2007, until
March 19, 2009.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          V. James DeSimone, Esq.
          Michael D. Seplow, Esq.
          SCHONBRUN DESIMONE SEPLOW HARRIS & HOFFMAN, LLP
          723 Ocean Front Walk
          Venice, CA 90291
          Telephone: (310) 399-7040
          E-mail: vjdesimone@gmail.com
                  mseplow@gmail.com

               - and -

          Christopher M. Moody, Esq.
          MOODY & WARNER, P.C.
          100 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1800
          Santa Monica, CA 90401
          Telephone: (310) 451-4020
          E-mail: moody@nmlaborlaw.com

"By bringing this lawsuit, our client seeks justice for himself
and other Northwestern Mutual employees and to make sure that the
company complies with California law which prohibits employers
from charging their employees for necessary business expenses.
Unlawfully deducting expenses from employee earnings is a form of
wage theft," stated attorney V. James DeSimone in a press
statement.


NOVELL INC: Board of Directors Face Two Suits in Massachusetts
--------------------------------------------------------------
Novell, Inc.'s Board of Directors face two purported class action
lawsuits in connection with the unsolicited, conditional proposal
from Elliott Associates, L.P., to acquire the company, according
to the company's June 8, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 30,
2010.

The two suits are:

     (1) Waldon v. Hovsepian; and
     (2) Fitzgerald v. Hovsepian.

The suits were filed March 5, 2010, in Massachusetts Superior
Court, Middlesex County.  The complaints name the company's Board
of Directors as defendants, and allege breaches of fiduciary
duties in connection with the unsolicited, conditional proposal
from Elliott Associates to acquire the company for $5.75 per share
in cash.  The complaints do not define a putative class period.

The plaintiffs seek to enjoin further alleged breaches of
fiduciary duty and costs and attorneys' fees.

Novell, Inc. -- http://www.novell.com/-- through its
infrastructure software and ecosystem of business partnerships,
integrate mixed information technology (IT) environments, allowing
people and technology to work as one.  The company has
four segments: Open Platform Solutions, Identity and Security
Management, Systems and Resource Management, and Workgroup.


NUTREX RESEARCH: Accused in N.J. Suit of False Advertising
----------------------------------------------------------
Chris Fry at Courthouse News Service reports that Nutrex
advertises its dietary supplements as "all natural," but uses
drugs in them, including an amphetamine, which is banned by the
World Anti-Doping Agency, according to a class action in Passaic
County Court.

The class sued Nutrex Research, its president and founder Jeffrey
A. McCarrell, and its vice president and co-founder Jens Ingenohl,
all of Oviedo, Fla.  The two men "formulated the product," and
sell them as "Lipo-6 Hers," "Lipo-6 Black" and "Ignite," according
to the complaint.

The class claims Nutrex pushes the products as "sports nutritional
supplements" that "burn fat and allow people to lose weight . . .
as a result of the cocktail of natural stimulants and other
ingredients."

But the key ingredient in all the products is a substance called
"methylsynephrine," which is "another name for a prescription drug
called Oxilofrine," according to the complaint.  It adds that
Oxilofrine is "a stimulant drug of the amphetamine class" that was
developed and "used to treat low blood pressure."

Oxilofrine "is a metabolite of methoxymethamphetamine," commonly
known as PMMA, which is "an illegal designer drug that is
considered a banned substance in numerous countries" and has "been
responsible for deaths of numerous people," according to the
complaint.

The class claims that Oxilofrine "is considered a performance-
enhancing drug" and "is classified as a banned substance by both
the World Anti-Doping Agency and the United States Anti-Doping
Agency."  It claims that "testing of [Nutrex's products] by gas
chromatography confirms" the presence of Oxilofrine.

The fact that "methylsynephrine equals Oxilofrine . . . is common
knowledge in the sports nutrition industry, given the suspension
of numerous athletes" who took products containing it, and then
tested positive for banned substances, according to the complaint.

They plaintiffs say that Nutrex knows about the problem, but
continues to "falsely advertise" that its products are "all
natural," that they do not affect blood pressure and that they do
not contain banned substances.
The class seeks damages for fraud.

A copy of the Complaint in Collucci, et al. v. Nutrex Research,
Inc., et al., Docket No. L-2913-10 (N.J. Super. Ct., Passaic
Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/06/18/Nutrex.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Donald A. Beshada, Esq.
          MILSTEIN, ADELMAN & KREGER, LLP
          200 Riverfront Blvd.
          Elmwood Park, NJ 07407
          Telephone: 862-200-5520

               - and -

          Michael G. Langan, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL G. LANGAN, L.L.C.
          200 Riverfront Blvd.
          Elmwood Park, NJ 07407
          Telephone: 201-300-4738

               - and -

          HARTMANN DOHERTY ROSA BERMAN & BULBULIA, LLC
          65 Route 4 East, Suite 6
          River Edge, NJ 07661
          Telephone: 201-441-9056


PLACENTIA-LINDA HOSPITAL: Notice of ADA Litigation Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
               NOTICE OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

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

You are covered by and will be bound by the settlement of a class
action lawsuit involving physical access barriers at the
facilities of Placentia-Linda Hospital. This Notice is to inform
you of facts that affect your legal rights.

SUMMARY OF LAWSUIT

A class action lawsuit entitled Access Now, Inc. et al. v. AMH
CGH, Inc. et al., Case No. 98-3004-CIV-GOLD/SIMONTON, is currently
pending in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Florida involving disability access at the facilities
of Placentia-Linda Hospital ("the Hospital"). The complaint
alleges on behalf of all disabled individuals that the Hospital is
in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act because it has
failed to provide equal access for persons with disabilities to
the Hospital's facilities. The Hospital denies these allegations.
By entering into a settlement of this action, the Hospital does
not admit that it engaged in any wrongful action or inaction. This
lawsuit has been certified by the Court as a class action. The
named plaintiffs serve as class representatives, and their counsel
are Miguel M. de la O and David E. Marko of the law firm de la O,
Marko, Magolnick, Leyton. Those lawyers serve as counsel for the
class. The Hospital is represented by the law firm Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP.

DEFINITION OF THE CLASS

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

SUMMARY OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT

The named plaintiffs and the Hospital have reached a proposed
settlement of this class action lawsuit, which provides that the
Hospital will make modifications and alterations to its facilities
with the purpose of providing equal access to and usability of the
facilities by persons with disabilities. No money damages are to
be paid to members of the class.

PROCEDURES CONCERNING THE SETTLEMENT

Court Hearing. On August 6, 2010, at 11:00 AM, the court will hold
a hearing at the United States District Court, Southern District
of Florida, Courtroom 11-1, located at 400 North Miami Avenue,
Miami, Florida 33128, to determine whether the proposed settlement
agreement is fair and reasonable.

Objections to the Settlement. If you believe the Court should not
approve the settlement, you may advise the Court of your
objections. In order to be considered, your objections must be in
writing, signed, and sent via first-class mail to: Clerk of the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida,
Courtroom 11-1, 400 North Miami Avenue, Miami, Florida 33128. A
copy should also be mailed to counsel for the class at the address
set forth below. Objections will not be considered by the Court
unless received on or before July 6, 2010. Your written statement
should specify in detail the factual basis and/or legal grounds on
which you base your objections. If you provide written objections,
you may appear in person at the hearing before the Court on August
6, 2010, as described above, to express your views concerning the
settlement. An attorney may also appear at the hearing on your
behalf. If you and/or your attorney intend to appear at the
hearing, you should so advise the Court in the written statement
of your objections. Any class member who fails to file a timely
written objection may not appear before the Court at the hearing
to voice objections relating to the adequacy and/or fairness of
the proposed settlement.

Entry of Judgment. If the settlement is approved by the Court, the
order approving the settlement and a judgment dismissing this
action with prejudice as to Placentia-Linda Hospital will be
entered. You should not expect to receive any further notices
concerning the entry of such order and judgment.

All class members will be bound by the judgment, which will bar
class members from asserting any claims against the Hospital
concerning physical, communication, structural, and program access
barrier. All class members are deemed to have waived the
protection provided by any state law with respect to unknown
claims at the time of a general release, and the general release
forever discharges any claims relating to physical, communication,
structural, and program access barriers, if any, at the Hospital
by a class member whether known or unknown to the class member at
the time of the settlement agreement.

FURTHER INFORMATION

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

         Miguel M. de la O, Esq.
         David E. Marko, Esq.
         de la O, Marko, Magolnick, Leyton
         3001 SW 3rd Ave.
         Miami, FL 33129

or by consulting the public file on the case at the Office of the
Clerk of the Court, United States District Court, Southern
District of Florida, 400 North Miami Avenue, Miami, Florida.

PLEASE FOLLOW THE PROCEDURES SET OUT ABOVE.

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE JUDGE OR THE CLERK OF THE COURT WITH ANY
QUESTION ABOUT THE SETTLEMENT.


RAMSEY COUNTY: Settles Prisoners' Tuberculosis Exposure Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
        NOTICE OF CLASS ACTION AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT

TO: All former inmates of the Ramsey County Correctional
   Facility who were housed in Dorms 100, 200, or 400
   or worked in the kitchen and served meals to Dorm
   200 inmates between April 17, 2008, and June 9, 2008
   and, for any individual who has not been tested in
   the contact investigation prior to April 30, 2010,
   who is still living as of April 30, 2010.

You are hereby notified of:

The conditional certification of a settlement class consisting of
certain persons who were exposed to tuberculosis while at the
Ramsey County Correctional Facility between April 17, 2008, and
June 9, 2008;

The Preliminary approval of a class action settlement under which
Ramsey County: 1. will pay a monetary sum to qualified settlement
class members. 2. will pay a secondary monetary sum to qualified
class members for tuberculosis related complications and side-
effects. 3. will provide medical care and treatment or
pay/reimburse medical care and treatment expenses to qualified
settlement class members.

Your rights as a settlement class member to comment on or object
to, participate in, or exclude your-self from settlement shall be
affected if you delay. The earliest deadline to affect your rights
is July 26, 2010. All interested affected persons should
immediately request a copy of the Notice of Class Action and
Proposed Settlement and Settlement Agreement from the following
attorneys and law firms, who serve as class counsel:

         Jeffrey M. Montpetit, Esq.
         SIEBEN, GROSE, VON HOLTUM & CAREY
         800 Marquette Avenue, Suite 900
         Minneapolis, MN 55402
         Telephone: 612-333-4500
         E-mail: Jeffrey.Montpetit@knowyourrights.com

              - and -

         Robert Bennett, Esq.
         Andrew J. Noel, Esq.
         FLYNN, GASKINS & BENNETT
         333 South 7th Street, Suite 2900
         Minneapolis, MN 55402
         Telephone: 612-333-9500
         E-mail: Rbennett@Flynngaskins.com
                 Anoel@flynngaskins.com


REGAL LAGER: Recalls 3,100 CYBEX 2.GO Infant Carriers
-----------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Regal Lager Inc., of Kennesaw, Ga., announced a voluntary recall
of about 2,700 CYBEX 2.GO Infant Carriers in the United States and
400 in Canada.  Consumers should stop using recalled products
immediately unless otherwise instructed.

A shoulder strap slider buckle can break, posing a fall hazard to
babies.

The firm has received three reports of broken buckles.  No
injuries have been reported.

This recall involves CYBEX 2.GO infant carriers. "CYBEX" is
embroidered on the fabric covering on the top of the head support.
"2.GO" is printed on an orange tag near the head support.  They
were sold in the following colors: chili, indigo, purple and
slate.  Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10267.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold through
Baby furniture and baby product stores nationwide, and on various
websites, from August 2009 through April 2010 for about $100.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled carriers and
contact Regal Lager to receive a free replacement carrier.  For
additional information, contact Regal Lager at (866) 678-8940
between 8:30 a.m. and 5:30 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through
Friday, visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.regallager.com/recallsor email the firm at
info@regallager.com


RHODE ISLAND: 1st Circuit Reinstates Foster Care Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Lynn Arditi at The Providence Journal reports that a federal
appeals court Friday overturned a lower court's dismissal of a
lawsuit accusing the Rhode Island Department of Children, Youth
and Families of widespread abuse and neglect of children in state
foster care.  The 2007 class-action suit -- filed by the New York-
based advocacy group, Children's Rights, and Rhode Island Child
Advocate Jametta O. Alston -- will now be reinstated in the
federal district court in Providence.

In its ruling, the First U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed
Senior U.S. District Judge Ronald R. Lagueux's ruling that "next
friends" Alston had appointed to represent the children on whose
behalf the lawsuit was filed had limited or nonexistent
relationships with the children, and thus lacked the legal
authority to represent them.

The federal panel, which included retired U.S. Supreme Court
Justice David H. Souter, ruled that because the foster children
"lack significant ties with their parents" and are in state
custody, no "significant relationship" is required.


SAINT FRANCIS HOSPITAL: Notice of ADA Litigation Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
               NOTICE OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

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

You are covered by and will be bound by the settlement of a class
action lawsuit involving physical access barriers at the
facilities of Saint Francis Hospital-Bartlett.  This Notice is to
inform you of facts that affect your legal rights.

SUMMARY OF LAWSUIT

A class action lawsuit entitled Access Now, Inc. et al. v. AMH
CGH, Inc. et al., Case No. 98-3004-CIV-GOLD/SIMONTON, is currently
pending in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Florida involving disability access at the facilities
of Saint Francis Hospital-Bartlett ("the Hospital"). The complaint
alleges on behalf of all disabled individuals that the Hospital is
in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act because it has
failed to provide equal access for persons with disabilities to
the Hospital's facilities. The Hospital denies these allegations.
By entering into a settlement of this action, the Hospital does
not admit that it engaged in any wrongful action or inaction. This
lawsuit has been certified by the Court as a class action. The
named plaintiffs serve as class representatives, and their counsel
are Miguel M. de la O and David E. Marko of the law firm de la O,
Marko, Magolnick, Leyton. Those lawyers serve as counsel for the
class. The Hospital is represented by the law firm Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP.

DEFINITION OF THE CLASS

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

SUMMARY OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT

The named plaintiffs and the Hospital have reached a proposed
settlement of this class action lawsuit, which provides that the
Hospital will make modifications and alterations to its facilities
with the purpose of providing equal access to and usability of the
facilities by persons with disabilities. No money damages are to
be paid to members of the class.

PROCEDURES CONCERNING THE SETTLEMENT

Court Hearing. On August 6, 2010, at 11:00 AM, the court will hold
a hearing at the United States District Court, Southern District
of Florida, Courtroom 11-1, located at 400 North Miami Avenue,
Miami, Florida 33128, to determine whether the proposed settlement
agreement is fair and reasonable.

Objections to the Settlement. If you believe the Court should not
approve the settlement, you may advise the Court of your
objections. In order to be considered, your objections must be in
writing, signed, and sent via first-class mail to: Clerk of the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida,
Courtroom 11-1, 400 North Miami Avenue, Miami, Florida 33128. A
copy should also be mailed to counsel for the class at the address
set forth below. Objections will not be considered by the Court
unless received on or before July 6, 2010. Your written statement
should specify in detail the factual basis and/or legal grounds on
which you base your objections. If you provide written objections,
you may appear in person at the hearing before the Court on August
6, 2010, as described above, to express your views concerning the
settlement. An attorney may also appear at the hearing on your
behalf. If you and/or your attorney intend to appear at the
hearing, you should so advise the Court in the written statement
of your objections. Any class member who fails to file a timely
written objection may not appear before the Court at the hearing
to voice objections relating to the adequacy and/or fairness of
the proposed settlement.

Entry of Judgment. If the settlement is approved by the Court, the
order approving the settlement and a judgment dismissing this
action with prejudice as to Placentia-Linda Hospital will be
entered. You should not expect to receive any further notices
concerning the entry of such order and judgment.

All class members will be bound by the judgment, which will bar
class members from asserting any claims against the Hospital
concerning physical, communication, structural, and program access
barrier. All class members are deemed to have waived the
protection provided by any state law with respect to unknown
claims at the time of a general release, and the general release
forever discharges any claims relating to physical, communication,
structural, and program access barriers, if any, at the Hospital
by a class member whether known or unknown to the class member at
the time of the settlement agreement.

FURTHER INFORMATION

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

         Miguel M. de la O, Es.q
         David E. Marko, Esq.
         de la O, Marko, Magolnick, Leyton
         3001 SW 3rd Ave.
         Miami, FL 33129

or by consulting the public file on the case at the Office of the
Clerk of the Court, United States District Court, Southern
District of Florida, 400 North Miami Avenue, Miami, Florida.

PLEASE FOLLOW THE PROCEDURES SET OUT ABOVE.

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE JUDGE OR THE CLERK OF THE COURT WITH ANY
QUESTION ABOUT THE SETTLEMENT.


SINGAPORE POWER: Faces Class Action for Australian Bushfires
------------------------------------------------------------
John Silvester, writing for The Age, reports that lawyers acting
for Black Saturday fire victims on June 19, 2010, lodged legal
documents in Victoria's biggest class action, alleging a private
power company was responsible for a blaze that cost 119 lives.
The statement of claim, lodged in the Supreme Court, alleges
international electricity provider Singapore Power failed to
monitor and maintain the power line that caused the blaze in East
Kilmore, in Victoria, Australia.  One of the key planks to the
case is the allegation that an ageing 1.1-kilometre-line failed
because the power company refused to fit a $10 plastic anti-
vibration protector to guard against metal fatigue.

Lawyers say the action, on behalf of 598 victims, exposes a
potential liability in the hundreds of millions of dollars.  The
total list of litigants could reach 1,300 before the case is
heard.

The plaintiffs in the action include victims who lost family
members or suffered physical injuries, property loss and ongoing
psychological damage.  The case centers on one giant power pole
near Saunders Road, East Kilmore, where the blaze started from a
fallen sparking line about 11.45am on February 7, 2009.

The joint action by Maurice Blackburn and Oldham Naidoo Lawyers
alleges a series of failures and omissions by the Singapore-based
power giant.  The claims, which are yet to be tested, include:

     -- The 1966 single-strand power line should have been
identified as a major risk because it was one of the longest in
Victoria and located in a windy, bushfire-prone area.

     -- Maintenance of country power lines blew out from being
checked every three years to five years after the state's power
network was privatized in 1999.

     -- Visual checks from the base of the 20-metre power pole
could not identify rust and wire deterioration.

     -- Crews failed to identify a structural flaw where a power
wire was not sitting correctly inside its housing.

     -- The power company only fitted the $10 anti-vibration
damper to new lines, ignoring older wires that were more likely to
break.

     -- The circuit-breaker system was not adequate for the
bushfire-prone area, allowing the broken line to spark on tinder-
dry grass.

Maurice Blackburn chairman Bernard Murphy said, "We have heard
strong evidence at the [Bushfires] Royal Commission that Singapore
Power could have taken a number of steps to prevent the
devastating Kilmore East-Kinglake bushfire.

"Electricity distribution companies are commercial enterprises
that have a responsibility to ensure that public safety is not
compromised simply in order to keep costs down. Singapore Power's
failures have had very tragic consequences."

One expert told the royal commission that the power company had a
"run to failure" philosophy and questioned its maintenance
program.  "A run-to-failure policy means simply that you let it go
until it fails," said Professor Nick Hastings, an expert in
electricity maintenance.

Barristers Robert Richter, QC, Tim Tobin, SC, and Lachlan
Armstrong have agreed to prosecute the case on a no-win, no-fee
basis.  The writ seeks the case to be decided by a jury.

The legal action is expected to take years to resolve, with
lawyers from the two firms to take more than 1,000 statements from
victims and to prepare a group of engineers to provide expert
testimony.


SKILLED HEALTHCARE: Testimony, Arguments Phase Conclude
-------------------------------------------------------
The Times-Standard's Matt Drange reports that after months of
examining documents and listening to testimony and arguments, the
fate of the class-action lawsuit against Skilled Healthcare Group
Inc. is in the hands of a Humboldt County jury.

The suit, which spans from 2003 to 2009, represents some 32,000
patients who lived at various Skilled Healthcare facilities
statewide.  At the heart of the case is whether the nursing homes
maintained staffing levels required by the state.  California law
requires that nursing homes maintain 3.2 nursing hours per-
patient, per-day, which is the key point of contention in the case
that spent over 100 days in trial.

Skilled Healthcare's attorney Kippy Wroten, Esq., described
Thursday as a "school day" in her closing arguments as she walked
jurors through a list of questions they now face in their
deliberations.  Ms. Wroten again questioned the formula used to
translate nursing hours into patient care, saying that there were
only a handful of days in which the facilities being sued operated
under the 3.2 nursing hours per-patient per-day standard in
California.

"They don't walk into work every day and say, 'Let's provide
adequate care,'" Ms. Wroten said, pointing to the nurses in
attendance for the final day of arguments.  "They walk in and say,
'Let's provide the best, most loving care we can.'"

Ms. Wroten said that if jurors factor in other staff members --
such as nursing aides -- the facilities operate above the minimum
requirement.

The plaintiffs' attorney Michael Thamer, Esq., then had his chance
for rebuttal, saying the concept of confusion when it comes to how
the hours are counted is an illusion created by the defense
attorneys.  "The concept that these folks are confused is
malarkey," Mr. Thamer told the jury.  "If it is so confusing, how
come no one else in the industry is confused?"

Mr. Thamer said class-action lawsuits are designed for cases like
this one, and dismissed the notion that the plaintiffs in the case
-- there are three named -- should file suits on their own.  After
court adjourned, Mr. Thamer said that it is up to the jury to
decide if Skilled Healthcare is guilty of knowingly acting with
disregard for the well-being of their patients.

Charlene Harrington, a professor of nursing and sociology at the
University of California at San Francisco, testified on behalf of
the plaintiffs in March.  She said arguments over whether the
facilities met the 3.2-hour threshold is irrelevant because it is
too low to begin with.

"It's a laughable standard," said Ms. Harrington, whose research
focuses on the quality and expenditures of nursing home care.  "It
should be at least 4.1."  Ms. Harrington said Skilled Healthcare
is not unique, and that many large corporations are routinely
understaffed.

"They try to keep staffing numbers as low as possible," she said.
"They would rather just pay the fines and hope they don't get
caught."  Ms. Harrington said that an injunction would be a good
start to force nursing homes to at least meet the minimum staffing
requirement.

In a separate report, Mr. Drange says Humboldt County District
Attorney Paul Gallegos presented evidence in a court trial Friday
that he hopes will lead to an injunction against Skilled
Healthcare, mandating the company to keep staffing levels
compliant with the law.

Lawyers for both sides hope to be done with the injunction phase
-- which does not involve the jury -- this week.  If the jury
finds that Skilled Healthcare acted with oppression, fraud or
malice in the case, a subsequent jury trial will take place to
establish the net worth of the company and assess any additional
penalties in the case.

The district attorney's office intervened in the case four years
ago, assisting with collecting witnesses and sifting through
evidence over the past few months.

The case was scheduled to resume Monday.


STATION CASINOS: Reaches Initial Terms on Global Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
Station Casinos, Inc., reached preliminary agreement on the terms
of a global settlement of all claims asserted in the state court
action filed by Josh Luckevich, Cathy Scott and Julie St. Cyr,
according to the company's May 17, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2010.

On February 4, 2008, Josh Luckevich, Cathy Scott and Julie St. Cyr
filed a purported class action complaint against the Company and
certain of its subsidiaries in the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada, Case No. CV-00141.  The plaintiffs are
all former employees of the company or its subsidiaries.  The
complaint alleged that the company:

     (i) failed to pay its employees for all hours worked,
    (ii) failed to pay overtime,
   (iii) failed to timely pay wages, and
    (iv) unlawfully converted certain earned wages.

The complaint in the Federal Court Action sought, among other
relief, class certification of the lawsuit, compensatory damages
in excess of $5,000,000, punitive damages and an award of
attorneys' fees and expenses to plaintiffs' counsel.

On October 31, 2008, the company filed a motion for judgment on
the pleadings.  During a hearing on that motion, the United States
District Court questioned whether it had jurisdiction to
adjudicate the matter.  After briefing regarding the jurisdiction
question, on May 16, 2009, the United States District Court
dismissed the Federal Court Action for lack of jurisdiction and
entered a judgment in the company's favor.

Subsequently, on July 21, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a purported
class action complaint against the company and certain of its
subsidiaries in the District Court of Clark County, Nevada, Case
No. A-09-595614-C.  The complaint in the State Court Action
alleges substantially the same claims that were alleged in the
complaint in the Federal Court Action.

On August 19, 2009, the corporate defendants, other than the
company, filed an answer responding to the complaint.
Subsequently, on August 27, 2009, the corporate defendants, other
than the company, filed a motion to stay the State Court Action
pending the resolution of the company's bankruptcy petition.  That
motion was granted on September 30, 2009.

On April 30, 2010, the company and the plaintiffs reached
preliminary agreement on the terms of global settlement of all
claims asserted in the State Court Action.  The principal terms of
the settlement are:

   (a) The plaintiffs will have an aggregate allowed $5 million
       general unsecured claim in the company's bankruptcy case
       in respect of all of the claims alleged in the State
       Court Action that arose prior to Jan. 28, 2009.

   (b) The company will set aside $1.1 million to pay (i) the
       claims of the plaintiffs that were employed at the
       company and its subsidiaries that are defendants in the
       State Court Action during the period January 28, 2009,
       through the date of the approval of the settlement by the
       Bankruptcy Court, and (ii) the fees and expenses of the
       plaintiffs' counsel.

   (c) The State Court Action will be removed from the state
       court to the Bankruptcy Court.  Upon approval of the
       settlement by the Bankruptcy Court, the State Court
       Action will be dismissed.

The settlement remains subject to final documentation, and will
further require (i) preliminary approval by the Bankruptcy Court,
(ii) notice to the current and former employees covered by the
State Court Action of their right to object to the settlement or
be excluded therefrom; and (iii) final approval by the Bankruptcy
Court.

Station Casinos, Inc. -- http://www.stationcasinos.com/-- is a
gaming and entertainment company that currently owns and
operates nine major hotel/casino properties (one of which is 50%
owned) and eight smaller casino properties (three of which are
50% owned), in the Las Vegas metropolitan area, as well as
manages a casino for a Native American tribe.


SUNOPTA INC: Court Okays Ontario and New York Suit Settlements
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice and the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York have approved
SunOpta Inc.'s agreement to settle all claims raised in class
action proceedings arising from the company's restatement of
interim financial results for the first three quarters of 2007.

The Class Actions were filed against the Company and other named
defendants on behalf of shareholders who purchased or otherwise
acquired SunOpta securities from February 23, 2007 to
January 27, 2008.  Specifically:

   (a) The Ontario class action lawsuit was filed in Canada in
       the Ontario Superior Court of Justice on behalf of
       shareholders who acquired securities of SunOpta between
       May 8, 2007 and January 25, 2008 against the company and
       certain of its officers (one of whom is a director),
       alleging misrepresentation and proposing to seek leave
       from the Ontario court to bring statutory
       misrepresentation civil liability claims under the
       Ontario Securities Act.

   (b) The New York class action lawsuits were filed in the
       United States District Court for the Southern District of
       New York on behalf of shareholders who acquired
       securities of SunOpta between May 8, 2007 and Jan. 25,
       2008, alleging the company's violations of Section 10(b)
       of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
       promulgated thereunder by the SEC.  Additionally, the
       named officers and directors (one of whom is a former
       director) were alleged to have violated Section 20(a) of
       the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The complaints
       alleged different proposed class periods and were
       consolidated into one class action with two lead
       plaintiffs.

The Class Actions Settlement is expected to become effective on
June 17, 2010, upon the expiry of the period for filing any
appeals.

In return for the dismissal of the Class Actions and releases from
Class Members of settled claims against the company and the
remaining named defendants, the settlement agreement provides for
a total cash contribution of US$11.25 million (funded entirely by
the company's insurer) to a settlement fund and the adoption of
certain corporate governance enhancements by the company.  The
corporate governance enhancements include certain amendments to
the Company's Audit Committee Charter and Internal Audit Charter
and the adoption of an enhanced Information Technology Conversion
Policy.

The settlement agreement contains no admission of wrongdoing by
SunOpta or any of the other named defendants and the company and
the other named defendants expressly deny any liability or
wrongdoing in the agreement.

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


TAM S.A.: Remains Party to Four Class Actions
---------------------------------------------
TAM S.A. remains a party to four class actions, one by Panama's
union of tourism companies and the remaining three by the national
airline workers' union.

The total assessed value of those actions was approximately
R$222,000 at Dec. 31, 2008, and according to the company's legal
advisors, R$5,000 correspond to claims with a remote chance of
loss, R$192,000 correspond to claims with a possible chance of
loss, and R$24,000 correspond to claims with a probable chance of
loss.

The company has established provisions totaling R$24,000 at Dec.
31, 2008, in respect of all of these claims.

For specific actions the company has made court deposits totaling
R$1,016,000 to address labor claims.

No further details were reported in the company's June 8, 2010,
Form 20-F/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

Based in Sao Paulo, Brazil, TAM S.A. -- http://www.tam.com.br/--
has business agreements with the regional airlines Pantanal,
Passaredo, Total and Trip.  As of Jan. 14, 2010, the daily flight
on the Corumba -- Campo Grande route in Mato Grosso do Sul began
to be operated by a partnership with Trip.  With the expansion of
the agreement with NHT, TAM will now be serving 82 destinations in
Brazil, 45 of which with its own flights.  In addition, the
company is strengthening its presence in Rio Grande do Sul and
Santa Catarina.


TARGET CORP: Recalls 105,150 Boys' and Girls' Belts
---------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Target Corp. of Minneapolis, Minn., announced a voluntary recall
of about 105,150 Boys' and girls' belts.  Consumers should stop
using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed.

The belt buckles contain excessive levels of lead, violating the
federal lead paint standard.

No injuries or incidents have been reported.

This recall involves two types of belts: The Cherokee boys' belts
and Circo girls' belts.  The Cherokee belts are black and brown
reversible belts with heavy stitching in sizes M-XL.  The belts
came in a pack of two with the numbers 202/08/0018, 202/08/0019 or
202/08/0020 embossed on the belt.  The girls' Circo belts are pink
and white with heart buckles in sizes XS-L.  They were sold in a
2-pack with the numbers 202/05/0071, 202/05/0072, 202/05/0073 or
202/05/0074 listed on the product label attached to the inside of
the belt.  Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10268.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold
exclusively at Target stores and on Target.com nationwide from
December 2008 through December 2009 for between $7 and $9.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled belts and
return them to any Target store to receive a full refund.  For
additional information, contact Target at (800) 440-0680 between
7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Central Time, Monday through Friday or
visit the firm's Web site at http://www.target.com/


TOWERS WATSON: Unit Faces $800 Million Settlement Demand
--------------------------------------------------------
Towers Watson & Co.'s subsidiary, Towers Watson Pennsylvania,
Inc., is facing a settlement demand of a class action lawsuit by
former shareholders amounting to $800 million, according to the
company's Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

On January 1, 2010, pursuant to an Agreement and Plan of Merger,
as amended by Amendment No. 1, Watson Wyatt Worldwide, Inc., and
Towers, Perrin, Forster & Crosby, Inc., combined their businesses
through two simultaneous mergers and became wholly-owned
subsidiaries of Jupiter Saturn Holding Company, which subsequently
changed its name to Towers Watson & Co.  Since the consummation of
the Merger, Towers Perrin changed its name to Towers Watson
Pennsylvania Inc.; and Watson Wyatt changed its name to Towers
Watson Delaware Holdings Inc.

Earlier, on December 9, 2009, Watson Wyatt was informed by Towers
Perrin of a settlement demand from the plaintiffs in a putative
class action lawsuit filed by certain former shareholders of
Towers Perrin -- the Dugan Action.  Although the complaint in the
Dugan Action does not contain a quantification of the damages
sought, plaintiffs' settlement demand, which was orally
communicated to Towers Perrin on December 8, 2009, and in writing
on December 9, 2009, sought a payment of $800 million to settle
the action on behalf of the proposed class.  Plaintiffs requested
that Towers Perrin communicate the settlement demand to Watson
Wyatt.

The complaint was filed on November 5, 2009 against Towers Perrin,
members of its board of directors, and certain members of senior
management in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania.  Plaintiffs in this action are former
members of the Towers Perrin's senior management, who left Towers
Perrin at various times between 1995 and 2000. The Dugan
plaintiffs seek to represent a class of former Towers Perrin
shareholders who separated from service on or after January 1,
1971, and who also meet certain other specified criteria.

Towers Watson -- http://www.towerswatson.com/-- is a leading
global professional services company that helps organizations
improve performance through effective people, risk and financial
management. With 14,000 associates around the world, we offer
solutions in the areas of employee benefits, talent management,
rewards, and risk and capital management.


YTB INTERNATIONAL: Remains a Defendant in Illinois Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
YTB International, Inc., remains a defendant in a consolidated
class action lawsuit in Illinois alleging consumer fraud,
according to the company's May 17, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2010.

On August 8, 2008, a complaint seeking to be certified as a class-
action was filed against the company, three company subsidiaries,
and certain executive officers, in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Illinois.  The complaint alleges that the
defendants violated the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive
Business Practices Act.

On August 14, 2008, a second, substantively similar, complaint was
filed against the same defendants in the Court.  The two cases
have now been consolidated and are proceeding together before the
same judge.  The plaintiffs have filed a consolidated complaint,
seeking damages of over $100 million.

On February 9, 2009, the company filed motions to dismiss the
consolidated complaint.  On June 5, 2009, the Court granted the
company's motions and dismissed the class action complaint, but
granted the plaintiffs leave to file an amended complaint that
conformed with the Court's ruling.

On July 15, 2009, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that
purported to conform to the Court's ruling.  The amended complaint
asserts claims similar to those contained in the dismissed
complaint.  On July 20, 2009, the Court, acting on its own motion,
struck the plaintiffs' amended complaint in its entirety based on
the Court's belief that the amended complaint does not pass muster
under the applicable federal pleading standards.

As of July 27, 2009, the plaintiffs filed motions for leave with
the Court to amend their complaints.  The Court granted their
motions and a second amended complaint was filed on December 24,
2009.

On February 12, 2010, the company filed motions to dismiss the
amended consolidated complaint.  On April 19, 2010, the Court
granted the company's Motion to Dismiss as to all the out-of-state
plaintiffs.  As a result, there is only one remaining plaintiff
who is a citizen of Illinois.

Consequently, the Court has requested further briefing on the
issue of whether the Court retains jurisdiction to hear the matter
when both plaintiffs and defendants are citizens of the same
state.  The additional briefing was due May 19, 2010.

YTB International, Inc. -- http://www.ytb.com/-- provides E-
commerce business solutions for individual consumers and home-
based independent representatives in the United States, Puerto
Rico, the Bahamas, Canada, Bermuda, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
The Company operates through three subsidiaries: ZamZuu, Inc.
(formerly YTB Marketing, Inc.), YTB Travel Network, Inc., and YTB
Franchise Services, Inc.


ZYNEX INC: Remains a Defendant in Securities Suit in Colorado
-------------------------------------------------------------
Zynex, Inc., is still facing a consolidated securities class
action lawsuit in Colorado, according to the company's Form 10-Q
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2010.

On April 6, 2009, a lawsuit was filed against the Company, its
President and Chief Executive Officer and its Chief Financial
Officer in the United States District Court for the District of
Colorado.  On April 9 and April 10 two other lawsuits were filed
in the same court against the same defendants.  These lawsuits
alleged substantially the same matters and have been consolidated.
On April 19, 2010, plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Class Action
Complaint (Civil Action No. 09-cv-00780-REB-KLM).

The consolidated lawsuit refers to the April 1, 2009 announcement
of the Company that it would restate its unaudited interim
financial statements for the first three quarters of 2008.  The
lawsuit purports to be a class action on behalf of purchasers of
the Company's securities between May 21, 2008 and March 31, 2009.

The lawsuit alleges, among other things, that the defendants
violated Section 10 and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 by making intentionally or recklessly untrue statements of
material fact and/or failing to disclose material facts regarding
the financial results and operating conditions for the first three
quarters of 2008 and other misleading statements.  The plaintiffs
ask for a determination of class action status, unspecified
damages and costs of the legal action.

The Company believes that the allegations are without merit and
will vigorously defend itself in the lawsuit. The Company has
notified its directors and officers liability insurer of the
claim.

Zynex, Inc. -- http://www.zynexmed.com/-- engineers,
manufactures, markets, and sells its own design of electrotherapy
medical devices in two distinct markets: standard digital
electrotherapy products for pain relief and pain management; and
the NeuroMove(TM) for stroke and spinal cord injury
rehabilitation.  Zynex's product lines are fully developed, FDA-
cleared, commercially sold, and have been developed to uphold the
company's mission of improving the quality of life for patients
suffering from impaired mobility due to stroke, spinal cord
injury, or debilitating and chronic pain.

                            *********

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  * * *