CAR_Public/100624.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Thursday, June 24, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 123

                            Headlines

ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Georgia Court Dismisses FTC's Claims
ADVANCE AMERICA: Agrees to Settle "Hooper and Vaughn" Suit
ADVANCE AMERICA: Inks Stipulation to Settle South Carolina Suit
AUSTRALIA: Businesses Mull Suit After Nixing of Insulation Program
BFC FINANCIAL: Woodbridge Continues to Defend "Dance" Lawsuit

BFC FINANCIAL: Certification of "Schawrz" Class Still Pending
BP PLC: Beasley Allen Files Four Gulf Oil Spill Lawsuits
BRISTOW GROUP: Continues to Defend Helicopter Services Lawsuit
CAMPBELL SOUP: Recalls 3 Varieties of "SpaghettiOs" with Meatballs
CANADIAN SOLAR: Another Suit Filed on Restatement of Fin'l Report

CHINA ORGANIC: Reaches Preliminary Settlement of "Provo" Lawsuit
CHINA SHENGHUO: Amended New York Consolidated Suit Still Pending
CLARK HOLDINGS: Remains a Defendant in 2009 Multi-Media Suit
COMPUTER SCIENCES: Court Hears Oral Arguments in ERISA Action
COMPUTER SCIENCES: Seeks to Dismiss "Morefield" Complaint

COMVERSE INC: Challenge to Attorney Fees Dropped
DICK'S SPORTING: Court Approves Settlement of "Parks" FLSA Suit
DICK'S SPORTING: Remains a Defendant in "Barrus" FLSA Suit
DOLLAR TREE: Court Adjourns Trial Date on Class Decertification
DOLLAR TREE: California Suit May Proceed to March 2011 Trial

DOLLAR TREE: Awaits Court Ruling on Motion to Alter Dismissal
FLOTEK INDUSTRIES: Amended Texas Securities Action Still Pending
GENESCO INC: Settlement of "Jacobs" Suit Gets Final Approval
GOOGLE INC: Attorneys General Mull Joint Action
IMMUNOSYN CORP: Motion to Dismiss "Campbell" Suit Still Pending

ITURAN LOCATION: Certification Hearing Not Yet Set for Pa. Suit
JPMORGAN: Sup. Ct. to Hear Appeal in Credit Card Suit in October
LG DISPLAY: Appeal on Class Certification Rulings Still Pending
LG DISPLAY: Class Certification in Canada Suit Remains Pending
LG DISPLAY: Settles Shareholder Suit in New York

LG DISPLAY: Faces Suit by Korea Exchange Securities Purchasers
MALAYSIA: Hindraf to Help Civic Groups Retrieve Ill-Gotten Wealth
NAVISTAR INT'L: Agrees to Non-Binding Mediation in Illinois Suit
NAVISTAR INT'L: Virginia Court Dismisses Claims
NEXTERA ENERGY: Removes "Robinson" Labor Suit to N.D. California

NVIDIA CORP: Court Hears Consumer Class Certification Motion
NVIDIA CORP: Seeks Dismissal of Calif. Securities Class Suit
PALL CORP: Consolidated Securities Suit Ongoing in New York
PERFORMANCE CAPITAL: Consumer-Related Class Action Still Pending
PFIZER INC: Accused in N.J. Suit of Misleading Investors

PFIZER INC: Loses Bid to Halt Trial in Hormone Replacement Case
QUINNIPIAC UNIVERSITY: Trial in Volleyball Suit Begins
RED ROBIN: Moreno Action Stayed Pending Supreme Court Review
ROSS STORES: Defends Wage and Hour Lawsuit in California
SEARS HOLDINGS: Court Okay of "Levie" Appeal Settlement Pending

SHUFFLE MASTER: Nevada Grants Final Approval to Settlement Pact
SIGMA PHARMA: Disgruntled Shareholders Seek Settlement Talks
SINGAPORE POWER: Aussie Unit to "Vigorously" Defend Bushfire Suit
SYMYX TECHNOLOGIES: Stockholders File Consolidated Complaint
TOLL BROTHERS: Defends Amended Securities Violations Suit

TOLL BROTHERS: Defends Three Defective Drywall Suits
TOYOTA MOTOR: Economic-Loss Claims May Be Difficult to Advance
UNITED KINGDOM: Faces Suit Before ICC for Human Rights Breach
UNITED POTATO: Sued in Idaho for Alleged Price-Fixing
VERIZON WIRELESS: 3rd Cir. Reinstates Settlement in FACTA Suit

WELLS FARGO: Class Certification Inappropriate in Chapter 13 Case
WELLS FARGO: Removes "Reduction of HELOC" Lawsuit to N.D. Calif.
WHOLE FOODS: Continues to Defend Kottaras Antitrust Lawsuit
WORLDSPACE INC: Shareholder Plaintiffs Seek to Conduct Discovery

* Settlements in 103 Class Suits in 2009 Net $3.83 Billion


                            *********

ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Georgia Court Dismisses FTC's Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
partially granted Solvay Pharmaceuticals, Inc.'s motion to dismiss
several lawsuits.  The ruling dismisses all of the claims of the
Federal Trade Commission and all of the plaintiffs' claims except
those alleging sham litigation, according to Abbott Laboratories'
June 9, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

Several lawsuits filed against Unimed Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,
Solvay Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (a company Abbott acquired in
February 2010) et al. have been consolidated for pre-trial
purposes in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia under the Multi District Litigation Rules as
In re AndroGel Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2084.

These cases, brought by private plaintiffs and the FTC, generally
allege Solvay's 2006 patent litigation involving AndroGel was sham
litigation and the patent litigation settlement agreement and
related agreements with three generic companies violate federal
and state antitrust laws and state consumer protection laws.

Plaintiffs generally seek monetary damages or injunctive relief
and attorneys' fees.

MDL 2084 includes:

     (a) 2 individual plaintiff lawsuits;
     (b) 8 purported class actions; and
     (c) a lawsuit brought by the FTC.

In February 2010, Solvay's motion to dismiss the cases was
partially granted and all of the FTC's claims and all of the
plaintiffs' claims except those alleging sham litigation were
dismissed.

In April 2010, Supervalu, Inc., an individual plaintiff, filed a
lawsuit against Abbott in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia asserting substantially the same
allegations as the plaintiffs above and seeking monetary damages
or injunctive relief and attorneys' fees.

Abbott Laboratories -- http://www.abbott.com/-- is a global,
broad-based health care company devoted to the discovery,
development, manufacture and marketing of pharmaceuticals and
medical products, including nutritionals, devices and diagnostics.
The company employs approximately 83,000 people and markets its
products in more than 130 countries.


ADVANCE AMERICA: Agrees to Settle "Hooper and Vaughn" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Advance America, Cash Advance Centers, Inc., has agreed to settle
the matter Hooper and Vaughn v. Advance America, Cash Advance
Centers of Missouri, Inc., pending in the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Missouri, according to the company's June
9, 2010, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

On May 27, 2010, the company and the class representatives in the
class action lawsuit entered into a Stipulation and Agreement of
Settlement for the purpose of resolving all claims in connection
with certain loan transactions originated by the company's
Missouri subsidiary from March 10, 2003, through
July 9, 2010.

The Settlement Agreement is subject to court approval and certain
other conditions before it becomes final.

Pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement and subject to
court approval, the parties to the litigation have, without
admitting fact, fault, or liability, agreed to the following terms
and conditions:

     (1) The company will establish a settlement pool of
         approximately $2.0 million for: (i) payment of all
         attorney fees, class action administration fees, and
         other fees and expenses related to the litigation; and
         (ii) payments and/or credits to settle the claims of
         certain customers of the Company's Missouri subsidiary;

     (2) The company will offer discounts: (i) on the repayment
         of certain defaulted loans; and (ii) on fees to certain
         class members for future loans; and

     (3) The company and all other defendants will be released
         from any and all claims associated with the class
         action lawsuit.

The company expects to reserve approximately $2.0 million for the
settlement of the Missouri class action lawsuit, which will result
in a charge against earnings in the second quarter of 2010.

Advance America, Cash Advance Centers, Inc. --
http://www.advanceamerica.net/-- provides cash advance services,
with approximately 2,600 centers and 71 limited licensees in 32
states, the United Kingdom, and Canada.  The company offers
convenient, less-costly credit options to consumers whose needs
are not met by traditional financial institutions.  The company is
a founding member of the Community Financial Services Association
of America, whose mission is to promote laws that provide
substantive consumer protections and to encourage responsible
industry practices.


ADVANCE AMERICA: Inks Stipulation to Settle South Carolina Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Advance America, Cash Advance Centers, Inc., has agreed to settle
the a consolidated class action lawsuit in South Carolina,
according to the company's June 9, 2010, Form 8-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

On June 2, 2010, the company, several other unaffiliated
defendants, and the class representatives in a consolidated class
action lawsuit ("South Carolina Plaintiffs") entered into a
Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement to resolve all claims in
connection with certain loan transactions originated by the
company's South Carolina subsidiary from Aug. 27, 2004, through
Dec. 31, 2009.

The Company recorded a charge during the fourth quarter of 2009 of
approximately $900,000 to cover the estimated costs of the
settlement (based on a December 2009 agreement in principle with
the South Carolina Plaintiffs).

Although the Settlement Agreement is subject to court approval and
certain other conditions before it becomes final, the company does
not currently expect to incur any additional charges in
conjunction with this settlement.

The Settlement Agreement provides that the company and all other
defendants will be released from any and all claims associated
with the consolidated class action lawsuit.

Advance America, Cash Advance Centers, Inc. --
http://www.advanceamerica.net/-- provides cash advance services,
with approximately 2,600 centers and 71 limited licensees in 32
states, the United Kingdom, and Canada.  The company offers
convenient, less-costly credit options to consumers whose needs
are not met by traditional financial institutions.  The company is
a founding member of the Community Financial Services Association
of America, whose mission is to promote laws that provide
substantive consumer protections and to encourage responsible
industry practices.


AUSTRALIA: Businesses Mull Suit After Nixing of Insulation Program
------------------------------------------------------------------
ABC News in Australia said business owners who were caught out by
the scrapping of the national insulation program were to meet
Monday to decide whether to launch a class action against the
Federal Government.  They are seeking compensation for the damage
they say they suffered when the Prime Minister axed the
government-subsidized home insulation scheme.  The Federal
Government is spending A$56 million to help businesses maintain
their inventory and retrain staff.  But many businesses say it's
nowhere near enough.


BFC FINANCIAL: Woodbridge Continues to Defend "Dance" Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
BFC Financial Corp.'s subsidiary, Woodbridge Holdings Corp.
formerly known as Levitt Corp., continues to defend a purported
class-action complaint filed by Robert D. Dance in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida, according
to the company's May 21, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2010.

Mr. Dance filed the class-action complaint on Jan. 25, 2008, in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida as a
putative purchaser of securities against Woodbridge and certain of
its officers and directors, asserting claims under the federal
securities law and seeking damages.

The action is captioned, Dance v. Levitt Corp. et al., No. 08-CV-
60111-DLG.

The securities litigation purports to be brought on behalf of
all purchasers of Woodbridge's securities beginning on Jan. 31,
2007 and ending on Aug. 14, 2007.

BFC Financial Corp. -- http://www.bfcfinancial.com/-- is a
holding company.  Its ownership interests include direct and
indirect interests in businesses in a variety of sectors,
including consumer and commercial banking, master-planned
community development, time-share and vacation ownership, an
Asian-themed restaurant chain and various real estate and
venture capital investments.  BFC's holdings consist of direct
controlling interests in BankAtlantic Bancorp, Inc. and Levitt
Corporation.  BFC owns a direct investment in Benihana, Inc. BFC
itself has no significant operations other than activities
relating to the monitoring of existing investments.  BFC
operates through six segments: BFC Activities, Financial
Services and four segments within its Real Estate Development
Division.


BFC FINANCIAL: Certification of "Schawrz" Class Still Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
No decision has been made with respect to the requested
certification of a class action brought by Paul A. and Barbara S.
Schwarz, according to BFC Financial Corporation's May 21, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

The Schwarz Plaintiffs filed the lawsuit, Cause No. 2008-5U-cv-
1358-WI, against Bluegreen Communities of Georgia, LLC, and
Bluegreen Corporation on September 18, 2008, alleging fraud and
misrepresentation with regards to the construction of a marina at
the Sanctuary Cove subdivision located in Camden County, Georgia.

The Plaintiffs subsequently withdrew the fraud and
misrepresentation counts and replaced them with a count alleging
violation of racketeering laws, including mail fraud and wire
fraud.

On January 25, 2010, the Plaintiffs filed a second complaint
seeking approval to proceed with the lawsuit as a class action on
behalf of more than 100 persons who claim to be harmed by the
alleged activities in a similar manner as the Plaintiffs.

Bluegreen denies the allegations and intends to vigorously defend
the lawsuit.

BFC Financial Corp. -- http://www.bfcfinancial.com/-- is a
holding company.  Its ownership interests include direct and
indirect interests in businesses in a variety of sectors,
including consumer and commercial banking, master-planned
community development, time-share and vacation ownership, an
Asian-themed restaurant chain and various real estate and
venture capital investments.  BFC's holdings consist of direct
controlling interests in BankAtlantic Bancorp, Inc. and Levitt
Corporation.  BFC owns a direct investment in Benihana, Inc. BFC
itself has no significant operations other than activities
relating to the monitoring of existing investments.  BFC
operates through six segments: BFC Activities, Financial
Services and four segments within its Real Estate Development
Division.


BP PLC: Beasley Allen Files Four Gulf Oil Spill Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------
From June 2 to 17, 2010, the law firm of Beasley, Allen, Crow,
Methvin, Portis & Miles, P.C. filed four lawsuits against BP plc
and several other companies with ties to the Deepwater Horizon
oil spill:

     (1) On June 2, 2010, Beasley Allen filed a lawsuit on behalf
of Sandcastle Escapes, LLC, a real estate management company,
which has incurred damages related to the disaster, including:
loss of profits and earning capacity.

As oil continues to spew from the undersea well at estimated rates
between 5,000 and 60,000 barrels per day, vacationers who rent
properties along the Gulf coast are canceling their plans to head
to the beach this summer.  As a result, rental agencies such as
Sandcastle Escapes are losing revenues that they depend on to
sustain their businesses and support their families.

"The Gulf Coast used to be known for sugar white beaches, but now
the Gulf Coast is known for the unprecedented environmental
catastrophe of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill," Rhon Jones, Esq.,
head of Beasley Allen's Environmental Law section, said.  "Due to
this disaster, the usually busy tourist season has come to a crawl
as vacationers are afraid to keep or make reservations to visit.
With each failed attempt to stop the leak, businesses along the
Gulf lose hope that their livelihood will be restored any time
soon."

Experts say Florida has the most to lose, economically, as a
result of canceled vacation plans.  Tourism is a significant
economic engine for the state, generating $60 billion in spending
from more than 80 million visitors a year. Statewide, tourism
accounts for 21 percent of all sales tax and employs nearly 1
million people.  In Northwest Florida, which includes the Gulf
Coast region, tourism revenues from lodging accounted for more
than $2.5 million just in the first quarter of 2009, from January
2009 to March 2009.

The oil spill comes at what would normally be the beginning of the
most profitable time for the Gulf Coast region, which
traditionally collects almost 73% of its lodging revenues in the
second and third quarters (April-September).  Early estimates
since the spill indicate tourism in the area may be down by 30% to
50% this summer.

The suit is filed in federal court in the Northern District of
Florida on behalf of plaintiff Sandcastle Escapes, LLC, and seeks
damages for loss of income, booking fees, or commissions from
rental properties and other damages related to the disaster.  The
suit alleges Negligence and wanton misconduct.  Defendants named
in the suit are BP, Halliburton, and Cameron International.

A full-text copy of the Adventure Sports complaint is available at
no charge at http://is.gd/cYSwA

     (2) On June 11, 2010, Beasley Allen filed a lawsuit on behalf
of Martin R. Cressey d/b/a Bohica Fishing Charters, a charter
fishing guide, who has incurred damages related to the disaster,
including loss of profits, business income, and earning capacity.

As oil continues to spew from the undersea well at estimated rates
between 5,000 and 60,000 barrels per day, the list of areas in the
Gulf of Mexico closed to commercial and charter fishing grows. The
spill could not have come at a worse time, as the peak saltwater-
fishing season along the Gulf Coast starts in March and continues
throughout the summer. Bookings include private groups and fishing
tournaments, both of which are seeing major cancellations as oil
ruins what were prime fishing grounds. Even with some areas still
open, visitors who might have booked a charter excursion are
skittish due to fears that fish will be tainted by the spill.

"This is the worst possible time for a catastrophe like this, just
at the beginning of peak fishing and tourist season along the Gulf
Coast," Mr. Jones said.  "The charter fishing industry is hit with
a double-whammy. They are losing business because some areas are
now off limits to fishing and they can't take people there. Plus,
bookings are down for the areas that are open because tourists and
fishing tournaments are afraid of fumes and oily beaches and
waters."

The suit is filed in federal court in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana on behalf of plaintiff
Martin R. Cressey d/b/a Bohica Fishing Charters, and seeks damages
for real and personal property, earning capacity, business income,
and other damages related to the disaster.  The suit alleges
Negligence and wanton misconduct.  Defendants named in the suit
are BP, Halliburton, and Cameron International.

A full-text copy of the Bohica Fishing complaint is available at
no charge at http://is.gd/cYSE1

Bohica Fishing is represented by:

     Roman A. Shaul, Esq.
     Jere L. Beasley, Esq.
     Rhon E. Jones, Esq.
     Andy D. Birchfield, Esq.
     David B. Byrne, III, Esq.
     John E. Tomlinson, Esq.
     J. Parker Miller, Esq.
     A. Brantley Fry, Esq.
     BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, P.C.
     218 Commerce Street
     Montgomery, AL 36104
     Telephone: (334) 269-2343

          - and -

     Edward Landry, Esq.
     LANDRY, WATKINS, REPASKE & BREAUX
     211 E. Main Street
     Post Office Drawer 12040
     New Iberia, LA 70562-2040
     Telephone: (337) 364-7626
     Facsimile: (337) 367-2715
     E-mail: edward.landry@landrywatkins.com

     (3) On June 14, 2010, Beasley Allen filed a lawsuit on behalf
of Charles Evans, who makes a living as a commercial fishing
deckhand.  He has incurred damages related to the BP oil spill
disaster, including loss of profits, business income, and earning
capacity.

As oil continues to spew from the undersea well at estimated rates
between 5,000 and 60,000 barrels per day, the commercial fishing
industry is feeling the pinch of restrictions and closures of
prime waters.  The disaster came at what would have been the
beginning of harvest season, the busiest time for an industry
valued as a $1.9 billion business along the Gulf Coast.  Even
worse is the predicted long-term damage to marine environments and
estuaries essential for the future of fishing in the Gulf,
spelling an uncertain outlook for the industry and its workforce.
In 2008, commercial fishermen in the Gulf of Mexico harvested more
than 1 billion pounds of fish and shellfish, and the industry
accounted for 1 out of every 17 jobs.

"The impact the oil spill has on commercial fishing is huge and
wide ranging," Mr. Jones said.  "If the ocean is contaminated with
oil, there isn't some other place the commercial fishing industry
can go to harvest seafood and make a living. This disaster hits at
the heart of the industry -- the ocean itself.  From there, people
up and down the chain are feeling a significant economic impact
with no end in sight."

The suit is filed in federal court in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Florida Pensacola Division on
behalf of plaintiff Charles Evans, who is a commercial fishing
deckhand for the licensed commercial fishing vessel "Family
Pride."  His income is significantly derived from access to open
fishing waters in Florida, Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana.
The suit seeks damages for real and personal property, earning
capacity, business income, and other damages related to the
disaster.  The suit alleges Negligence and wanton misconduct.
Defendants named in the suit are BP, Halliburton, and Cameron
International.

A full-text copy of the Evans complaint is available at no charge
at http://is.gd/cYSBf

Mr. Evans is represented by:

     Richard D. Stratton, Esq.
     BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, P.C.
     218 Commerce Street
     Montgomery, AL 36104
     Telephone: (334) 269-2343
     Facsimile: (334) 954-7555
     E-mail: rick.stratton@beasleyallen.com

     (4) On June 17, 2010, Beasley Allen filed a lawsuit on behalf
of Adventure Sports II, Inc., a SCUBA diving business, which has
incurred damages related to the BP oil spill disaster, including
loss of profits, business income, and earning capacity.

Current estimates say between 40.7 million and 114.5 million
gallons of oil already have spilled into the Gulf of Mexico since
the Deepwater Horizon oil rig exploded on April 20, and oil
continues to spew from the undersea well every day.  Beaches up
and down the Gulf Coast have been closed to swimmers, and visitors
who are ordinarily drawn to the area's emerald waters are
canceling plans.  But even in areas where waters are open and
diving is safe, travelers are staying away out of fear about oil
contamination.  According to the Adventure Travel Trade
Association, dive industry sales total more than $800 million
annually.

"The SCUBA diving business is taking a double hit, impacted by
actual oil spill damages, and the fear that surrounds reports of
the leak's effect on the Gulf of Mexico," Mr. Jones said.  "Even
when the water is clean and safe and dive sites are open, many
travelers are still avoiding the Gulf Coast because of
misconceptions about where the oil is now, and fears about where
it might spread in the coming weeks and months."

The suit is filed in Middle District of Alabama on behalf of
Adventure Sports II, Inc., a SCUBA diving business located in
Montgomery, Ala., that does significant business in the Gulf of
Mexico.  The suit seeks damages for earning capacity, business
income, and other damages related to the disaster.  The suit
alleges Negligence and wanton misconduct. Defendants named in the
suit are BP, Halliburton, and Cameron International.

A full-text copy of the Adventure Sports complaint is available at
no charge at http://is.gd/cYSwA

Adventure Sports is represented by:

     Jere L. Beasley, Esq.
     Rhon E. Jones, Esq.
     David B. Byrne, III, Esq.
     John E. Tomlinson, Esq.
     Christopher D. Boutwell, Esq.
     J. Parker Miller, Esq.
     A. Brantley Fry, Esq.
     BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, P.C.
     218 Commerce Street
     Montgomery, AL 36104
     Telephone: (334) 269-2343


BRISTOW GROUP: Continues to Defend Helicopter Services Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bristow Group Inc. continues to defend a purported class action
complaint relating to its offshore helicopter services, according
to the company's May 21, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended March
31, 2010.

Superior Offshore International, Inc., v. Bristow Group Inc., et
al., Case No. 09-cv-00438 (D. Del.) (Davis, J.), was filed on
June 12, 2009.  It also names Era Helicopters LLC, SEACOR Holdings
Inc., Era Group Inc., Era Aviation Inc. and PHI Inc. as
defendants.

The purported class action complaint, which also names other
providers of offshore helicopter services in the Gulf of Mexico
as defendants, alleges violations of Section 1 of the Sherman
Act.  Among other things, the complaint alleges that the
defendants unlawfully conspired to raise and maintain the price
of offshore helicopter services between Jan. 1, 2001 and
Dec. 31, 2005.

The plaintiff seeks to represent a purported class of direct
purchasers of offshore helicopter services and is asking for,
among other things, unspecified treble monetary damages and
injunctive relief.

Bristow Group Inc. -- http://www.bristowgroup.com/-- is a
provider of helicopter services to the offshore energy industry
with global operations.  The company has operations in offshore
oil and gas producing regions, including North Sea, the United
States Gulf of Mexico, Nigeria, Australia and Latin America.  It
generated 76% of its revenues from international operations in
fiscal year ended March 31, 2009. The Helicopter Services segment
operations are conducted through three divisions, Western
Hemisphere, Eastern Hemisphere and Global Training.  Western
Hemisphere includes United States (US) Gulf of Mexico, Arctic,
Latin America and Western Hemisphere (WH) Centralized Operations.
Eastern Hemisphere includes Europe, West Africa, Southeast Asia,
Other International and Eastern Hemisphere (EH) Centralized
Operations.


CAMPBELL SOUP: Recalls 3 Varieties of "SpaghettiOs" with Meatballs
------------------------------------------------------------------
Campbell Soup Company is voluntarily recalling three varieties of
"SpaghettiOs" with Meatballs due to possible under-processing.

There is no information indicating that any under-processed
product has reached consumers.  In an abundance of caution, the
three varieties of "SpaghettiOs" with Meatballs products that may
have been under-processed are being retrieved from the
marketplace.

This recall involves "SpaghettiOs" with Meatballs in 14.75-ounce
cans; "SpaghettiOs" A to Z with Meatballs in 14.75-ounce cans; and
"SpaghettiOs" Fun Shapes with Meatballs (Cars) in 14.75-ounce
cans.  Any of these products bearing a "Use By" date between June
2010 and December 2011 with the plant code EST4K are affected by
this recall.  The products have the following individual codes on
the bottom of the cans:

                                      JUL XX 2010           YYYYY
SpaghettiOs with Meatballs            EST4K 9G     * U5 *   XXXX

                                      JUL XX 2010           YYYYY
SpaghettiOs with Meatballs A to Z     EST4K 9G     * 4N *   XXXX

SpaghettiOs Fun Shapes with           JUL XX 2010           YYYYY
Meatballs (Cars)                      EST4K 9G     * KS *   XXXX

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

                        http://is.gd/cYAZn

The recalled products were manufactured in Paris, Texas, and sold
through retail customers nationwide.  The recall is limited to the
U.S. The problem was discovered through a routine warehouse
inspection and subsequent investigation.  Consumers who have
purchased these products should not eat them.  Consumers should
return the products to the store where they were purchased for an
exchange or full refund.  Consumers also can call 1-866-495-3774
for more information.


CANADIAN SOLAR: Another Suit Filed on Restatement of Fin'l Report
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Faruqi & Faruqi, 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 Canadian Solar, Inc., common stock
between May 26, 2009 and June 1, 2010, inclusive.

Canadian Solar and certain of its officers and directors are
charged with issuing a series of materially false and misleading
statements in violation of federal securities laws.  Specifically,
the Complaint alleges that defendants failed to disclose: (1) the
Company's Financial results were overstated during the Class
Period as the Company recorded revenue from sales for which it had
not been paid; (2) that the Company had not properly accounted for
certain goods that had been returned after the end of the fourth
quarter of 2009; (3) the Company lacked adequate internal and
financial controls; and (4) that, as a result of the above, the
Company's financial statements were material false and misleading
at all relevant times.

On June 1, 2010, Canadian Solar disclosed that it was postponing
the release of its full financial results for the first quarter
ended March 31, 2010, as a result of the commencement of an
investigation by the SEC.  Moreover, the Company's Audit Committee
of the Board of Directors retained outside counsel and independent
forensic accountants to assist in reviewing the transactions
referenced above.  The Company also disclosed that it may revise
its net revenue numbers for the 2009 fiscal fourth quarter.  These
revelations shocked the market, sending shares of Canadian Solar
down over 14% on June 2, 2010 alone.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of himself and all
other individual and institutional investors who purchased or
otherwise acquired Canadian Solar common stock between May 26,
2009 through June 1, 2010, excluding defendants and their
affiliates.  Plaintiff is represented by Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a
law firm with extensive experience in prosecuting class actions
and actions involving corporate fraud.

If you wish to obtain information concerning joining this action
you can do so under the "Join Lawsuit" section of our Web site at
http://www.faruqilaw.com/

If you purchased Canadian Solar common stock during the Class
Period, you may, not later than August 2, 2010, move the court to
serve as lead plaintiff of the class, if you so choose. In order
to serve as lead plaintiff, however, you must meet certain legal
requirements. If you wish to discuss this action, or have any
questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests,
please contact:

The case is Said Saber, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. Canadian Solar Inc., Arthur Chien and Shawn
Qu, Case No. 10-cv-04706 (S.D.N.Y).  A full-text copy of the
complaint is available at no charge at:

                        http://is.gd/cYMyJ

The plaintiffs are represented by:

     Nadeem Faruqi, Esq.
     Shane T. Rowley, Esq.
     Antonio Vozzolo, Esq.
     FARUQI & FARUQI LLP
     369 Lexington Avenue, 10th Fl.
     New York, NY 10017
     Telephone: (212) 983-9330
     Facsimile: (212) 983-9331
     E-mail: Avozzolo@faruqilaw.com

          - and -

     RYAN & MANISKAS, LLP
     Katharine M. Ryan, Esq.
     Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
     995 Old Eagle School Rd., Ste., 311
     Wayne, PA 19087
     Telephone: (484) 588-5516


CHINA ORGANIC: Reaches Preliminary Settlement of "Provo" Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
China Organic Agriculture, Inc., has reached a preliminary
settlement of a class action lawsuit filed in December 2008 for an
amount of $300,000 in cash and $300,000 worth of the Company's
stock, according to the Company's May 24, 2010 Form
10-Q filing to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2010.

The class-action lawsuit was filed by Lance C. Provo, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York against the company,
past officers and directors of the company, and one current
director of the company.

The lawsuit alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act 0f
1934, as amended.  It asserts that the Defendants disseminated
false and misleading statements or concealed materially adverse
facts causing members of the class to purchase the company's stock
at inflated prices, and engaged in other improper actions,
including divesting the company of its sole productive asset and
acquiring a luxury retreat for the use of the Defendants.

The lawsuit seeks as relief civil penalties, attorney's fees, and
disgorgement.

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


CHINA SHENGHUO: Amended New York Consolidated Suit Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
China Shenghuo Pharmaceutical Holdings, Inc., notes in its Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that
there are no pertinent updates on the amended consolidated lawsuit
commenced against it with respect to securities it issued.

Putative class action lawsuits were originally filed in 2008
against the Company and certain other parties in the U.S. Court
for the Southern District of New York.  The Complaint was amended
on February 12, 2009, and served on the Company by new lead
counsel for the class, consolidating the putative class actions
and bearing the caption Beni Varghese, Individually and on Behalf
of All Other Similarly Situated v. China Shenghuo Pharmaceutical
Holdings, Inc., et al., Index No. 1:08 CIV. 7422. The defendants
include the Company, the Company's controlling shareholders, Lan's
International Medicine Investment Co., Limited, the Company's
chief executive officer, Gui Hua Lan, the Company's former chief
financial officer, Qiong Hua Gao, and the Company's former
independent registered public accounting firm, Hansen, Barnett &
Maxwell, P.C.

Both the Company and the accounting firm filed motions to dismiss
the Complaint.  Those motions, however, were denied by the Court.

A scheduling order has been entered by the Court anticipating that
the parties will engage in substantive discovery in 2010.

The amended consolidated complaint alleges that the Company failed
to take adequate steps to ensure its financial reporting comported
with U.S. GAAP and, as a result, the Company was required to
restate what are alleged to be materially false and misleading
financials for accounting periods during the alleged class period
from August 2007 through August 20, 2008.  The amended
consolidated complaint further alleges, among other things, that
certain of the Company's SEC filings and other public statements
contained false and misleading statements that resulted in damages
to the plaintiffs and the members of the purported class when they
purchased the Company's securities.

On the basis of the allegations, plaintiffs in each of the actions
seek an unspecified amount of damages under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated there under.

The Company believes the allegations in the amended consolidated
complaint are without merit, and intends to vigorously defend the
class action lawsuits.

China Shenghuo Pharmaceutical Holdings, Inc. --
http://www.shenghuo.com.cn/-- is a specialty pharmaceutical
company that focuses on the research, development, manufacture
and marketing of Sanchi-based medicinal and pharmaceutical,
nutritional supplement and cosmetic products.  Through its
subsidiary, Kunming Shenghuo Pharmaceutical (Group) Co., Ltd., it
owns thirty SFDA (State Food and Drug Administration) approved
medicines, including the flagship product Xuesaitong Soft
Capsules, which has already been listed in the Insurance
Catalogue.  At present, China Shenghuo incorporates a sales
network of agencies and representatives throughout China, which
markets Sanchi-based traditional Chinese medicine to hospitals
and drug stores as prescription and OTC drugs primarily for the
treatment of cardiovascular, cerebrovascular and peptic ulcer
disease.  The company also exports medicinal products to Asian
countries such as Indonesia, Singapore, Japan, Malaysia, and
Thailand and to European countries such as the United Kingdom,
Tajikistan, Russia and Kyrgyzstan.


CLARK HOLDINGS: Remains a Defendant in 2009 Multi-Media Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Clark Holdings, Inc., continues to defend itself in a complaint
commenced by Multi-Media International in July 2009, according to
Company's May 24, 2010 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
April 3, 2010.

The complaint was filed by Multi-Media International on or about
July 10, 2009, against CGI and its subsidiaries, Clark
Distribution Systems, Inc., Highway Distribution Systems, Inc.,
Clark Worldwide Transportation, Inc. and Evergreen Express Lines,
seeking class action status in the U.S District Court for the
District of New Jersey.

Multi-Media alleges, among other things, (i) common law fraud,
aiding and abetting fraud, negligent misrepresentation,
conversion and unjust enrichment, (ii) violation of N.J. Stat.
Section 56:8-2 and (iii) breach of good faith and fair dealing,
relating to alleged excessive fuel surcharges by the Subsidiaries.

The complaint alleges a class period from June 25, 2002 through
June 25, 2009.

On behalf of the punitive class, the Plaintiff seeks to recover
alleged excessive fuel charges, enjoin the alleged improper
calculation of fuel charges by the defendants and impose punitive
damages and attorney's fees.  The complaint did not specify an
amount of damages; however, a prior complaint seeking similar
relief on behalf of the same class, which was withdrawn, sought
compensatory damages in the amount of $10 million and punitive
damages in the amount of $30 million, as described in the
Company's 2008 Form 10-K filing.

The Company believes that the allegations in the lawsuit are
without merit.

Clark Holdings Inc. -- http://www.glacteam.com-- formerly
Global Logistics Acquisition Corporation, is a transportation
management and logistics services company whose core business is
the shipment of mass market consumer magazines throughout the
U.S. and between the United States and other countries.  The
company was a blank check company formed primarily to effect a
merger, capital stock exchange, asset acquisition or other
similar business combination with an operating business in the
transportation and logistics sector and related industries.  It
did not engage in any substantive commercial business until it
consummated its business combination with The Clark Group, Inc.
(Clark) on Feb. 12, 2008.  Clark owns Clark Distribution Systems
Inc. (CDS) and Highway Distribution Systems Inc., through which
the company conducts its domestic operations; and Clark
Worldwide Transportation Inc. (CWT), which carries out
operations overseas. Holdings is considered to be in the
development stage.


COMPUTER SCIENCES: Court Hears Oral Arguments in ERISA Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in a consolidated ERISA class action against Computer
Sciences Corp. appeared before a California court for oral
arguments on June 10, 2010.  CSC made the disclosure in its Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended April 2, 2010.

The first ERISA Class Action, filed on August 15, 2006, alleges
stock options backdating against CSC and miscellaneous violations
of ERISA fiduciary duties with respect to CSC's 401(k) plan.  It
was filed in the U.S. District Court in the Eastern District of
New York entitled Quan, et al. v. CSC, et al., 06-cv-3927.

A related ERISA Class Action, filed on September 21, 2006, was
commenced in the same court entitled Gray, et al. v. CSC, et al.,
06-cv-5100.

The ERISA complaints named as defendants CSC, CSC's Retirement and
Employee Benefits Plans Committee and various directors and
officers.  The two ERISA actions were consolidated and, on
February 28, 2007, plaintiffs filed an amended ERISA class action
complaint.

On January 8, 2008, the District Court granted a motion to
transfer the consolidated cases to the United States District
Court in Los Angeles, California, where  the two cases were
consolidated before the District Court judge in Case No.
08-cv-2398 (SJO).

Class certification was granted on December 29, 2008.

Defendants and plaintiffs each filed motions for summary judgment
on May 4, 2009, and supplemental briefs thereafter.  On July 13,
2009, the District Court entered an Order granting summary
judgment in favor of the Company and the other defendants.

Briefing on plaintiffs' appeal was completed on January 11, 2010.

Computer Sciences Corp. -- http://www.csc.com/-- is a player in
the information technology and professional services industry.
CSC offers an array of services to clients in the Global
Commercial and government markets.  Its service offerings include
IT and business process outsourcing, and IT and professional
services.  CSC also provides business process
outsourcing, managing key functions for clients, such as
procurement and supply chain, call centers and customer
relationship management, credit services, claims processing and
logistics.  IT and professional services include systems
integration, consulting and other professional services.  Systems
integration encompasses designing, developing, implementing and
integrating complete information systems.  Consulting and
professional services includes advising clients on the acquisition
and utilization of IT and on business strategy, security,
modeling, simulation, engineering, operations, change management
and business process reengineering.


COMPUTER SCIENCES: Seeks to Dismiss "Morefield" Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------
Computer Sciences Corporation seeks the dismissal of a class
action complaint initiated by Shirley Morefield, the Company
disclosed in its Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended April 2, 2010.

The Morefield Complaint was filed on May 29, 2009, captioned
Shirley Morefield v. Computer Sciences Corporation, et al., Case #
A-09-591338-C, in a state court in Clark County, Nevada, against
CSC and certain CSC current and former officers and directors,
asserting claims for declarative and injunctive relief related to
stock option backdating.

The defendants deny the allegations in the Complaint.

On June 30, 2009, the Company removed the case to the U.S District
Court for the District of Nevada, Case No. 2:09-CV-1176-KJD-GWF.
At the behest of the plaintiffs, the District Court remanded the
case to State Court on February 18, 010.

The Defendants now wants the Court to dismiss the Complaint.  They
filed a formal motion to dismiss on April 30, 2010.

Computer Sciences Corp. -- http://www.csc.com/-- is a player in
the information technology and professional services industry.
CSC offers an array of services to clients in the Global
Commercial and government markets.  Its service offerings include
IT and business process outsourcing, and IT and professional
services.  CSC also provides business process
outsourcing, managing key functions for clients, such as
procurement and supply chain, call centers and customer
relationship management, credit services, claims processing and
logistics.  IT and professional services include systems
integration, consulting and other professional services.  Systems
integration encompasses designing, developing, implementing and
integrating complete information systems.  Consulting and
professional services includes advising clients on the acquisition
and utilization of IT and on business strategy, security,
modeling, simulation, engineering, operations, change management
and business process reengineering.


COMVERSE INC: Challenge to Attorney Fees Dropped
-----------------------------------------------
Dan Levine, writing for The Recorder, relates that when Comverse
Inc. agreed to settle a stock option backdating class action for
$225 million -- with 25% set aside for attorney fees -- a familiar
face showed up to object.  Ohio attorney Edward Siegel, Esq.,
whose practice is devoted to tormenting plaintiff lawyers across
the country, called the Comverse fees "far in excess of what is
fair, just and reasonable" in a May filing.  But last week Mr.
Siegel promptly withdrew the objection -- without snagging any
fees for himself.

Oftentimes objectors can wring money out of settlements by
threatening to hold up the deal with years of appeals.  Now class
action lawyers are deploying fresh tactics against a newer crop of
attorney objectors, with varying degrees of success.

According to Marc Gross, Esq., a Pomerantz Haudek Grossman & Gross
partner who represents the Comverse class, Mr. Siegel's retreat
came after class counsel sought to take his client's deposition.

"We certainly would have questioned any financial arrangements
with the individual, and determined in what other instances he's
actually filed claims or objections on settlements," Mr. Gross
said, adding that he used a similar strategy against Mr. Siegel in
2006, with success.

Mr. Siegel did not respond to requests for comment.


DICK'S SPORTING: Court Approves Settlement of "Parks" FLSA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The court presiding over the case, Daniel Parks v. Dick's Sporting
Goods, Inc., has entered a final judgment on the parties'
settlement agreement, according to the company's
May 21, 2010 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended May 1, 2010.

Dick's Sporting relates that it has satisfied the contemplated
payments under the settlement.

The Parks case was filed in November 2005, asserting claims for a
conditionally certified class concerning alleged failures to pay
wages and overtime wages as required by the Fair Labor Standards
Act and applicable state labor law.

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania-based Dick's Sporting Goods, Inc. --
http://www.dickssportinggoods.com/-- is a full-line sporting
goods retailer that offers an assortment of brand name sporting
goods equipment, apparel and footwear in a specialty store
environment.


DICK'S SPORTING: Remains a Defendant in "Barrus" FLSA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Dick's Sporting Goods, Inc., continues to be a defendant in the
case styled Tamara Barrus v. Dick's Sporting Goods, Inc., and
Galyan's Trading Company, Inc., according to the company's
May 21, 2010 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended May 1, 2010.

The Company is also a defendant in a case filed in May 2005 in the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York,
captioned Tamara Barrus v. Dick's Sporting Goods, Inc., and
Galyan's Trading Company, Inc.  The case asserts claims concerning
alleged failures to pay wages and overtime wages as required by
the FLSA and applicable state labor law.  In September 2006, a
magistrate judge for the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of New York conditionally certified a class for notice
purposes under the FLSA, which the U.S. District Judge upheld.
The parties and the court agreed to stay the litigation pending an
attempt to resolve all claims through mediation.  Mediation
sessions were held in April and August 2007 and November 2008 and
these attempts to resolve the case through mediation were
unsuccessful, and litigation has resumed.

Dick's Sporting continues to believe that the Barrus case does not
properly represent a class action.

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania-based Dick's Sporting Goods, Inc. --
http://www.dickssportinggoods.com/-- is a full-line sporting
goods retailer that offers an assortment of brand name sporting
goods equipment, apparel and footwear in a specialty store
environment.


DOLLAR TREE: Court Adjourns Trial Date on Class Decertification
---------------------------------------------------------------
An Alabama federal court has continued to a later date a
previously set July 2010 trial date in a collective action brought
by store managers, according to Dollar Tree Inc.'s
May 20, 2010 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended May 1, 2010.

In 2006, a former store manager filed a collective action against
Dollar Tree in an Alabama federal court.  She claims that she and
other store managers should have been classified as non-exempt
employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act and received overtime
compensation.  The Alabama Court preliminarily allowed nationwide,
except California, notice to be sent to all store managers
employed for the three years immediately before the filing of the
lawsuit.

Approximately 500 individuals are included in the collective
action.

The Court presently has before it the Company's motion to
decertify the collective action together with the briefs of the
parties.  On May 6, 2010, the Court, on its own motion, continued
the case from its July 2010 trial date.  No new trial date has
been scheduled.

Dollar Tree, Inc. -- http://www.dollartree.com/-- formerly
Dollar Tree Stores, Inc., is an operator of discount variety
stores offering merchandise at the fixed price of one dollar.  At
Jan. 31, 2009, the company operated 3,591 discount variety retail
stores in 48 states.  Approximately 3,450 of these stores sell
substantially all items for one dollar or less.  The remaining
stores, operating as Deal$, sell most items for one dollar or less
but also sell items for more than one dollar.  Dollar Tree's
stores operate under the names of Dollar Tree, Deal$ and Dollar
Bills.


DOLLAR TREE: California Suit May Proceed to March 2011 Trial
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action brought by Dollar Tree, Inc., store managers in
California may proceed to trial in March 2011 if a related class
decertification motion is denied, according to the Company's
May 20, 2010 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended May 1, 2010.

In 2007, two store managers filed a class action against Dollar
Tree in a California federal court, claiming they and other
California store managers should have been classified as non-
exempt employees under California and federal law.

The California Court has allowed notice to be sent to all
California store managers employed since December 12, 2004, and a
class of approximately 720 individuals exists.  Following
discovery, which is ongoing, the Company will seek to decertify
the class.

Dollar Tree, Inc. -- http://www.dollartree.com/-- formerly
Dollar Tree Stores, Inc., is an operator of discount variety
stores offering merchandise at the fixed price of one dollar.  At
Jan. 31, 2009, the company operated 3,591 discount variety retail
stores in 48 states.  Approximately 3,450 of these stores sell
substantially all items for one dollar or less.  The remaining
stores, operating as Deal$, sell most items for one dollar or less
but also sell items for more than one dollar.  Dollar Tree's
stores operate under the names of Dollar Tree, Deal$ and Dollar
Bills.


DOLLAR TREE: Awaits Court Ruling on Motion to Alter Dismissal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Tree, Inc., is awaiting a ruling on a request to amend an
order dismissing a class action lawsuit alleging gender pay and
promotion discrimination under Title VII, according to Dollar Tree
Inc.'s May 20, 2010 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended May 1, 2010.

The Class Action was commenced in October 2009 by 34 plaintiffs
against Dollar Tree.  Most of the plaintiffs were opt-in
plaintiffs in a related Alabama action also brought against the
Company.

On March 11, 2010, the Court dismissed the action with prejudice.
Subsequently, the Plaintiffs have filed a motion requesting the
Court to alter, amend and vacate the Dismissal Order.  The motion
has been briefed by the parties and awaits the Court's ruling.

Dollar Tree, Inc. -- http://www.dollartree.com/-- formerly
Dollar Tree Stores, Inc., is an operator of discount variety
stores offering merchandise at the fixed price of one dollar.  At
Jan. 31, 2009, the company operated 3,591 discount variety retail
stores in 48 states.  Approximately 3,450 of these stores sell
substantially all items for one dollar or less.  The remaining
stores, operating as Deal$, sell most items for one dollar or less
but also sell items for more than one dollar.  Dollar Tree's
stores operate under the names of Dollar Tree, Deal$ and Dollar
Bills.


FLOTEK INDUSTRIES: Amended Texas Securities Action Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
No pertinent progress have taken place in a class action lawsuit
commenced by purchasers of common stock of Flotek Industries,
Inc., according to the company's Form 10-K/A filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2009.

Discovery has not yet commenced, Flotek related.

The lawsuit was commenced on August 7, 2009, in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Texas on behalf of purchasers
of Flotek common stock between May 8, 2007 and January 23, 2008,
inclusive.  It seeks to pursue remedies under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

The complaint alleges that, throughout the time period indicated,
the Company failed to disclose material adverse facts about its
true financial condition, business and prospects.  Specifically,
the complaint alleges that as a result of the failure to disclose
the adverse facts, the Company's positive statements concerning
guidance and prospects were lacking in a reasonable basis at all
relevant times.

The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on February 4, 2010,
alleging misleading statements and material omissions in
connection with the Company's earnings guidance for 2007 and the
fourth quarter of 2007.  The amended complaint does not quantify
the alleged actual damages.

Flotek averred that it intends to mount a vigorous defense to the
claims asserts.

Flotek Industries, Inc. -- http://www.flotekind.com/--
is supplying drilling and production related products and
services to the energy and mining industries.  The company's core
focus is oilfield specialty chemicals and logistics, downhole
drilling tools and downhole production tools.  Flotek offers its
products primarily through its sales organizations, as well as
through independent distributors and agents.  The company's
reportable segments are Chemical and Logistics, Drilling Products
and Artificial Lift.


GENESCO INC: Settlement of "Jacobs" Suit Gets Final Approval
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California
gave its final approval to the settlement resolving the putative
class-action suit, Jacobs v. Genesco Inc., et al., according to
the company's June 9, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended May 1,
2010.

The suit was filed on June 16, 2008, in the California Superior
Court, Shasta County, and alleges violations of the California
Labor Code involving payment of wages, failure to provide
mandatory meal and rest breaks, and unfair competition, and
seeking back pay, penalties and declaratory and injunctive relief.

The company removed the case to the Federal District Court for the
Eastern District of California.

On Sept. 3, 2008, the court dismissed certain of the plaintiff's
claims, including claims for conversion and punitive damages.

On May 5, 2009, the company and the plaintiff's counsel reached an
agreement in principle to settle the lawsuit on a claims made
basis.  On Jan. 21, 2010, the court granted preliminary approval
of the settlement.

On May 21, 2010, the court granted final approval of the
settlement.  The minimum payment by the Company pursuant to the
agreement is $398,000; the maximum is $703,000.

Genesco, Inc. -- http://www.genesco.com/-- is a retailer of
branded footwear, licensed and branded headwear, and a wholesaler
of branded footwear.


GOOGLE INC: Attorneys General Mull Joint Action
-----------------------------------------------
Diane Bartz, writing for Reuters, reports that Connecticut's
attorney general will lead a multi-state probe of whether Google
Inc. broke the law when it siphoned personal data off wireless
networks around the world, which the Internet search leader has
said was inadvertent.  Attorney General Richard Blumenthal said on
Monday more than 30 states participated in a recent conference
call on the issue.  He said consumers have a right to know what
information was collected, and whether U.S. states need to alter
procedures to guard against such leaks in future.

"My office will lead a multi-state investigation -- expected to
involve a significant number of states -- into Google's deeply
disturbing invasion of personal privacy," Mr. Blumenthal said in a
statement.

"Consumers have a right and a need to know what personal
information -- which could include emails, Web browsing and
passwords -- Google may have collected, how and why."

Mr. Blumenthal said Google has cooperated but "its response so far
raises as many questions as it answers."

"Our investigation will consider whether laws may have been broken
and whether changes to state and federal statutes may be
necessary," he said.

The Boston Globe's Hiawatha Bray reports that Massachusetts
Attorney General Martha Coakley has joined the effort against
Google.  Ms. Coakley said on June 18 she and Illinois Attorney
General Lisa Madigan sent a letter to Google, asking the company
to provide details on the information collected from wireless
Internet users as part of its street view mapping program.

"We are concerned with any instances in which the personal
information of Massachusetts consumers may have been compromised,"
Ms. Coakley said in a statement.  A spokeswoman for Ms. Coakley's
office said that Google could be liable for civil penalties under
Massachusetts data privacy protection laws.

Google suspended its Wi-Fi mapping operations in May, and company
spokeswoman Christine Chen said Friday there are no plans to
resume the practice.

The Class Action Reporter, citing Ryan Abbott at Courthouse News
Service, said on June 2, 2010, federal class actions in Washington
and San Francisco joined German regulators in complaining that
while Google sent vehicles all over world to take photos for maps,
it was "surreptitiously collecting private information" from
unguarded Wi-Fi networks.  The class in DC Federal Court claims
Google made the intercepted information available to its vendors
and contractors.

According to The Globe, attorneys general of 30 states held a
conference call earlier this month to consider joint action
against Google.  The Federal Trade Commission is studying Google's
privacy practices, and on Capitol Hill, Representative Edward
Markey, Democrat of Massachusetts, and Representative Joe Barton,
Republican of Texas, cochairmen of the House Privacy Caucus,
earlier this month demanded more information regarding its
relevant policies.  Dissatisfied with a detailed response from
Google, Mr. Barton has called for hearings on the matter.

Google is also under investigation in several countries, including
Canada, France, Germany, and Australia.  French investigators
analyzing data provided by Google said Friday the company had
captured people's Internet passwords and e-mail addresses without
permission from the individuals.

Google has been hit by three class-action lawsuits, including one
filed last month by Galaxy Internet Services Inc. of Newton.  The
lawsuit, which seeks $10 million in damages, contends that Google
illegally collected Internet data from Galaxy's paying customers,
and from people using its free wireless Internet services in
Boston's Faneuil Hall, Government Center, and Grove Hall areas.
The Class Action Reporter ran a story on this suit on May 31,
2010.

The Globe says Google has confessed error in the matter, but not
wrongdoing.  "It was a mistake for us to include code in our
software that collected [sensitive information], but we don't
believe we did anything illegal," said the company in an e-mailed
statement.  "We're working with the relevant authorities to answer
their questions and concerns."

Last month, Google revealed it had inadvertently collected about
600 gigabytes of data from wireless Internet users.  The
information was collected as Google used cars equipped with
cameras, GPS navigation systems, and Wi-Fi receivers to generate
maps of cities around the world.

Every Wi-Fi device transmits a unique identification code.  By
matching the code with the location of the router, Google can
create a Wi-Fi map of a city.  A cellphone owner can use that map
to pinpoint his own location, or find other nearby places of
interest.  But in the process of collecting router codes, Google
also picked up the information being transmitted over the routers.
That information could include such private information as users'
names and the content of e-mail messages.

Ted Morgan, chief executive of Skyhook Wireless Inc. of Boston,
said Google could have avoided the problem by using a different
technique.  Skyhook, which invented Wi-Fi mapping, transmits
digital greetings to all nearby routers. These routers reply by
sending back their identification code, and nothing else.

Mr. Morgan said that Google used a "passive sniffing" technique,
which simply picked up any nearby Wi-Fi transmissions.  Mr. Morgan
said that can produce more comprehensive maps, but, he added, "the
problem is you also pick up this private network traffic."

Mr. Morgan said Google could have instantly discarded the data,
but "engineers have a philosophy that, if you're capturing data,
capture it all, and then figure out what to do with it later."


IMMUNOSYN CORP: Motion to Dismiss "Campbell" Suit Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas has yet
to rule on a dismissal motion by Immunosyn Corporation in a class
action filed by Denise Campbell, according to the Company's May
24, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2010.

The complaint was filed by Denise Campbell on behalf of a putative
class in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Texas on August 24, 2009.  It names as defendants
Immunosyn, Argyll Biotech, James T. Miceli, Douglas A. McClain,
Jr., Frank Morales, Argyll Equities, LLC, Stephen Ferrone and
Douglass A. McClain, Sr.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants
have made false and misleading statements concerning Immunosyn and
SF-1019 in filings with the SEC in violation of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, including Section 10b-5,
including, without limitation, that the Food & Drug Administration
had not approved SF-1019 for human injection, that SF-1019 had not
received compassionate waiver status, that SF-1019 was on clinical
hold, that SF-1019 had negative results in certain safety studies,
that SF-1019 was being sold by the defendants outside of the
exclusive license held by Immunosyn and that Alan Osmond was being
paid to promote SF-1019; defendants have committed fraud in their
SEC disclosures and on their websites; defendants have engaged in
civil conspiracy; defendants have been unjustly enriched through
the sale of Immunosyn stock; and James T. Miceli, Douglas McClain,
Sr. and Douglas McClain Jr. have committed RICO violations and
conspired to violate RICO.  The complaint seeks damages in an
amount to be proven at trial, plus interest, costs and attorneys'
fees.

The parties, including Immunosyn, answered the complaint on
October 16, 2009.  An initial telephonic pretrial conference among
attorneys was held on January 19, 2010 and discovery has
commenced.

The defendants have filed a Motion to Dismiss, based on lack of
federal jurisdiction and plaintiff's failure to allege sufficient
facts to establish a class action.

Immunosyn Corporation -- http://www.immunosyn.com/-- is a
development stage company.  The company owns a worldwide license
to market, distribute and sell a biopharmaceutical drug product,
referred to as SF-1019, for multiple uses, including the
treatment of any and all diseases, and pathological conditions.
Under the terms of its license, the Company is further granted
the rights to any improvement of SF-1019 and other compounds,
which are developed under the same technology platform, and which
are chemically similar to SF-1019.


ITURAN LOCATION: Certification Hearing Not Yet Set for Pa. Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ituran Florida Corporation disclosed in a May 24, 2010, Form
20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2009, that the certification
hearing in a class action lawsuit asserted against the Company's
subsidiary, Ituran Florida Corporation, has not yet been
scheduled.

The class action was filed on July 8, 2005, in the First Judicial
District Court in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, alleging that Ituran
Florida sent fax advertisements to the named plaintiff and the
other members of the class allegedly in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act of 1991.

Ituran Florida filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings that
the claims under the lawsuit should not be heard as part of a
class action.  The Court, however, denied the request.

Pre-certification discovery process has been completed.

The plaintiff agreed to limit the class action to Pennsylvania
actions only and the maximum potential amount of damages that
the company estimate that the subsidiary may be liable for
pursuant to the provisions of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act if the plaintiffs prevail ranges between $500,000 to
$750,000 in the aggregate for all class plaintiffs, plus
punitive damages and expenses.

Based in Israel, Ituran Location and Control Ltd. --
http://www.ituran.com/ituranfront/-- is mainly engaged in the
area of location-based services, consisting of stolen vehicle
recovery and tracking services.  The company operates in two
segments: location-based services and wireless communication
products.  The company provides its services and sells its
products in Israel, Brazil, Argentina and the United States.
Mapa Mapping and Publishing Ltd. and Mapa Internet Ltd. are the
subsidiaries of the Company.


JPMORGAN: Sup. Ct. to Hear Appeal in Credit Card Suit in October
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that the Supreme Court said Monday
it will hear JPMorgan Chase & Co.'s appeal of a class action
accusing it of raising customers' credit card interest rates
without telling them.

A federal judge in California had dismissed James McCoy's 2006
lawsuit, which accused Chase Manhattan Bank of violating the Truth
in Lending Act when it retroactively raised interest rates on his
credit card after his account was closed due to a late payment.

But a federal appeals court reinstated the case in 2009, finding
that Mr. McCoy can continue with his lawsuit if Chase failed to
tell him of the rate increase because of a default, or if his
contract did not specify the terms for the increase.

Chase maintained that it told Mr. McCoy of its policies.
The high court will hear arguments when its next term begins in
October.


LG DISPLAY: Appeal on Class Certification Rulings Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
LG Display Co., Ltd.'s petition to appeal the class certification
decisions of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California remains pending, according to the company's June 9,
2010, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

In December 2006, LG Display received notices of investigation by
the Korea Fair Trade Commission, the Japan Fair Trade Commission,
the U.S. Department of Justice, and the European Commission with
respect to possible anti-competitive activities in the TFT-LCD
industry.  LG Display subsequently received similar notices from
the Canadian Competition Bureau and the Taiwan Fair Trade
Commission.

After the commencement of the U.S. Department of Justice
investigation, a number of class action complaints were filed
against LG Display and other TFT-LCD panel manufacturers in the
United States and Canada alleging violation of respective
antitrust laws and related laws.

In a series of decisions in 2007 and 2008, the class action
lawsuits in the United States were transferred to the Northern
District of California for pretrial proceedings.

On March 28, 2010, the federal district court granted the class
certification motion filed by the indirect purchaser plaintiffs,
and granted in part and denied in part the class certification
motion filed by the direct purchaser plaintiffs.

On April 12, 2010, the defendants petitioned to appeal the class
certification decisions with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

LG Display Co., Ltd. -- http://www.lgdisplay.com/-- formerly
LG.Philips LCD Co., Ltd., is a manufacturer of thin-film
transistor liquid crystal displays (TFT-LCD) panels.  The company
manufactures TFT-LCD panels in a range of sizes and specifications
primarily for use in televisions, notebook computers, desktop
monitors and other applications.  It also supplies high-definition
television panels.  The company manufactures TFT-LCDs for handheld
application products, such as mobile phones and medium and large-
size panels for industrial and other applications, such as
entertainment systems, portable navigation devices, e-paper,
digital photo displays and medical diagnostic equipment.


LG DISPLAY: Class Certification in Canada Suit Remains Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Class certification in complaints filed against LG Display Co.,
Ltd., in Canada remains pending, according to the company's
June 9, 2010, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

In December 2006, LG Display received notices of investigation by
the Korea Fair Trade Commission, the Japan Fair Trade Commission,
the U.S. Department of Justice, and the European Commission with
respect to possible anti-competitive activities in the TFT-LCD
industry.  LG Display subsequently received similar notices from
the Canadian Competition Bureau and the Taiwan Fair Trade
Commission.

After the commencement of the U.S. Department of Justice
investigation, a number of class action complaints were filed
against LG Display and other TFT-LCD panel manufacturers in the
United States and Canada alleging violation of respective
antitrust laws and related laws.

Class certification in Canada remains pending.

LG Display Co., Ltd. -- http://www.lgdisplay.com/-- formerly
LG.Philips LCD Co., Ltd., is a manufacturer of thin-film
transistor liquid crystal displays (TFT-LCD) panels.  The company
manufactures TFT-LCD panels in a range of sizes and
specifications primarily for use in televisions, notebook
computers, desktop monitors and other applications.  It also
supplies high-definition television panels.  The company
manufactures TFT-LCDs for handheld application products, such as
mobile phones and medium and large-size panels for industrial and
other applications, such as entertainment systems, portable
navigation devices, e-paper, digital photo displays and medical
diagnostic equipment.


LG DISPLAY: Settles Shareholder Suit in New York
------------------------------------------------
LG Display Co., Ltd., has agreed to settle a purported shareholder
class action pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York, according to the company's June 9, 2010,
Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

In February 2007, LG Display and certain of its current and former
officers and directors were named as defendants in a purported
shareholder class action alleging violation of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

In May 2010, the defendants, including LG Display, reached an
agreement in principle with the class plaintiffs to settle the
action, which agreement is subject to customary conditions
including court approval.

LG Display Co., Ltd. -- http://www.lgdisplay.com/-- formerly
LG.Philips LCD Co., Ltd., is a manufacturer of thin-film
transistor liquid crystal displays (TFT-LCD) panels.  The company
manufactures TFT-LCD panels in a range of sizes and
specifications primarily for use in televisions, notebook
computers, desktop monitors and other applications.  It also
supplies high-definition television panels.  The company
manufactures TFT-LCDs for handheld application products, such as
mobile phones and medium and large-size panels for industrial and
other applications, such as entertainment systems, portable
navigation devices, e-paper, digital photo displays and medical
diagnostic equipment.


LG DISPLAY: Faces Suit by Korea Exchange Securities Purchasers
--------------------------------------------------------------
LG Display Co., Ltd., faces a purported shareholder class action
complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York on June 2, 2010, according to the company's
June 9, 2010, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

The suit was filed against LG Display and certain of its current
and former officers and directors on behalf of purchasers of LG
Display securities on the Korea Stock Exchange.

This action asserts claims and covers a purchase period that
overlaps with those asserted in another litigation brought in
February 2007.

LG Display Co., Ltd. -- http://www.lgdisplay.com/-- formerly
LG.Philips LCD Co., Ltd., is a manufacturer of thin-film
transistor liquid crystal displays (TFT-LCD) panels.  The company
manufactures TFT-LCD panels in a range of sizes and
specifications primarily for use in televisions, notebook
computers, desktop monitors and other applications.  It also
supplies high-definition television panels.  The company
manufactures TFT-LCDs for handheld application products, such as
mobile phones and medium and large-size panels for industrial and
other applications, such as entertainment systems, portable
navigation devices, e-paper, digital photo displays and medical
diagnostic equipment.


MALAYSIA: Hindraf to Help Civic Groups Retrieve Ill-Gotten Wealth
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Fernandez at Free Malaysia Today reports that Hindraf Makkal
Sakthi is prepared to help civic action groups in Sarawak to
trace, claim and bring back any ill-gotten gains salted away
abroad by local politicians.  This includes making forensic
accountants available from London and other key western financial
capitals for the institution of class action suits.

The ad hoc apolitical human rights movement made the offer in the
wake of a website report last week that shed light on some of the
assets allegedly accumulated by Sarawak Chief Minister Abdul Taib
Mahmud in Canada and other countries.

The assets, as the accusations go, do not commensurate with Taib's
known sources of lawful income as the chief minister since 1981.
Taib currently draws a monthly salary of RM 20,000 as chief
minister.

"Since 9/11, the international laws against money laundering and
terrorism have become extremely tough," said the London-based
Hindraf chairman P Waythamoorthy in a telephone call on Friday
before leaving for Singapore.  "There are also laws in western and
many other countries against Third World or other dictators
parking their ill-gotten gains in their places."

Ill-gotten gains abroad, said Waythamoorthy, can be frozen by the
courts pending the disposal of class action suits.

He said that as far back as the post-Marcos era in the
Philippines, civic action groups have successfully persuaded
various courts abroad to freeze and return ill-gotten assets.

"Our (Hindraf) role is to study and advise civic action groups on
the various international options to bring Taib to justice and
return what belongs to the people of Sarawak," said Waythamoorthy,
a British-trained lawyer.  "This is not just about Taib but anyone
in Sarawak who needs to be brought to justice."

Third force

Asked what possible benefits that Hindraf could derive from being
involved in the pursuit of the Sarawak chief minister in the
courts, Waythamoorthy said the movement stood for the solidarity
of the emerging "third force" in Malaysian politics.

"Our involvement in the pursuit of Taib must be seen as part of
this solidarity of the Third Force," said Waythamoorthy. "We don't
know whether the journey will end in the destination that we have
envisaged. The main concern at the moment is to at least begin the
process."

Hindraf has commenced a trillion-dollar class action suit as well
in London against the British and Malaysian governments "for
centuries of criminal exploitation" of Malaysians of Indian-
origin, especially those in the estate sector.

The Hindraf chief sees the Common Interest Group Malaysia (CigMA),
an ad hoc apolitical human rights movement, as its chief ally in
the pursuit of Taib "to the ends of the Earth".

Besides CigMA, chairman Jeffrey Gapari Kitingan, who is based in
Kota Kinabalu, Waythamoorthy identified other possible allies such
as former Sarawak deputy chief minister Daniel Tajem Anak Miri,
green activist and lawyer Harrison Ngau Laing, Parti Keadilan
Rakyat (PKR) senior activist Nicholas Bawin and native land rights
activist Baru Bian.  Baru is also the Sarawa PKR chief.

One other possible ally is Kuching MP Chong Chieng Jen, said
Waythamoorthy.

He said the Sarawak DAP MP has queried Taib many times in the
State Legislative Assembly over the lawfulness of his business
dealing while in public office.

Waythamoorthy is confident that Chong would like to join forces
with the other Sarawak activists and him "to force Taib and his
family out of public office and seek the speedy return of the
people's wealth".

Facilitator role

Jeffrey, in a response late Sunday, said he would have to study
how the people of Sarawak would respond to their continuing
dilemma over Taib.

"The names mentioned by Waythamoorthy are probably the best ones
to work with, for a start," said Jeffrey. "My role is to act as
the facilitator between Hindraf and Sarawak activists."

Jeffrey, also a PKR vice-president with special responsibility for
Sabah and Sarawak, plans to broach the subject of Taib's multi-
billion dollar assets abroad at a meeting of the party's political
bureau in Kuala Lumpur soon.

Baru said he was "shocked" to hear that Taib's family had amassed
such a huge amount of wealth while the rural population in the
state remained poor. "I really hope that the Canadian authorities
will investigate this case and determine if Sakto Development
Corporation is in breach of the Canadian laws," Baru said.

He added that he was currently trying to get hold of the evidence
behind the news report in order to lodge a complaint with the
Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission.

Taib and his office were not immediately available for comment.

One political secretary requested that a copy of the Web site
report be e-mailed to him.

Another close aide said last night that the Sarawak Barisan
Nasional strongman was considering his legal options against the
Web site.

"These reports will not have any effect on the performance of the
BN in the rural areas," said the close aide. "Taib remains strong
and will be able to ride out this storm as on previous occasions.
All this is the work of jealous people who can't see the good that
he has done so far for the state."

He said that Taib "had correctly read the political temperature in
rural Sarawak" when he stressed recently that the people are poor
and depend on the government to help them.

Taib's predictable response in previous instances where
impropriety was imputed to him was a blanket denial of any wrong-
doing.


NAVISTAR INT'L: Agrees to Non-Binding Mediation in Illinois Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Navistar International Corporation has agreed to discuss non-
binding mediation with the lead plaintiffs in an amended complaint
pending in the U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois,
according to the company's June 9, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
April 30, 2010.

In December 2007, a complaint was filed against the company by
Norfolk County Retirement System and Brockton Contributory
Retirement System, which was subsequently amended in May 2008.

The plaintiffs in the Norfolk case allege they are shareholders
suing on behalf of themselves and a class of other shareholders
who purchased shares of the company's common stock between
Feb. 14, 2003, and July 17, 2006.  The amended complaint alleges
that the defendants, which include the company, one of its
executive officers, two of its former executive officers, and the
company's former independent accountants, Deloitte & Touche LLP,
violated federal securities laws by making false and misleading
statements about the company's financial condition during that
period.

In March 2008, the court appointed Norfolk County Retirement
System and the Plumbers Local Union 519 Pension Trust as joint
lead plaintiffs.  On July 7, 2008, the company filed a motion to
dismiss the amended complaint based on the plaintiffs' failure to
plead any facts tending to show the defendants' actual knowledge
of the alleged false statements or that the plaintiffs suffered
damages. Deloitte also filed a motion to dismiss on similar
grounds.

On July 28, 2009, the Court granted Deloitte's motion to dismiss
but denied the motion to dismiss as to all other defendants.  The
parties are currently engaged in discovery focused on class
certification issues.

The next status conference with the Court was scheduled for
June 14, 2010.

The lead plaintiffs in this matter seek compensatory damages and
attorneys' fees among other relief.

The parties have agreed to discuss non-binding mediation.

Navistar International Corporation -- http://www.Navistar.com/
-- is a holding company whose subsidiaries and affiliates produce
International(R) brand commercial and military trucks,
MaxxForce(R) brand diesel engines, IC Bus(TM) brand school and
commercial buses, Monaco RV brands of recreational vehicles, and
Workhorse(R) brand chassis for motor homes and step vans.  The
company also provides truck and diesel engine service parts.
Another affiliate offers financing services.


NAVISTAR INT'L: Virginia Court Dismisses Claims
-----------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia
has dismissed the claims asserted against Navistar International
Corporation in the matter Commercial Steam LLC and Andrew Harold
vs. Ford Motor Co. and Navistar International Corporation,
according to the company's June 9, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
April 30, 2010.

In October 2009, Commercial Steam LLC and Andrew Harold served the
company with an amended complaint naming the company as a
defendant.

The plaintiffs in this case alleged they are suing on behalf of
themselves and a putative class of other West Virginia residents
who purchased a model year 2003 to 2006 Ford F-Series truck with a
6.0 liter Power Stroke engine.  The amended complaint alleged
problems with these vehicles and engines, including, but not
limited to, the fuel system, fuel injectors, oil leaks, broken
turbochargers, and other warranty claims.

The plaintiffs in this matter sought compensatory damages,
interest and attorneys' fees among other relief.  On Nov. 10,
2009, the company answered the amended complaint and strongly
disputed the allegations contained in the amended complaint.

In April 2010, counsel for plaintiffs filed a notice with the
Court stating that plaintiffs would not proceed with moving for
class certification.  As a result, plaintiffs no longer asserted
claims on behalf of a putative class previously alleged to include
thousands of potential members, but asserted only their individual
claims.  Plaintiffs' counsel subsequently agreed to dismiss the
pending individual claims against the company without prejudice.

On May 27, 2010, the parties filed a joint motion to dismiss the
claims asserted against the company.  On May 28, 2010, the Court
granted the parties' joint motion seeking that relief, and
dismissed the claims asserted against the Company.

Navistar International Corporation -- http://www.Navistar.com/
-- is a holding company whose subsidiaries and affiliates produce
International(R) brand commercial and military trucks,
MaxxForce(R) brand diesel engines, IC Bus(TM) brand school and
commercial buses, Monaco RV brands of recreational vehicles, and
Workhorse(R) brand chassis for motor homes and step vans.  The
company also provides truck and diesel engine service parts.
Another affiliate offers financing services.


NEXTERA ENERGY: Removes "Robinson" Labor Suit to N.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Robinson, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. NextEra Energy Operating Services, et al., Case No.
RG 10515481 (Calif. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty.) was filed on May 17,
2010.  Mr. Robinson accuses NextEra, a company that owns and
operates twelve (12) wind generation plant locations throughout
California, of failing to provide meal and rest periods, failing
to pay wages for all hours worked, failing to pay overtime
compensation, failing to provide accurate wage statements, and
unfair business practices in violation of the California Business
and Professions Code.  Mr. Robinson was employed as a wind
technician at a wind generation plant owned and operated by the
defendants in California.

On the basis that Federal District Courts have original
jurisdiction over civil class action lawsuits filed under federal
or state law where any member of a class of plaintiffs is a
citizen of a state different from the defendant, and where the
matter in controversy exceeds $5,000,000, exclusive of interests
and costs, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d), NextEra, on
June 18, 2010, removed the lawsuit to the Northern District of
California, San Francisco Division, and the Clerk assigned Case
No. 10-cv-02671 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dylan Pollard, Esq.
          Matt C. Bailey, Esq.
          Pollard | Bailey
          9701 Wilshire Blvd., 10th Floor
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (310) 854-7650

The Defendant is represented by:

          Cheryl D. Orr, Esq.
          S. Fey Epling, Esq.
          Ayse Kuzucuoglu, Esq.
          DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP
          50 Fremont St., 20th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94105-2235
          Telephone: (415) 591-7500


NVIDIA CORP: Court Hears Consumer Class Certification Motion
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
heard on June 14, 2010, a class certification motion filed by
persons who purchased computers containing certain of NVIDIA
Corporation's generation media and communications processor or MCP
and graphics processing unit or GPU Products, according to the
Company's May 21, 2010, Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended May 2, 2010.

In September, October and November 2008, several putative consumer
class action lawsuits were filed against NVIDIA, asserting various
claims arising from a weak die/packaging material set in certain
versions of our previous generation products used in notebook
configurations.  Most of the lawsuits were filed in Federal Court
in the Northern District of California, but three were filed in
state court in California, in Federal Court in New York, and in
Federal Court in Texas.  Those three actions have since been
removed or transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, San Jose Division, where all of the
actions now are currently pending.  The various lawsuits are
titled Nakash v. NVIDIA Corp., Feinstein v. NVIDIA Corp., Inicom
Networks, Inc. v. NVIDIA Corp. and Dell, Inc. and Hewlett Packard,
Olivos v. NVIDIA Corp., Dell, Inc. and Hewlett Packard, Sielicki
v. NVIDIA Corp. and Dell, Inc., Cormier v. NVIDIA Corp., National
Business Officers Association, Inc. v. NVIDIA Corp., and West v.
NVIDIA Corp.  The First Amended Complaint was filed on October 27,
2008, which no longer asserted claims against Dell, Inc.  The
various complaints assert claims for, among other things, breach
of warranty, violations of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act,
Business & Professions Code sections 17200 and 17500 and other
consumer protection statutes under the laws of various
jurisdictions, unjust enrichment, and strict liability.

The District Court has entered orders deeming all of the cases
related under the relevant local rules.  On December 11, 2008,
NVIDIA filed a motion to consolidate all of the consumer class
action cases.  On February 26, 2009, the District Court
consolidated the cases, as well as two other cases pending against
Hewlett-Packard, under the caption "The NVIDIA GPU Litigation" and
ordered the plaintiffs to file lead counsel motions by March 2,
2009.

On March 2, 2009, several of the parties filed motions for
appointment of lead counsel and briefs addressing certain related
issues.   On April 10, 2009, the District Court appointed Milberg
LLP lead counsel.

On May 6, 2009, the plaintiffs filed an Amended Consolidated
Complaint, alleging claims for violations of California Business
and Professions Code Section 17200, Breach of Implied Warranty
under California Civil Code Section 1792, Breach of the Implied
Warranty of Merchantability under the laws of 27 other states,
Breach of Warranty under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, Unjust
Enrichment, violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act,
Strict Liability and Negligence, and violation of California's
Consumer Legal Remedies Act.

On August 19, 2009, NVIDIA filed a motion to dismiss the Amended
Consolidated Complaint, and the Court heard arguments on that
motion on October 19, 2009.  On November 19, 2009, the Court
issued an order dismissing with prejudice plaintiffs causes of
action for Breach of the Implied Warranty under the laws of 27
other states and unjust enrichment, dismissing with leave to amend
plaintiffs' causes of action for Breach of Implied Warranty under
California Civil Code Section 1792 and Breach of Warranty under
the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, and denying NVIDIA's motion to
dismiss as to the other causes of action.

The Court gave plaintiffs until December 14, 2009, to file an
amended complaint.

On December 14, 2009, plaintiffs filed a Second Amended
Consolidated Complaint, asserting claims for violations of
California Business and Professions Code Section 17200, Breach of
Implied Warranty under California Civil Code Section 1792, Breach
of Warranty under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, violations of
the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, Strict Liability and
Negligence, and violation of California's Consumer Legal Remedies
Act.  The Second Amended Complaint seeks unspecified damages.

On January 19, 2010, NVIDIA filed a motion to dismiss the Breach
of Implied Warranty under California Civil Code Section 1792,
Breach of Warranty under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, and
California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act claims in the Second
Amended Consolidated Complaint.  A hearing on the motion was
scheduled for June 14, 2010.

In addition, on April 1, 2010, Plaintiffs filed a motion to
certify a class consisting of all people who purchased computers
containing certain of NVIDIA's MCP and GPU products.  NVIDIA filed
an opposition to Plaintiffs' motion for class certification on May
3, 2010.  A hearing on the motion was scheduled for June 14, 2010.

NVIDIA Corp. -- http://www.nvidia.com/-- is engaged in the
provision of programmable graphics processor technologies.  The
Company's products are designed to generate realistic,
interactive graphics on consumer and professional computing
devices.  It serves the entertainment and consumer market with
its GeForce products, the professional design and visualization
market with its Quadro products, and the computing market with
its Tesla products.  It has four product-line segments: the GPU
Business, the professional solutions business (PSB), the media
and communications processor (MCP), business, and the consumer
products business (CPB).  Its GPU business consists of its
GeForce products that support desktop and notebook personal
computers (PCs), plus memory products.  Its PSB consists of its
NVIDIA Quadro professional workstation products and other
professional graphics products, including its NVIDIA Tesla
computing products.


NVIDIA CORP: Seeks Dismissal of Calif. Securities Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
NVIDIA Corp.'s motion to dismiss a consolidated securities class
action will be heard on June 24, 2010, in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California, according to the
company's May 21, 2010, Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended May 2, 2010.

In September 2008, three putative securities class actions were
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California arising out of the company's announcements on July 2,
2008, that it would take a charge against cost of revenue to cover
anticipated costs and expenses arising from a weak die/packaging
material set in certain versions of our previous generation MCP
and GPU products and that it was revising financial guidance for
our second quarter of fiscal year 2009.

The Actions purport to be brought on behalf of purchasers of
NVIDIA stock and assert claims for violations of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.  On
October 30, 2008, the Actions were consolidated under the caption
In re NVIDIA Corporation Securities Litigation, Civil Action No.
08-CV-04260-JW (HRL).  Lead Plaintiffs and Lead Plaintiffs'
Counsel were appointed on December 23, 2008.

On February 6, 2009, co-Lead Plaintiff filed a Writ of Mandamus
with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals challenging the
designation of co-Lead Plaintiffs' Counsel.  On February 19, 2009,
co-Lead Plaintiff filed with the District Court, a motion to stay
the District Court proceedings pending resolution of the Writ of
Mandamus by the Ninth Circuit.  On February 24, 2009, Judge Ware
granted the stay.  On November 5, 2009, the Court of Appeals
issued an opinion reversing the District Court's appointment of
one of the lead plaintiffs' counsel, and remanding the matter for
further proceedings.

On December 8, 2009, the District Court appointed Milberg LLP and
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC as co-lead counsel.

On January 22, 2010, Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Class
Action Complaint for Violations of the Federal Securities Laws,
asserting claims for violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act, Rule 10b-5, and Section 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act.  The Consolidated Complaint seeks unspecified
compensatory damages.

The Class Action was subsequently transferred from Judge James
Ware to the Honorable Judge Richard Seeborg on March 19, 2010.

NVIDIA filed a motion to dismiss the Consolidated Complaint.  A
hearing on the motion to dismiss is currently scheduled for
June 24, 2010, before Judge Seeborg.

NVIDIA Corp. -- http://www.nvidia.com/-- is engaged in the
provision of programmable graphics processor technologies.  The
Company's products are designed to generate realistic,
interactive graphics on consumer and professional computing
devices.  It serves the entertainment and consumer market with
its GeForce products, the professional design and visualization
market with its Quadro products, and the computing market with
its Tesla products.  It has four product-line segments: the GPU
Business, the professional solutions business (PSB), the media
and communications processor (MCP), business, and the consumer
products business (CPB).  Its GPU business consists of its
GeForce products that support desktop and notebook personal
computers (PCs), plus memory products.  Its PSB consists of its
NVIDIA Quadro professional workstation products and other
professional graphics products, including its NVIDIA Tesla
computing products.


PALL CORP: Consolidated Securities Suit Ongoing in New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
The consolidated securities fraud class action filed against Pall
Corp. is ongoing in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York.

Initially, four putative class actions were filed against the
company and certain members of its management team alleging
violations of the federal securities laws relating to the
company's understatement of certain of its U.S. income tax
payments and of its provision for income taxes in certain prior
periods.

These lawsuits were filed between Aug. 14, 2007, and Oct. 11,
2007, with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New
York.

The plaintiffs principally alleged that the defendants violated
the federal securities laws by issuing materially false and
misleading public statements about the company's financial
results, financial statements, income tax liability, effective tax
rate and internal controls.  They seek unspecified compensatory
damages, costs and expenses.

On Oct. 15, 2007, various plaintiffs and groups of plaintiffs
filed motions seeking to consolidate the cases and to be appointed
lead plaintiff.

By Order dated May 28, 2008, the Court consolidated the cases
under the caption "In re Pall Corp. Securities Litigation, Case
No. 07-CV-3359 (E.D.N.Y.) (JS) (ARL)," appointed a lead plaintiff
and ordered that the lead plaintiff file a consolidated amended
complaint.

The lead plaintiff filed its consolidated amended complaint on
Aug. 4, 2008.  The lead plaintiff seeks to act as representative
for a class consisting of purchasers of the company's stock
between April 20, 2007, and Aug. 2, 2007, inclusive.

The consolidated amended complaint names the company, Eric
Krasnoff and Lisa McDermott as defendants and alleges violations
of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Exchange Act, as amended,
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated by the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

It alleges that the defendants violated these provisions of the
federal securities laws by issuing materially false and misleading
public statements about the company's financial results and
financial statements, including the company's income tax
liability, effective tax rate, internal controls and accounting
practices.  The plaintiffs seek unspecified compensatory damages,
costs and expenses.

The company moved to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint on
Sept. 19, 2008.

The company filed its reply brief to the lead plaintiff's
opposition to its motion to dismiss on Dec. 2, 2008.

By Memorandum and Order dated September 21, 2009, the Court denied
the company's motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint
and granted the lead plaintiff leave to amend the consolidated
amended complaint by filing a second amended complaint.

On Oct. 9, 2009, the company moved for certification for
interlocutory appeal, and the Court denied the motion by
Memorandum and Order entered Nov. 25, 2009.

No further updates were reported in the company's June 9, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended April 30, 2010.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Mario Alba, Jr., Esq.
          COUGHLIN STOIA GELLER RUDMAN & ROBBINS LLP
          58 South Service Road, Suite 200
          Melville, NY 11747
          Phone: (631) 367-7100
          Fax:   (631) 367-1173
          E-mail: malba@csgrr.com

Representing the defendants are:

          Lewis J. Liman, Esq.
          CLEARY, GOTTLIEB, STEEN & HAMILTON LLP
          One Liberty Plaza
          New York, NY 10006
          Phone: (212) 225-2000
          Fax:   (212) 255-3949
          E-mail: maofiling@cgsh.com


PERFORMANCE CAPITAL: Consumer-Related Class Action Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Performance Capital Management, LLC, related in a Form 8-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission dated May 24,
2010, that a remaining pending lawsuit against it is a class
action lawsuit that was filed in Orange County Superior Court in
Santa Ana, California, on June 3, 2009.

Under the Action, plaintiffs claim that the Company violated the
Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act with respect to information
about the plaintiffs that the Company furnished to consumer
reporting agencies.

The Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, actual and punitive damages
to be determined by the court, attorney's fees and court costs.

The lawsuit was first disclosed by the Company in its report on
Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2009, and filed with
the SEC on November 20, 2009.

The class has not been certified and the number of members of the
proposed class continues to decrease and currently stands at
approximately 68 proposed members.

The merits of the case have not yet been determined.

The Company says it expects to prevail in the lawsuit.  The
Company further relates that it has paid the full amount of the
deductible to the insurance carrier.

Performance Capital Management, LLC -- http://www.pamco.net/--
buys portfolios of charged-off credit card debt and other
delinquent receivables (such as commercial loans and auto,
secured and unsecured consumer installment loans) at an
undervalued price from federal and state banking and savings
institutions, loan agencies, and other sources.  It then works to
collect on the debt.  The company also provides collections
services for third parties.  Performance Capital Management
occasionally sells its acquisitions or portions of them to
capitalize on market conditions or to dispose of underperforming
assets.


PFIZER INC: Accused in N.J. Suit of Misleading Investors
--------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Pfizer, as successor to Wyeth
Pharmaceuticals, inflated share price by false and misleading
statements about an Alzheimer's drug, B-Mab, and the share price
dropped by 12 percent in a day when the truth came out,
shareholders claim in Newark Federal Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Security Police and Fire Professionals
of America Retirement Fund v. Pfizer, Inc., et al., Case No.
10-cv-_____, docketed as Doc. 8784 in Case No. 33-av-00001 on
June 18, 2010 (D. N.J.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/06/21/SCA.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James E. Cecchi, Esq.
          Lindsey H. Taylor, Esq.
          CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
          5 Becker Farm Rd.
          Roseland, NJ 07068
          Telephone: 973-994-1700


PFIZER INC: Loses Bid to Halt Trial in Hormone Replacement Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that the U.S. Supreme Court is
allowing a new trial in the case of a woman who got breast cancer
after taking hormone replacement therapy and is seeking punitive
damages against Wyeth Pharmaceuticals.  The justices rejected
Wyeth's attempt to block the trial because it is to be limited to
punitive damages.  Wyeth also wanted the high court to throw out
$2.75 million compensatory damages that the woman, Donna Scroggin,
won after suing Wyeth and Upjohn Co., another drugmaker.  Both
companies now are owned by Pfizer Inc.

A jury also awarded Ms. Scroggin $27 million in punitive damages
after concluding that Wyeth inadequately warned her that its drugs
Premarin and Prempro carried an increased risk of breast cancer.

A federal judge struck down the punitive damages award, saying
certain testimony from former Food and Drug Administration
official Dr. Suzanne Parisian, who was the plaintiff's regulatory
expert, shouldn't have been allowed at trial.

Jason Beahm, writing for FindLaw, reports that Pfizer argued that
it was wrong for the lower court to allow a retrial on a portion
of the case, contending that any new trial should cover the entire
matter.  The U.S. Supreme Court, by denying certiorari, did not
find Pfizer's case compelling.

The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis ordered the
partial retrial, limited to punitive damages.

"We continue to believe that Wyeth and Pharmacia & Upjohn acted
responsibly by conducting or supporting more than 180 studies on
hormone therapy's benefits and risks, keeping the U.S. Food and
Drug Administration fully informed, and providing proper, accurate
and science-based information to patients and doctors," Pfizer
said in a statement.

"While we are disappointed with the court's decision, it does not
change the prior ruling by the appeals court, which affirmed the
dismissal of punitive damages as to Upjohn and ordered a new trial
on punitive damages for Wyeth," Pfizer said in a statement,
reported by Businessweek.


QUINNIPIAC UNIVERSITY: Trial in Volleyball Suit Begins
------------------------------------------------------
Pat Eaton-Robb, writing for The Associated Press, says a federal
judge is being asked to decide whether cheerleading can be counted
as a sport by schools looking for ways to meet gender-equity
requirements.  The issue is part of a lawsuit filed by five
members of the volleyball team at Connecticut's Quinnipiac
University and coach Robin Sparks in 2009 after the school decided
in a budgetary move to eliminate women's volleyball in favor of a
competitive cheer squad.

Judge Stefan Underhill also will be asked to decide whether
Quinnipiac improperly manipulates the size of the rosters of its
other teams to get around complying with Title IX, the 1972
federal law that mandates equal opportunities for men and women in
athletics.  Judge Underhill recently agreed to make the lawsuit a
class action for all current and future female athletes at
Quinnipiac.

According to the AP, the case was to go to trial in U.S. District
Court in Bridgeport, beginning Monday.

Linda Carpenter, a professor emerita at Brooklyn College and co-
author of the book "Title IX," said the women's sports community
is watching the case closely.  "These are significant issues and a
significant case," Ms. Carpenter said. "It provides a case,
whichever way it goes, that can work its way up the judicial food
chain, and ultimately provide a precedent."

Judge Underhill issued a temporary injunction last year that
prevented the school from disbanding the volleyball team after
finding the school was over-reporting the participation
opportunities for its female athletes and under-reporting the
opportunities for men.

Evidence showed the men's baseball and lacrosse teams, for
example, would drop players before reporting data to the
Department of Education and reinstate them after the reports were
submitted.  Conversely, the women's softball team would add
players before the reporting date, knowing the additional players
would not be on the team in the spring.

Quinnipiac officials and their lawyers declined to comment on the
lawsuit, but said in a short statement that the school "believes
that it has complied with all aspects of Title IX legislation and
will continue to do so."

Members of both the cheer squad and the volleyball team either
would not comment or did not return calls seeking comment.  Erin
Trotman, a junior on the cheer squad, said they have been told
they are not allowed to discuss the case while it is pending.

A lawyer for the plaintiffs said the lawsuit is apparently a
first.  "What makes this case significant is that, as far as I
know, this will be the first time any court has been asked to rule
whether competitive cheer is a sport for Title IX purposes," said
attorney Jon Orleans, who represents the volleyball players.

An activity can be considered a sport under Title IX if it meets
specific criteria.  It must have coaches, practices, competitions
during a defined season, and a governing organization.  The
activity also must have competition as its primary goal -- not
merely the support of other athletic teams.

During last year's hearing, school cheer coach Mary Ann Powers
defended competitive cheer as a legitimate sport, saying her team
is made of athletes, most of them elite gymnasts.

School officials testified that the benefit of a competitive cheer
team is more athletic opportunities for women at lower cost.
Quinnipiac's cheer team cost the school about $1,250 per roster
spot, the school testified last year.  The team currently has 30
members.  The volleyball team cost more than $6,300 per team
member with 11 players in 2008-09 and a budget of more than
$70,000, according to the testimony.

Even the judge recognized the competitive attributes of the cheer
squad.  In issuing his injunction, Judge Underhill said
competitive cheer "although not presently an NCAA recognized sport
or emerging sport, has all the necessary characteristics of a
potentially valid competitive sport."

Quinnipiac and seven other schools recently formed a governing
body, the National Competitive Stunts and Tumbling Association, to
govern and develop competitive cheer as a sport.  Previously,
competitive cheerleading championships were decided by two
organizations -- the National Cheerleaders Association and the
Universal Cheerleading Association.  Both are tied to Varsity
Brands Inc., which makes cheerleading apparel and runs camps.

School officials have said any improper manipulation of the
rosters has stopped.  According to the AP, the officials were to
argue at trial that Quinnipiac's percentage of men and women
athletes is now in line with the overall population at the school,
one of three ways a school can show it is in compliance with Title
IX.  The other two are showing history of increasing sports
opportunities for women or proving it has met the interest and
ability of the underrepresented group.

But lawyers for the volleyball team have planned to ask the judge
to clarify how rosters can be counted.  Women who run track at
Quinnipiac, for example, are counted three times, as members of
the indoor, outdoor and cross-country teams.

Quinnipiac eliminated men's indoor and outdoor track to help meet
numbers for Title IX.  But the plaintiffs argue all track athletes
should be counted just once.

Ms. Carpenter believes a lot of schools pad their rosters to make
it look like they are in compliance with Title IX.  "Truth is an
important commodity, especially on a campus of higher education,"
she said. "I think this (case) might make other schools think
twice before they manipulate their own figures."


RED ROBIN: Moreno Action Stayed Pending Supreme Court Review
------------------------------------------------------------
A purported class action lawsuit, Marcos R. Moreno vs. Red Robin
International, Inc., has been stayed pending the outcome of
another California case before the California Supreme Court for
review, according to the Company's May 21, 2010 Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended April 18, 2010.

The Moreno Action was filed in December 2009 in Superior Court in
Ventura County, California.  It has been removed since then to
Federal District Court for the Central District of California
under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005.  The lawsuit alleges
failure to pay wages and overtime, failure to provide rest and
meal breaks or to pay compensation in lieu of such breaks, failure
to pay timely wages on termination, failure to provide accurate
wage statements, and unlawful business practices and unfair
competition.  The Plaintiff is seeking compensatory and special
damages, restitution for unfair competition, premium pay,
penalties and wages under the Labor Code, and attorneys' fees,
interest and costs.

Red Robin filed its Answer and Affirmative Defenses to the Moreno
case on February 10, 2010.

On March 24, 2010, the District Court granted a stay of the Moreno
case pending the outcome of another California case that involves
similar allegations regarding rest and meal breaks.  The Other
California case is pending before the California Supreme Court for
review.  It is anticipated that the California Supreme Court will
provide useful guidance on rest and meal breaks when the opinion
in that case is issued.

Red Robin believes that the Moreno lawsuit is without merit.

Red Robin Gourmet Burgers, Inc. -- http://www.redrobin.com/--
together with its subsidiaries, is a casual dining restaurant
chain focused on serving gourmet burgers.  As of Dec. 30, 2007,
the company owned and operated, or franchised 384 restaurants,
of which 249 were company-owned, 135 were operated under
franchise agreements including one restaurant that was managed
by the company under a management agreement with the franchisee.
As of Dec. 30, 2007, there were Red Robin restaurants in 40
states and two Canadian provinces.  The company's menu features
its signature product, the gourmet burger, made from beef,
chicken, veggie patties, pork, fish or turkey and serve in a
variety of recipes.  Red Robin offers a selection of toppings
for gourmet burgers, including fresh guacamole, barbeque sauce,
grilled pineapple, crispy onion straws, sauteed mushrooms, a
choice of seven different cheeses and even a fried egg.


ROSS STORES: Defends Wage and Hour Lawsuit in California
--------------------------------------------------------
Ross Stores, Inc., continues to defend a class action lawsuit
regarding wage and hour claims.

Like many California retailers, the company has been named in
class action lawsuits regarding wage and hour claims.  A class
action litigation involving allegations that hourly associates
have missed meal and/or rest break periods, as well as allegations
of unpaid overtime wages to store managers and assistant store
managers at company stores under state law, remains pending as of
May 1, 2010.

No additional details were reported in the company's June 9, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended May 1, 2010.

Ross Stores, Inc. -- http://www.rossstores.com/-- is the nation's
second largest off-price retailer with fiscal 2009 revenues of
$7.2 billion.  As of May 1, 2010 the company operated 967 Ross
Dress for Less(R) ("Ross") stores and 54 dd's DISCOUNTS(R)
locations, compared to 922 Ross and 52 dd's DISCOUNTS locations at
the end of the same period last year.  Ross offers first-quality,
in-season, name brand and designer apparel, accessories, footwear
and home fashions for the entire family at everyday savings of 20
to 60% off department and specialty store regular prices. dd's
DISCOUNTS features a more moderately-priced assortment of first-
quality, in-season, name brand apparel, accessories, footwear and
home fashions for the entire family at everyday savings of 20 to
70 percent off moderate department and discount store regular
prices.  The company is headquartered in Pleasanton, California.


SEARS HOLDINGS: Court Okay of "Levie" Appeal Settlement Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sears Holdings Corporation disclosed that court approval of a
settlement of an appeal regarding an order granting motions for
summary judgment in a class action lawsuit is pending.

Maurice Levie, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, filed a lawsuit in 2004 in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois relating to the merger
transaction of Kmart into Sears Holdings.

The Lawsuit asserts claims under the federal securities laws on
behalf of a class of former Sears' stockholders against Sears,
Alan J. Lacy, Edward S. Lampert and ESL Partners, L.P. for
allegedly failing to make timely disclosure of merger discussions
during the period September 9 through November 16, 2004, and seeks
damages.

On July 17, 2007, the Court granted in part and denied in part
plaintiffs' motion for class certification, certifying a class of
Sears' stockholders who sold shares of Sears' stock between
September 9, 2004 and November 16, 2004, excluding short sellers
who covered their positions during the class period.

On December 18, 2009, the Court entered an order granting
defendants' motions for summary judgment.

By January 15, 2010, the Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal.  In
their opening appellate brief, the plaintiffs withdrew their
appeal from the portion of the Court's Order granting summary
judgment to Sears and Mr. Lacy.

The Plaintiffs then entered into an agreement with ESL Partners
and Mr. Lampert to settle their remaining appeal, the Company
disclosed in a Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended May 1, 2010.

The Plaintiffs, ESL Partners and Mr. Lampert will seek approval of
the settlement from the Court.

Sears asserts that the proposed settlement does not have a
material adverse effect on the results of its operations,
financial position, liquidity or capital resources.

Sears Holdings Corporation -- http://www.searsholdings.com/--
is the parent company of Kmart Holding Corporation and Sears,
Roebuck and Co.  The company is a broadline retailer with 2,297
full-line and 1,233 specialty retail stores in the United States
operating through Kmart and Sears and 388 full-line and
specialty retail stores in Canada operating through Sears Canada
Inc., a 73%-owned subsidiary.  During the fiscal year ended
Jan. 31, 2009 (fiscal 2008), Sears Holdings Corporation operated
three business segments: Kmart, Sears Domestic and Sears Canada.


SHUFFLE MASTER: Nevada Grants Final Approval to Settlement Pact
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada gave its final
approval to the settlement agreement entered into by Shuffle
Master, Inc., and plaintiffs in a consolidated amended class
action complaint, according to the company's June 9, 2010, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended April 30, 2010.

On June 1, 2007, a putative class action complaint for violation
of the federal securities laws against the company and its Chief
Executive Officer, Mark L. Yoseloff and former Chief Financial
Officer, Richard L. Baldwin, was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Nevada on behalf of persons who purportedly
purchased our stock between Dec. 22, 2006 and March 12, 2007.  The
case is entitled Joseph Stocke vs. Shuffle Master, Inc., Mark L.
Yoseloff and Richard L. Baldwin.  The complaint asserts claims
pursuant to Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  These claims
allegedly relate to the company's March 12, 2007, announcement
that it would restate its fiscal fourth quarter and full year
financial results.  The complaint seeks compensatory damages in an
unstated amount.  On or about Aug. 4, 2007, four plaintiffs moved
the Court for appointment as lead plaintiff.

On June 12, 2007, a second putative class action complaint for
violation of the federal securities laws against the company and
Dr. Yoseloff and Mr. Baldwin was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Nevada.  The case is entitled Robert
Armistead, Jr. vs. Shuffle Master, Inc., Mark L. Yoseloff and
Richard L. Baldwin.  This lawsuit effectively mirrors the
allegations in the Stocke lawsuit filed against these same
defendants on June 1, 2007, except that the Armistead complaint
was filed on behalf of persons who purchased the company's stock
between March 20, 2006 and March 12, 2007.

On June 25, 2007, a third putative class action complaint for
violation of the federal securities laws against the company, Dr.
Yoseloff and Mr. Baldwin was filed in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Nevada.  The case is entitled Andrew J. Tempel vs.
Shuffle Master, Inc., Mark L. Yoseloff and Richard L. Baldwin.
This lawsuit is a "copycat" lawsuit of the Stocke lawsuit filed
against these same defendants on June 1, 2007.

On June 22, 2007, a Joint Stipulation was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Nevada providing that all
presently filed and any subsequently filed related class actions
shall be consolidated and captioned In Re Shuffle Master, Inc.
Securities Litigation.  the company was not required to answer,
move against or otherwise respond to any class action complaints
until a consolidated complaint was filed.

On Nov. 30, 2007, the Court appointed the "Shuffle Master
Institutional Investor Group," consisting of the Tulsa Municipal
Employees' Retirement Plan and the Oklahoma Firefighters Pension
and Retirement System, as lead plaintiffs.  Grant & Eisenhofer is
the lead plaintiffs' counsel.

A Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint was filed on Feb. 5,
2008.  The Consolidated Complaint asserts the same causes of
action for violation of federal securities law as the initial
lawsuits and applies to a class period of Feb. 1, 2006 to March
12, 2007.  The Consolidated Complaint contains essentially the
same material allegations as in the initial lawsuits and also
contains allegations arising out of the company's acquisition of
Stargames and disclosures concerning the company's internal
controls.  The Consolidated Complaint supersedes all previously
filed lawsuits covering this class period.

On March 25, 2008, defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss.  On March
23, 2009, the Court denied the company's Motion to Dismiss.  The
defendants answered on April 29, 2009.  The case is presently
pending.

On Feb. 2, 2010, the lead plaintiffs filed a Motion for
Preliminary Approval of Settlement.  The Motion was granted on
Feb. 4, 2010, and the Court set a hearing in May 2010,
subsequently rescheduled to June 8, 2010, where the Court will
decide whether to give final approval for the settlement.

At the June 8, 2010 hearing, the court gave its final approval to
this settlement.  The cases will be dismissed with prejudice, and
the settlement funds will be released to the plaintiffs once the
court's approval and judgment are final and any appeal period has
expired.  All settlement funds will be paid by the company's D&O
insurance carriers.  The company continues to deny any wrongdoing.

Shuffle Master, Inc. -- http://www.shufflemaster.com/--
is a gaming supply company specializing in providing its casino
customers with improved profitability, productivity and security,
as well as popular and cutting-edge gaming entertainment content,
through value-add products in four distinct categories: Utility
products which include automatic card shuffler, roulette chip
sorters and intelligent table system modules, Proprietary Table
Games which include live table game tournaments, Electronic Table
Systems which include various e-Table game platforms and
Electronic Gaming Machines which include traditional video slot
machines for select markets.


SIGMA PHARMA: Disgruntled Shareholders Seek Settlement Talks
------------------------------------------------------------
Rebecca Urban at The Australian reports that lawyers representing
Sigma Pharmaceuticals shareholders aim to meet the new management
early next month to negotiate a settlement.  Slater & Gordon
flagged the potential class action on March 31, 2010, after Sigma
unveiled an historic A$389 million loss that stemmed from
significant asset write-downs.

Slater & Gordon principal partner James Higgins, Esq., confirmed
that shareholders with claims of about A$40 million had so far
come forward, but rising interest was likely to push the figure to
A$100 million.

"We've had very significant institutional shareholder support for
the action," Mr. Higgins told The Australian.  "We would expect
that in early July we'll be approaching the new management of
Sigma to try to enter a process of negotiations."

The loss came several months after Sigma raised A$460 million via
entitlement offers to institutions and retail investors, claiming
to be on track to improve the previous year's A$80 million profit.
Slater & Gordon claimed that the goodwill impairments announced by
the drug maker related to aggressive competition in the generics
market and reforms to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, which
had been known to Sigma for some time.

"Slater & Gordon is investigating whether Sigma has breached its
continuous disclosure obligations, and also whether the company
had a reasonable basis for its September profit guidance," the
firm said at the time.

Sigma has repeatedly defended its conduct in relation to the
matter.  When publicly queried by the Australian Securities
Exchange over when it first became aware of the issues that led to
the writedowns and subsequent loss, Sigma said that it had
complied with its continuous disclosure obligations.

Mr. Higgins said his firm would seek to settle the matter, but
would not hesitate taking it to court if required.  He suggested
that a clearing out of the ranks -- chairman John Stocker retired
June 21 and will be replaced by Brian Jamieson, while managing
director Elmo De Alwis will be replaced by Mark Hooper in
September -- might act as a catalyst for a settlement.

"There's new management there, and they would understand why
shareholders are upset," Mr. Higgins said.


SINGAPORE POWER: Aussie Unit to "Vigorously" Defend Bushfire Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mok Fei Fei at Channel News Asia reports that Singapore Power's
Australian unit SP AusNet said it will vigorously defend against
claims made against it in the Supreme Court of the state of
Victoria in a case involving a major bush fire last year.  It has
also clarified that its parent company, Singapore Power, is not a
defendant in the proceedings.

The firm said court documents filed by the plaintiff's lawyers
have incorrectly referred to Singapore Power, instead of SP
Ausnet.  SP Ausnet said it has extended its full support and
assistance to the Bushfires Royal Commission and is awaiting its
findings and recommendations.

According to Millet Enriquez, writing for Today, Melbourne's The
Sunday Age newspaper -- citing senior government officials --
reported that there was a "real chance" that SP Ausnet, which is
51% owned by Singapore Power, would join government agencies and a
maintenance company in the suit.

In an interview with the paper, SP AusNet managing director Nino
Ficca did not comment on the possibility of being a co-defendant
in the case.

According to a Bloomberg report on Saturday, SP Ausnet said that
the defendant in the legal proceedings is its electricity
distribution operating company SPI Electricity.

The firm added that as court proceedings were ongoing, it would
not comment on the matter and will wait for the findings of the
Royal Commission investigating the cause of the blaze to be
released by the end of July.

The Sunday Age said that evidence from police and electricity
experts presented to the royal commission suggested that the
Kilmore East fire originated from the foot of an SP AusNet power
pole.

The Class Action Reporter on June 23, 2010, citing John Silvester
at The Age, said lawyers acting for Black Saturday fire victims
lodged on June 19 legal documents in Victoria's biggest class
action, alleging Singapore Power 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.


SYMYX TECHNOLOGIES: Stockholders File Consolidated Complaint
------------------------------------------------------------
Certain stockholders of Symyx Technologies, Inc., filed a single
consolidated complaint on May 20, 2010, according to the Company's
8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Several lawsuits have previously been filed in Santa Clara County
against Symyx, the members of the Symyx board of directors,
certain executive officers of Symyx, Accelrys and Merger Sub in
purported class action lawsuits brought by individual Symyx
stockholders challenging the proposed Merger of Smyx and Accelrys.
The Stockholders seek to enjoin the defendants from completing the
Merger pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement.  Subsequent
to the filing of the first lawsuit, several additional lawsuits
were filed, each of which is substantially similar to the first
lawsuit. The lawsuits were ultimately consolidated into a single
action.

The May 20 Consolidated Complaint serves as the only complaint in
the combined litigation going forward.  The consolidated
complaint, like the previously filed complaints, alleges, among
other things, that Symyx's directors breached their fiduciary
duties to the stockholders of Symyx in connection with the
proposed Merger, and seeks, among other things, to enjoin the
defendants from completing the Merger pursuant to the terms of the
Merger Agreement.

Symyx Technologies, Inc. -- http://www.symyx.com/-- helps R&D-
based companies in life sciences, chemicals, energy, and consumer
and industrial products achieve breakthroughs in innovation,
productivity, and return on investment.  Symyx software and
scientific databases power laboratories with the information that
generates insight, enhances collaboration and drives productivity.
Products include a market-leading electronic laboratory notebook,
decision support software, chemical informatics and sourcing
databases.


TOLL BROTHERS: Defends Amended Securities Violations Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Toll Brothers, Inc., continues to defend an amended complaint
alleging violation of federal securities laws.

In April 2007, a securities class action suit was filed against
Toll Brothers, Inc. and Robert I. Toll and Bruce E. Toll in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on
behalf of a purported class of purchasers of the company's common
stock between Dec. 9, 2004 and Nov. 8, 2005.

In August 2007, an amended complaint was filed adding additional
directors and officers as defendants.

The amended complaint filed on behalf of the purported class
alleges that the defendants violated federal securities laws by
issuing various materially false and misleading statements that
had the effect of artificially inflating the market price of the
company's stock.

It further alleges that the individual defendants sold shares for
substantial gains during the class period.  The purported class is
seeking compensatory damages, counsel fees, and expert costs.

No 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.

Toll Brothers, Inc. -- http://tollbrothers.com/-- is the nation's
leading builder of luxury homes.  The company began
business in 1967 and became a public company in 1986.  Its common
stock is listed on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol
"TOL".  The company serves move-up, empty-nester, active-adult and
second-home home buyers and operates in 20 states: Arizona,
California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia,
Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada,
New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South
Carolina, Texas and Virginia.  Toll Brothers builds luxury single-
family detached and attached home communities, master planned
luxury residential resort-style golf communities and urban low-,
mid- and high-rise communities, principally on land it develops
and improves.  The company operates its own architectural,
engineering, mortgage, title, land development and land sale, golf
course development and management, home security and landscape
subsidiaries.  The company also operates its own lumber
distribution, and house component assembly and manufacturing
operations.


TOLL BROTHERS: Defends Three Defective Drywall Suits
----------------------------------------------------
Toll Brothers, Inc., defends three purported class action suits
relating to allegedly defective drywall manufactured in China.

On Dec. 9, 2009, and Feb. 10, 2010, the company was named as a
defendant in three purported class action suits filed by
homeowners relating to allegedly defective drywall manufactured in
China.

These suits are all pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana as part of In re: Chinese-
Manufactured Drywall Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2047.

The complaints also name as defendants other home builders, as
well as other parties claimed to be involved in the manufacture,
sale, importation, brokerage, distribution, and installation of
the drywall.

The plaintiffs claim that the drywall, which was installed by
independent subcontractors in certain homes built by the company,
caused damage to certain items and building materials in the
homes, as well as personal injuries.  The complaints seek damages
for, among other things, the costs of repairing the homes,
diminution in value to the homes, replacement of certain personal
property, and personal injuries.

The company has not yet responded to these suits.

No 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.

Toll Brothers, Inc. -- http://tollbrothers.com/-- is the nation's
leading builder of luxury homes.  The company began
business in 1967 and became a public company in 1986.  Its common
stock is listed on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol
"TOL".  The company serves move-up, empty-nester, active-adult and
second-home home buyers and operates in 20 states: Arizona,
California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia,
Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada,
New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South
Carolina, Texas and Virginia.  Toll Brothers builds luxury single-
family detached and attached home communities, master planned
luxury residential resort-style golf communities and urban low-,
mid- and high-rise communities, principally on land it develops
and improves.  The company operates its own architectural,
engineering, mortgage, title, land development and land sale, golf
course development and management, home security and landscape
subsidiaries.  The company also operates its own lumber
distribution, and house component assembly and manufacturing
operations.


TOYOTA MOTOR: Economic-Loss Claims May Be Difficult to Advance
--------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, says
plaintiffs lawyers preparing to file their consolidated class
action on behalf of Toyota consumers, are facing an obstacle that
has prevented similar claims from advancing in the past: Class
members didn't actually suffer physical injuries.

The class members assert that they suffered economic injuries
because their vehicles declined in value following recalls tied to
sudden acceleration problems.  Courts have rejected similar
argument in class actions brought under products liability laws,
according to plaintiffs lawyers who spoke during a March
conference on the Toyota litigation.

Those "no injury" rulings could influence how the lead plaintiffs
attorneys in the multidistrict litigation against Toyota Motor
Corp. craft their first consolidated class action complaint, which
is due on Aug. 2.

"This issue is stacked against the plaintiffs," said Amanda
Williams, Esq., at Minneapolis-based Gustafson Gluek who addressed
the matter during the conference.  Her firm has filed three cases
against Toyota.  "I think we have good arguments, but it's not
going to be easy."

Steve Berman, Esq., founding partner of Seattle's Hagens Berman
Sobol Shapiro, one of three co-lead counsel of the plaintiffs'
economic-loss committee, anticipated that the class would press
claims under consumer fraud statutes in California, rather than
products liability laws.  Courts have been favorable to the
plaintiffs in these cases, he said.  "The cases I'm citing are
very similar-in-type cases to the ones I'm bringing, where people
are bringing economic-loss injuries, not personal injuries, not
tort claims," he said.

More than 200 lawsuits are pending in the MDL in Santa Ana, Calif.
Some were brought on behalf of individuals who allegedly were
injured or died after their Toyota accelerated out of control.
But most have been brought on behalf of consumers seeking economic
damages on the ground that their Toyotas are now worth less.
Those cases will be the focus of the consolidated class action
complaint.

Toyota spokeswoman Celeste Migliore declined to comment on the MDL
or potential court rulings that might shape the litigation.  "It
is early in this MDL," she said in an e-mailed statement.
"However, Toyota is confident that as we move into this case the
legal process will be conducted with integrity and fairness.  We
look forward to addressing the rulings and any court actions as
they are decided."

'WE'LL BE IN TROUBLE'

During the March conference, Ms. Williams noted that economic-loss
theories under products liability laws have been challenged in
court.  "There's a line of cases out there that say: Until you
experienced this defect, you haven't been injured and don't have a
claim," Ms. Williams said.  "If we can't get past this issue,
we'll be in trouble."

One of the most cited cases is a 1999 ruling by the 8th U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals in Briehl v. General Motors Corp.  The
appellate panel found that the class members had failed to plead
sufficient economic damages because they had not exhibited any
defect in the anti-lock braking system of their vehicles.  The
plaintiffs had claimed that their brake pedals fell rapidly to the
floor when they stepped on them, which made driving unsafe.

Robert A. Wallner, Esq., a partner at New York's Milberg who
argued that case for the plaintiffs, said that "one of the
principal issues the panel raised is you couldn't have a claim
unless someone experienced a brake failure."

Last year, in O'Neil v. Simplicity Inc., the 8th Circuit reached a
similar conclusion after plaintiffs sought compensation for a baby
crib that had been recalled due to a defective drop-down side. The
plaintiffs alleged tort claims and violations of consumer fraud
statutes in Minnesota.  "The 8th Circuit said: 'You bought a crib,
you used it for four years, your kid wasn't hurt, nobody was
injured, and therefore you don't have a tort claim," said Joe
Krasovec, Esq., a partner at Chicago's Schiff Hardin who argued
the case for the primary defendant, Graco Children's Products Inc.
As for the consumer claims, the court said the plaintiffs used the
crib and got what they paid for.

"That is what Toyota would argue, just like what we argued in
O'Neil: You bought a vehicle not subject to the recall, you've
used it, you've driven it and you don't have problems with it --
or, it has been subject to the recall, and we've made it right,"
Krasovec said. "There's no injury here."

'IT'S GOOD TO BE IN CALIFORNIA'

The plaintiffs attorneys in Toyota have one thing in their favor:
They're in California, where rulings based on state consumer fraud
statutes have been more favorable to plaintiffs.  "California is
pretty much on the cutting edge of class action law and has been
for a long time," said W. Daniel "Dee" Miles, Esq., a shareholder
at Montgomery, Ala.-based Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis &
Miles who now sits on the plaintiffs' steering committee in the
personal injury and wrongful death cases against Toyota. "They are
the ones blazing the trail in these cases, which is why it's good
to be in California."

The consolidated class action complaint will be based on
California's consumer fraud statutes, specifically the Unfair
Competition Law (UCL) and the Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA),
Berman said. The UCL prohibits businesses from engaging in
"unlawful," "unfair" or "fraudulent" practices, including
misleading advertising.  The CLRA prohibits "unfair methods of
competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices." Both
provide consumers with potential damages.

"In our case, we're not seeking personal injuries, so we will be
seeking consumer fraud statutes of various states," Mr. Berman
said. "And the remedies under California law are extremely broad."

Among those cases is Trew v. Volvo Cars of North America, in which
a federal judge in the Eastern District of California refused to
dismiss claims brought on behalf of consumers whose vehicles had a
defective electronic throttle system -- not unlike the problems
alleged against Toyota.  In Trew, the judge found that the lead
plaintiff, while not experiencing any defect, nevertheless
suffered injuries under California's UCL and CLRA because she
anticipated that the defective part would fail and, had she known
about the problem beforehand, she would not have paid so much for
her vehicle.

"Toyota is going to argue that, for consumers who haven't had an
unintended acceleration, they don't have a defective product," Mr.
Berman said. "There are many cases that have held that you don't
have to wait until you've suffered such an injury."

Ms. Williams identified another successful case for the plaintiffs
that involved "no injury" claims.

In 2008, a federal judge in the Eastern District of California in
Sanchez v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc. denied Wal-Mart's motion for
summary judgment, rejecting a line of "no injury" rulings
involving products liability claims. The judge found that the lead
plaintiff suffered injuries under California's UCL and CLRA
because she was forced to purchase another baby stroller after the
first one was recalled due to a defect that Wal-Mart had failed to
disclose.

One year later, in Whitson v. Bumbo Ltd., a federal judge in the
Northern District of California rejected similar claims involving
a recalled baby seat. The judge found the case dissimilar to
Sanchez because the plaintiffs had not been forced to replace the
defective seat after it was recalled and, therefore, suffered no
injuries. "The plaintiffs apparently believe that if they keep
oscillating between tort and contract law claims, they can obscure
the fact that they have asserted no concrete injury," the judge
wrote. "Such artful pleading, however, is not enough to create an
injury in fact."

In another defeat for plaintiffs, California's 2nd District Court
of Appeal in Daugherty v. American Honda Motor Co. Inc. upheld
demurrer of a class action alleging that Honda failed to warn
about or fix an engine defect. The panel noted that class members
had brought claims involving a defect that occurred after the
warranties on their vehicles had expired -- when most cars begin
falling apart. Also, the panel found that the potential for
injuries caused by the defect was slim. "No one was saying this
was a risk to health, or you might be in a wreck because of this,"
said C. Brooks Cutter, Esq., a partner at Kershaw, Cutter &
Ratinoff who cited the case during the conference. Cutter's
Sacramento, Calif., firm has a suit pending against Toyota.

One year later, he said, a federal judge in the Northern District
of California ruled differently in Falk v. General Motors, which
also involved vehicles whose warranties had expired. A class of
consumers alleged that General Motors Co. had a duty under the UCL
and CLRA to disclose that the speedometers on its vehicles
malfunctioned. The judge refused to grant GM's motion to dismiss
because, unlike in Daugherty, the defect involved a serious safety
issue. "Speed kills. This is a safety issue," said Michael Ram,
name partner at San Francisco's Ram & Olson who represented the
plaintiffs in Falk. "This is material to a reasonable consumer."

Mr. Cutter said the Toyota case falls close in line with Falk
because sudden acceleration, like defective speedometers, poses a
significant safety risk. "The claims implicate the very core of
what the person relies upon when they buy a vehicle: that it will
be safe to drive," he said.


UNITED KINGDOM: Faces Suit Before ICC for Human Rights Breach
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rebecca Lefort, writing for The Telegraph in the U.K., reports
that more than 100 British families who say they have been treated
unfairly by social services departments and the family courts are
preparing to launch an unprecedented case at the International
Criminal Court in The Hague, arguing that their human rights have
been breached.

The claimants hope the action will lead to greater transparency
and accountability in the family court system, as well as the
possibility of being reunited with the children they believe have
been taken unfairly.

More than 100 families have now signed up to the claim, which will
be lodged on July 1 at the International Criminal Court at The
Hague, where political leaders are tried for genocide.

The court action is being brought by Freedom, Advocacy and Law,
which claims that parents have suffered "constant denial of
freedoms" which ought to be protected under the Human Rights Act.
The action alleges that British courts and local authorities have
breached the legislation, which gives the right to a fair trial
and the right to respect for private and family life.

Sam Hallimond, of Freedom, Advocacy and Law, said: "Families have
been destroyed by the actions of family courts, and no one has
been held to account.

"Considering what's at stake at these hearings we need to see some
sort of definition of the criteria under which action should be
taken by social services.

"The possibility of future emotional neglect and abuse is not good
enough, unless courts have a crystal ball I don't know how they
can justify that."

He said he hoped the class action could result in financial
payouts to some claimants, but the main purpose was to expose the
flaws families saw in the system.


UNITED POTATO: Sued in Idaho for Alleged Price-Fixing
-----------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that United Potato Growers of
Idaho, Dole Food and others conspired to fix prices by controlling
the supply of potatoes in the United States, according to an
antitrust class action in Pocatello Federal Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Brigiotta's Farmland Produce and Garden
Center, Inc. v. United Potato Growers of Idaho, Inc., et al., Case
No. 10-cv-00307 (D. Idaho), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/06/21/Potato.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Philip Gordon, Esq.
          Bruce S. Bistline, Esq.
          GORDON LAW OFFICES
          623 W. Hays St.
          Boise, Idaho 83702
          Telephone: 208-345-7100
          E-mail: pgordon@gordonlawoffices.com
                  bbistline@gordonlawoffices.com

               - and -

          Michael D. Hausfeld, Esq
          James J. Pizzirusso, Esq.
          Sathya Gosselin, Esq.
          HAUSFELD LLP
          1700 K St., N.W., Suite 650
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: 202-540-7200
          E-mail: mhausfeld@hausfeldllp.com
                  jpizzirusso@hausfeldllp.com
                  sgosselin@hausfeldllp.com

               - and -

          Michael Lehmann, Esq.
          Jon King, Esq.
          Art Bailey, Jr., Esq.
          HAUSFELD LLP
          44 Montgomery Street, Suite 3400
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: 415-633-1908
          E-mail: mlehmann@hausfeldllp.com
                  jking@hausfeldllp.com
                  abailey@hausfeldllp.com

               - and -

          Stanley D. Bernstein, Esq.
          Ronald J. Aranoff, Esq.
          Christian Siebott, Esq.
          Gabriel G. Galletti, Esq.
          BERNSTEIN LIEBHARD LLP
          10 East 40th St., 22nd Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: 212-779-1414
          E-mail: bernstein@bernlieb.com
                  aranoff@bernlieb.com
                  siebott@bernlieb.com
                  galletti@bernlieb.com

               - and -

          Bruce L. Simon, Esq.
          PEARSON SIMON WARSHAW PENNY, LLP
          44 Montgomery St., Suite 1200
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: 415-433-9000
          E-mail: bsimon@pswplaw.com

               - and -

          Steven A. Asher, Esq.
          Mindee J. Reuben, Esq.
          WEINSTEIN KITCHENOFF & ASHER LLC
          1845 Walnut St., Suite 1100
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: 215-545-7200
          E-mail: asher@wka-law.com
                  reuben@wka-law.com

               - and -

          Bonny E. Sweeney, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: 619-231-1058
          E-mail: bonnys@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Allan Steyer, Esq.
          STEYER LOWENTHAL BOODROOKAS ALVAREZ & SMITH LLP
          One California St., 3rd Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: 415-421-3400
          E-mail: asteyer@steyerlaw.com

               - and -

          G. Scott Emblidge, Esq.
          Sylvia Sokol, Esq.
          MOSCONE EMBLIDGE & SATER LLP
          220 Montgomery St., Suite 2100
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: 415-362-3599
          E-mail: emblidge@mesllp.com
                  sokol@mesllp.com

               - and -

          Arthur N. Bailey, Sr., Esq.
          ARTHUR N. BAILEY & ASSOCIATES
          111 West Second St., Suite 4500
          Jamestown, NY 14701
          Telephone: 716-483-3732
          E-mail: artlaw@windstream.net

               - and -

          Eugene A. Spector, Esq.
          Jay S. Cohen, Esq.
          Jeffrey L. Spector, Esq.
          SPECTOR ROSEMAN KODROFF AND WILLIS, P.C.
          1818 Market St., Suite 2500
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: 215-496-0300
          E-mail: espector@srkw-law.com
                  jcohen@srkw-law.com
                  jspector@srkw-law.com

                - and -

          Daniel L. Warshaw, Esq.
          PEARSON SIMON WARSHAW PENNY. LLP
          15165 Ventura Blvd., Suite 400
          Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
          Telephone: 818-788-8300
          E-mail: dwarshaw@pswplaw.com

               - and -

          Stephen G. Larson, Esq.
          GIRARDI KEESE
          1126 Wilshire Blvd.
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: 213-977-0211
          E-mail: slarson@girardikeese.com

               - and -

          Hollis Salzman, Esq.
          LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
          140 Broadway New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: 212-907-0717
          E-mail: hsalzman@labaton.com

               - and -

          Steven A. Kanner, Esq.
          Douglas A. Millen, Esq.
          FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC
          2201 Waukegan Rd., Suite 130
          Bannockburn, IL 60015
          Telephone: 224-632-4500
          E-mail: skanner@fklmlaw.com
                  dmillern@fklmlaw.com

               - and -

          Kimberly A. Kralowec, Esq.
          THE KRALOWEC LAW GROUP
          188 The Embarcadero, Suite 800
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: 415-546-6800
          E-mail: kkralowec@kraloweclaw.com


VERIZON WIRELESS: 3rd Cir. Reinstates Settlement in FACTA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Hull at Courthouse News Service reports that the United States
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reinstated a settlement
agreement in a class action against Verizon Wireless, ruling that
a lower court overstepped its authority when it dismissed the
settlement after new legislation made the allegations moot.

The class sued Verizon Wireless, accusing it of violating the Fair
and Accurate Credit Transaction Act, which prohibits a seller from
printing a receipt displaying more than the last five digits of a
buyer's credit or debit card.

While the parties were in court-ordered mediation in 2008,
Congress was considering an amended bill that would eliminate the
class's cause of action.

The parties arrived at a settlement agreement, and the district
court entered a preliminary order approving it.  However, just
over a month later, the bill passed Congress, Verizon filed a
motion to vacate the approval and moved for a judgment, both of
which the district court granted.

But the Philadelphia-based appellate panel found that the court
"lost sight of" its limited fiduciary role in the review of class-
action settlement agreements.

"The requirement that a district court review and approve a class
action settlement before it binds all class members does not
affect the binding nature of the parties' underlying agreement,"
wrote Judge Richard Nygaard for the three-judge panel.  "A
district court is not a party to the settlement, nor may it modify
the terms of a voluntary settlement agreement between parties."

Furthermore, changes in the law after a settlement "do not affect
the validity of the agreement and do not provide a legitimate
basis for rescinding the settlement," Judge Nygaard wrote.

To accept Verizon's and the district court's view would render the
settlement process "meaningless," he added, as it would allow
either party to back out of an agreement at any time.

"Here, the Clarification Act was pending before Congress when the
parties negotiated their agreement," Judge Nygaard wrote.  "In
negotiating this agreement, Verizon bet on the certainty of
settlement instead of gambling on the uncertainties of future
legislative action.  Verizon lost, and the District Court erred by
letting it replay its hand."

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

     http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/084323p.pdf

Ms. Ehrheart is represented by:

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

Mr. Garland is represented by:

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

Verizon Wireless is represented by:

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

               - and -

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


WELLS FARGO: Class Certification Inappropriate in Chapter 13 Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit says that
while a bankruptcy judge may certify a class of debtors under
appropriate circumstances, the proposed class in a chapter 13
bankruptcy case pending in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the
Southern District of Texas did not satisfy the requirements of
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and Federal Bankruptcy Rule of
Procedure 7023.  Accordingly, the Fifth Circuit vacated the lower
court's order certifying a class of Wells Fargo customers charged
unreasonable and unapproved post-petition professional fees and
costs during the pendency of their bankruptcies.

A copy of the opinion in In re Matter of Wilborn, No. 09-20415
(5th Cir. June 18, 2010), is available at:

     http://www.leagle.com/unsecure/page.htm?shortname=infco20100618125

Leigh Jones, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that
the Fifth Circuit ruled on Friday that the bankruptcy court in
Houston had jurisdiction to certify a class of about 1,236
individuals who had filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy and had
mortgages held or serviced by Wells Fargo Bank N.A.  Noting a
disagreement among courts as to whether bankruptcy judges can
certify classes of debtors, the three-judge panel ruled that the
bankruptcy court's interest in "efficiency and economy in
litigation" that result from class actions is just as compelling
as a district court's interest.

However, the appeals court found that the questions of law and
facts raised by the putative class members were not similar enough
to warrant certification.

The plaintiffs, who filed for bankruptcy in the U.S. Bankruptcy
Court for the Southern District of Texas, claimed in an adversary
proceeding that Wells Fargo had charged unreasonable professional
fees and costs -- including attorney's fees, document fees and
title search fees -- during their bankruptcy actions.  They
alleged that Wells Fargo did not disclose those fees, which ranged
from $1,200 to $4,000, to the bankruptcy court.  They also claimed
that the undisclosed fees meant that the plaintiffs still had
unresolved debt even after finalizing a restructuring plan.

After finding that Judge Jeffrey Bohm properly certified the class
of plaintiff-debtors in an adversary proceeding, the appeals court
then considered whether the similarities in the plaintiffs' claims
were predominate over any of their claims as individuals.

"Plaintiffs' claims here fail under the predominance and
superiority inquiries because individual issues for each class
member, particularly with respect to damages, override class
concerns when we consider how the case must be tried," wrote Judge
Thomas Reavley.  Also on the panel were Judge Edward Prado and
Judge Priscilla Owen.

Specifically, the panel determined that the fees for each debtor
varied too widely to enable certification.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

     Miriam Trubek
     WALKER & PATTERSON, P.C.
     4815 Dacoma
     Houston, TX 77092
     Telephone: (713) 956-5577
     Facsimile: (713) 956-5570
     E-mail: miriamtrubek@hotmail.com

Wells Fargo Bank is being defended by:

     Thomas A. Connop, Esq.
     LOCKE LORD BISSELL & BIDDELL LLP
     2200 Ross Avenue, Suite 2200
     Dallas, Texas  75201
     Telephone: (214) 740-8547
     Facsimile: (214) 756-8547
     E-mail: tconnop@lockelord.com


WELLS FARGO: Removes "Reduction of HELOC" Lawsuit to N.D. Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey Yellin and Ellen Yellin, on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., et al., Case
No. 10-500019 (Calif. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty.) was filed on
May 20, 2010.  Plaintiffs Jeffrey and Ellen Yellin accuse Wells
Fargo of engaging in an unlawful, unfair and fraudulent scheme to
suspend accounts and reduce credit limits on "hundreds of millions
of dollars" worth of home equity lines of credit ("HELOCS") across
the State of California, in violation of state law and in breach
of Wells Fargo's own contracts with its consumers.

In January 2007, Wells Fargo provided Plaintiffs Jeffrey and Ellen
Yellin a $200,000 line of credit, but in October 2008, it informed
Plaintiffs that their credit limit had been reduced to  $111,408,
due to a substantial decline in the value of the property securing
their account.

Plaintiffs allege that Wells Fargo had no sound factual basis for
reducing HELOC limits based on purported significant declines in
home values, that its HELOC suspensions and reductions violated
public policy, and that its reduction and suspension of the HELOCS
was unfair and fraudulent.  In addition, the Plaintiffs relate
that Wells Fargo failed to provide adequate notice of its actions
to its customers and that it employed an "unreasonable, oppressive
and illusory process" for customers to challenge their reductions,
thereby denying its customers access to their lines of credit at a
critical economic time.

Because this is an action over which the U.S. District Court would
have original jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(a)
and because there is completed diversity of citizenship between
the Plaintiffs and Wells Fargo, and on the basis that it is "more
likely that not" that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000,
exclusive of interests and costs, Wells Fargo, on June 18, 2010,
removed the lawsuit to the Northern District of California, San
Francisco Division, and the Clerk assigned Case No. 10-cv-02665 to
the proceeding.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Sean Reis, Esq.
          EDELSON MCGUIRE LLP
          30021 Tomas St., Suite 300
          Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688
          Telephone: (949) 459-2124
          E-mail: sreis@edelson.com

               - and -

          Steven Lezell, Esq.
          Evan M. Meyers, Esq.
          EDELSON MCGUIRE LLC
          350 N. LaSalle St., Suite 1300
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 589-6370
          E-mail: slezell@edelson.com
                  emeyers@edelson.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Thomas J. Cunningham, Esq.
          Daniel A. Solitro, Esq.
          LOCKE LORD BISSELL & LIDDELL LLP
          300 South Grand Ave., Suite 2600
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 485-1500
          E-mail: tcunningham@lockelord.com
                  dsolitro@lockelord.com


WHOLE FOODS: Continues to Defend Kottaras Antitrust Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Whole Foods Market, Inc., continues to defend a putative class
action filed by Kottaras in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia, according to the company's May 21, 2010 Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended April 11, 2010.

The Class Action seeks treble damages, equitable, injunctive, and
declaratory relief, and alleges that the acquisition and merger
between Whole Foods Market and Wild Oats violates various
provisions of the federal antitrust laws.

The Company relates that it has not accrued any loss related to
the outcome of the Kottaras Complaint as of April 11, 2010.

Whole Foods Market, headquartered in Austin, Texas, is a leading
supermarket retailer which emphasizes natural and organic foods.
The company has 295 stores in the U.S., Canada and U.K., and had
approximately $8 billion in revenues over the last 12 months.


WORLDSPACE INC: Shareholder Plaintiffs Seek to Conduct Discovery
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Forrester, writing for Rapid TV News, relates that for the
best part of two years, interested parties have been watching the
Chapter 11 bankruptcy of pay-radio operator Worldspace Inc.
unfold, before seemingly getting resolved two weeks ago.  Watching
in the wings have been the backers of a Class Action against
Worldspace and some of its directors.  Now they have pounced.

In a Court filing on June 18, the Lead Plaintiff in the Class
Action (Midtown Partners) asked Judge Peter Walsh of the U.S.
Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware for a modification
in the wrap up proceedings.  Their request is on behalf of those
who, during the period from Aug. 4, 2005, through Mar. 16, 2006,
purchased or otherwise acquired common stock of Worldspace Inc.
. . . and [traceable] to the debtors IPO of August 4, 2005.

Midtown wants to issue a subpoena that has the effect of making
available all of Worldspace's records to the Class Action's
lawyers handling the litigation against the company and certain
directors.  They have asked for a hearing before Judge Walsh on
July 12.

Specifically the lawyers -- among a very detailed set of requests
-- want to know the number of paying subscribers prior to the IPO,
which they have always alleged were inflated, plus Board minutes,
subscriber forecasts and such like.

The Troubled Company Reporter, citing Bill Rochelle at Bloomberg
News, said on June 7, 2010, WorldSpace won approval from the
Bankruptcy Court to sell its two satellites to Chief Executive
Officer Noah Samara.  Mr. Samara's Yazmi USA LLC will be buying
the assets for $5.5 million, plus payment of specified expenses.
Mr. Samara would be buying the business for a fraction of the
price he originally was under contract to pay.  WorldSpace
negotiated two sales of the assets.  Both fell through.  The first
sale, for $28 million, was to have been to Yenura Pte, a company
Mr. Samara controlled.  WorldSpace terminated the contract,
contending Yenura was in breach for failure to pay the agreed
price.

Absent the sale, WorldSpace was authorized in March to bring the
satellites out of orbit.  Destroying the satellites appeared
necessary after Liberty Satellite Radio LLC terminated talks that
had led to an agreement in principle after six months of talks.

                       About WorldSpace Inc.

WorldSpace, Inc. (WRSPQ.PK) -- http://www.1worldspace.com/--
provides satellite-based radio and data broadcasting services to
paying subscribers in 10 countries throughout Europe, India, the
Middle East, and Africa.  1worldspace(TM) satellites cover two-
thirds of the earth and enable the Company to offer a wide range
of services for enterprises and governments globally, including
distance learning, alert delivery, data delivery, and disaster
readiness and response systems.  1worldspace(TM) is a pioneer of
satellite-based digital radio services.

The Debtors and their affiliates operate two geostationary
satellites, AfriStar and Asia Star, which are in orbit over Africa
and Asia.  The Debtor and two of its affiliates filed for Chapter
11 bankruptcy protection on October 17, 2008 (Bankr. D. Del., Case
No. 08-12412 - 08-12414).  James E. O'Neill, Esq., Laura Davis
Jones, Esq., and Timothy P. Cairns, Esq., at Pachulski Stang Ziehl
& Jones, LLP, represent the Debtors as counsel.  Kurtzman Carson
Consultants serves as claims and notice agent.  Neil Raymond
Lapinski, Esq., and Rafael Xavier Zahralddin-Aravena, Esq., at
Elliot Greenleaf, represent the Official Committee of Unsecured
Creditors.  When the Debtors filed for bankruptcy, they listed
total assets of $307,382,000 and total debts of $2,122,904,000.


* Settlements in 103 Class Suits in 2009 Net $3.83 Billion
----------------------------------------------------------
The Financial Express in India reports that for U.S. investors,
who have been defrauded by companies, class action lawsuits are an
effective way to recover losses.  The year 2008 saw the highest
number of class action lawsuits filed in the U.S.  Institutional
investors continued to actively participate in class action, often
serving as lead plaintiffs.

The Financial Express says out of the 155 class action lawsuits
filed last year, settlements were made in 103, amounting to $3.83
billion, compared to 97 settlements worth $2.75 billion in 2008.
Institutional investors were lead plaintiffs on 65% of the
settlements.

                            *********

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  * * *