CAR_Public/100625.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Friday, June 25, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 124

                            Headlines

AIKEN ELECTRIC: Former Customers Sue Over Patronage Capital
AMCOR LIMITED: Faces $466MM in Damages Claims in Cartel Suit
ARIZONA: Motion to Dismiss Suit Over New Immigration Law Filed
AUSTRALIAN BANKS: Clients Question Legality of Exception Fees
BIG LOTS: Final Approval of $4 Million Settlement Still Pending

BIG LOTS: Discovery in New York FLSA Violations Suit Ongoing
BIG LOTS: Plaintiffs Appeal on Certification Denial Pending
BIG LOTS: Faces "Avitia" Action in California
BIG LOTS: Court Denies Class Certification in "Caron" Action
CARACO PHARMA: Motion to Dismiss Consolidated Suit Pending

COUNTRYWIDE HOME: Settlement Hearing in Morgan Suit on June 28
EXPEDIA.COM: Pays $123.4MM in Cash, Credits to Settle Class Suit
FIRST AMERICAN: 9th Cir. Tells Trial Court to Try Again
FOOT LOCKER: Defends "Pereira" Suit in Pennsylvania
GOOGLE INC: No End in Sight Yet for Book Case

GOLDMAN SACHS: Brodsky & Smith Files Securities Class Suit
HARTFORD FINANCIAL: Has Initial Approval of $72.5-Mil. Settlement
HEALTHTRONICS INC: Settles Suit on Endo Pharma Merger
HEALTHWAYS INC: Hearing on Class Settlement Slated for Sept. 24
HERLEY INDUSTRIES: Trial in Class Suit Set for Mid-July 2010

IPO LITIGATION: Judge Scheindlin Requires $25,000 Appeal Bond
JO-ANN STORES: $5 Million Settlement Gets Final Approval
K-V PHARMACEUTICAL: Opposes Plaintiffs' Move to Amend Complaint
K-V PHARMACEUTICAL: Briefing on Plaintiffs' Appeal Completed
K-V PHARMA: Remains a Defendant in 2 Suits Over Product Recalls

KENTUCKY TAX: Ky. App. Ct. Revives Delinquent Tax Fee Lawsuit
KNAUF PLASTERBOARD: Settles Two Drywall Lawsuits
LG DISPLAY: Zwerling Schachter Files Suit on Price-Fixing Scheme
LOUISIANA: Judge OKs Plaintiffs' Bid for Legal Fees, Subpoena
LULULEMON ATHLETICA: "Stephens" Settlement Gets Preliminary Nod

LULULEMON ATHLETICA: "Kohlenberg" Settlement Pact Gets Court Nod
MGA ENTERTAINMENT: Sued in Calif. Over 'Bratz' License Rights
NEWFOUNDLAND & LABRADOR: Moose Victims Mull Class Suit
NOVA SCOTIA: Plaintiffs Seek Clean-up, Not Money
ORLEANS PARISH SCHOOL: Class Settlement Taken Under Advisement

PFIZER INC: May 2011 Trial Date Set for Zahn's Hormone Drug Suit
PINNACLE GROUP: Seeks 2nd Cir. OK to Challenge Class Cert.
PRIMFORCE REAL ESTATE: Faces Class Suit; Owners Declare Bankruptcy
PUTNAM INVESTMENT: Case Management Conferences Held Wednesday
ROBERT GUENTHER: Pro Se Plaintiff Won't Be Representing Any Class

SPECTRANETICS CORP: To Pay $8.5-Mil. to Settle Class Suit
SUNTECH ENTERPRISES: Recalls 8,400 Baby Walkers
TELIK INC: 2nd Cir. Affirms Shareholder Class Action Settlement
TOYS R US: Defends Consolidated Lawsuit by Internet Retailers
U.S. BANK: Ore. Employee Class Doesn't Recover Legal Fees

VALEANT PHARMA: Kendall Launches Class Suit on Biovail Merger
VIVENDI SA: Investors Ask Paris Court to Compel Repayment
VONAGE HOLDINGS: Court Says Multiple Domains for Spam is Okay
YTB INTERNATIONAL: Class Suit Re-Filed in Madison County

* Adam Savett to Lead CCB's Securities Class Actions Service
* Garden City Group Unveils New Corporate Web Site

                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Belville Case v. 83 Firms Filed June 7 in W.Va.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Scudder Case v. CSX Filed June 8 in Kanawha Co.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Osborne Case v. CSX Filed June 8 in Kanawha Co.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Davis Claim v. CSX Filed June 8 in Kanawha Co.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chancey Claim v. 48 Firms Filed May 14 in W.Va.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Says Navy Partly Liable in Collins Claim
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Johnson Claim v. 47 Firms Filed May 17 in W.Va.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ariz. Contractors Fined $100T for NESHAP Breach
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Durabla Accused of Filing Phony Bankruptcy Case
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Taylor Case v. 77 Firms Filed May 20 in Kanawha

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Queensland Local Awarded 6-Figure Compensation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chorleywood Resident's Death Linked to Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Preston Pensioner Gets GBP162,000
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Derby Inquest Rules on Alvaston Joiner's Death
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Estep Claim v. 56 Firms Filed May 14 in Kanawha

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cleanup at Liverpool Cathedral Cost GBP200,000
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos to be Removed from Newton High School
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Derby Ex-Electrician's Death Linked to Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: ADAO Decries Quebec Gov't. Plan to Revive Mine
SBESTOS UPDATE: Ventura Apartments, Contractor Facing Penalties

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Devon's Council Issues Warnings v. Fly-Tippers
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Judge Angell Rejects Reports in Lawsuits v. CSX
ASBESTOS UPDATE: OSHA Checking Claims at Holyoke Renovation Job
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Princess Elizabeth in Guernsey Contains Hazards
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Buckles Legal Malpractice Lawsuit Goes to Trial

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ky. Woman's Claims v. 144 Firms Filed on May 17
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Small Heath Widow Calls For Help in Payout Case
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Holbury Locals to Fight Plans on Hazard Storage
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hazard Cleanup at Ohio Grocery to Push Through
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Former Seekonk Bldg. to be Tested for Asbestos

                            *********

AIKEN ELECTRIC: Former Customers Sue Over Patronage Capital
-----------------------------------------------------------
Former customers of South Carolina electric cooperatives whose
patronage capital has not yet been refunded, citing S.C. Code Ann.
Section 33-49-460, argue that "cooperative principles to which all
South Carolina cooperatives claim to adhere require them to
operate at costs [and] to refund revenue above costs to the
owner/customer as an overcharge or 'patronage.'"  The former
customers also complain that the cooperatives favor the interests
of current customers, exclude former customers from participating
in cooperative governance, and make no attempt to locate former
customers, thereby allowing a forfeiture of those customers'
capital credits.  The allegations are made as to all South
Carolina electric cooperatives (other than Edisto), which the
plaintiff class argues are necessary parties "since all have
interests which would be affected by a South Carolina court's
interpretation of the lawfulness and propriety of their bylaws and
business dealings with respect to the rights and pecuniary
interests of members who are former customers."  South Carolina
cooperatives have not yet filed any responsive pleadings.  The
case is Mitchum et al. v. Aiken Electric Cooperative et al. (South
Carolina) (2010-CP-02-00206).  A full-text copy of the June 11
Legal Alert by James A. Orr, Esq., Jennifer N. Ide, Esq., and
Benjamin C. Morgan, Esq., at Sutherland Asbill & Brennan LLP in
Atlanta, is available at no charge at:

                        http://is.gd/d0wT4


AMCOR LIMITED: Faces $466MM in Damages Claims in Cartel Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Elisabeth Sexton, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reports
that AMCOR Limited, which received official whistleblower immunity
in 2005, was a much bigger beneficiary of an alleged cardboard box
cartel than its claimed price-fixing partner Visy Industries,
according to figures revealed in the Federal Court on June 21.

A class action by customers of the two packaging companies
scheduled for trial next year will seek damages of $700 million
plus interest of $350 million.  Two-thirds of the sum, $466
million plus interest, will be sought from Amcor, and a third,
$234 million plus interest, from Visy.

The figures are contained in a report estimating the losses caused
to the customers written by an expert witness retained by their
lawyers, Maurice Blackburn.

Amcor was granted immunity from prosecution after approaching the
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission.  The regulator
prosecuted Visy, which settled the case in 2007 before trial
without admitting liability and was fined $36 million.  The
commission's immunity policy says it will only reward a
whistleblower if "the corporation has not coerced others to
participate in the cartel and was not the clear leader in the
cartel."  The policy, which offers immunity to the first party to
approach the regulator if the regulator does not already have
sufficient evidence, does not refer to relative financial benefits
derived by cartel participants.

Amcor and Visy deny in the class action that they operated a
cartel between May 2000 and May 2005.

Amcor disclosed its potential damages, apparently on legal advice
about its continuous disclosure obligations as a listed company,
in March when it received a copy of the expert report commissioned
by the class action, from a professor in law and economics from
the University of California Berkeley, Daniel Rubinfeld.

Visy, which is unlisted, declined to reveal Professor Rubinfeld's
estimate of its exposure at the time.

On June 21, the court was told the parties had agreed that the
figures were no longer confidential.

In a separate development Monday, Justice Peter Jacobson said he
would order the customers to produce documents about their own
pricing, although not as many as Amcor and Visy asked for.  Amcor
and Visy want the documents to help a fallback argument they will
run if Justice Jacobson finds that they did collude to overcharge.
They will then try to prove that their customers suffered no loss
because they passed the increases on to their own customers.


ARIZONA: Motion to Dismiss Suit Over New Immigration Law Filed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jamie Ross at Courthouse News Service reports that Arizona's
governor Jan Brewer and Sheriff Joe Arpaio seek dismissal of a
federal class action challenging the state's new immigration law.
Gov. Brewer and "America's Toughest Sheriff" claim the complaint
from the ACLU, NAACP and others lacks factual basis to show that
members will racially profiled when the law is enforced.

Mr. Arpaio's motion for dismissal claims that federal law does not
preempt the state's immigration law, since the state law does not
"replace federal immigration law, but creates state law which
mirrors the federal law, thus enabling state and local law
enforcement to meaningfully cooperate with federal law
enforcement."

Mr. Arpaio, sheriff of Maricopa County, calls himself America's
Toughest Sheriff.  He claims that class action status is
inappropriate since whether S.B. 1070 is declared unconstitutional
or constitutional, "it will be so for everyone, not just 'class
members.'"

Mr. Arpaio claims the plaintiffs "merely speculate in the abstract
about potential future harm" and do not provide evidence to show
they will or have suffered racial profiling or "disproportionate"
behavior.

Mr. Arpaio says that before addressing such claims, "the court
must know the details of the actual police practices employed in
the enforcement of SB 1070 by each law enforcement agency in
Arizona."

Gov. Brewer's motion for dismissal says that the class's claims
that they fear they will be stopped because of their appearance,
language or speaking style, are unfounded.  Gov. Brewer says the
law "expressly prohibits" racial profiling and "may not consider
race, color or national origin in implementing the requirements of
this subsection except to the extent permitted by the United
States or Arizona Constitution."

But the plaintiffs, the Service Employees International Union,
claims its members "will be fearful to attend rallies,
demonstrations, and union meetings or to engage in leafleting or
other traditional labor activities because of the possibility of
being stopped by the police under SB 1070."

Gov. Brewer insists the plaintiffs have only a "subjective chill"
instead of an "objectively justified fear of real consequences
that their members will be arrested or detained by the police
based on their expressions of speech."

The federal class action claims that Arizona's immigration law
"will cause widespread racial profiling and will subject many
persons of color . . . to unlawful interrogations, searches,
seizures and arrests."

The law, scheduled to take effect July 29, requires state and
local police to enforce immigration laws and allows them to search
vehicles without warrant if an officer has a reasonable suspicion
that occupants do not have immigration papers.  It also makes
hiring day laborers a misdemeanor if the driver or worker blocks
the flow of traffic.

Gov. Brewer is represented by John J. Bouma with Snell & Wilmer.

Pinal County Attorney James P. Walsh and Pinal County Sheriff Paul
Babeu also filed a motion to dismiss.

At least five lawsuits have challenged the law since Brewer signed
it in April.

A copy of Intervenor Defendant Governor Brewer's Motion to Dismiss
in Friendly House, et al. v. Whiting, et al., Case No. 10-cv-01061
(D. Ariz.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/06/22/BrewerD.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          John J. Bouma, Esq.
          Robert A. Henry, Esq.
          Joseph G. Adams, Esq.
          SNELL & WILMER L.L.P.
          One Arizona Center
          400 E. Van Buren
          Phoenix, AZ 85004-2202
          Telephone: 602-382-6000
          E-mail: jbouma@swlaw.com
                  bhenry@swlaw.com
                  jgadams@swlaw.com

               - and -

          Joseph A. Kanefield, Esq.
          Office of Governor Janice K. Brewer
          1700 W. Washington, 9th Floor
          Phoenix, AZ 85007
          Telephone: 602-542-1586
          E-mail: jkanefield@az.gov


AUSTRALIAN BANKS: Clients Question Legality of Exception Fees
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Morris, writing for The Australian, relates that until very
recently, some banks charged customers up to A$60 if the customers
became overdrawn, went beyond an agreed limit or made a late
payment.  As the true cost might have been only a few dollars on
each transaction, the legality of these "exception fees" is set to
be challenged.  Leading the fight against unfair fees is
litigation funder IMF (Australia).

IMF has been a significant beneficiary of shoddy disclosure and
corporate governance practices unearthed during the financial
crisis.  As the likes of Oz Minerals, Centro Properties, and ABC
Learning fell within its sights, the stock became one of the
market's better performers last year, rising more than 150%.

Underpinning these gains has been a rise in the maximum claim
value of IMF's case portfolio to more than A$1 billion.  That
figure could soon be dwarfed, however, if the company's proposed
class action against the banks sees the light of day.

Exception fees deducted from customer accounts during the past six
years are IMF's target and they totaled A$1.2 billion in the 2008
financial year alone, according to the Reserve Bank of Australia.
As IMF's share of any payout has been flagged at 25%, the stakes
are high.

"It's hard to argue with the company's track record. In its first
eight years of operation, IMF has lost only four cases out of 140
matters funded. The proposed class action against the banks is
still in its infancy, however. Cases typically take three to four
years to reach a resolution and you can bet the banks will put up
a fight. So while IMF's litigation pipeline offers strong
potential, prospective buyers have the luxury of time on their
side," Mr. Morris writes.

On May 13, 2010, The Australian reported that law firm Maurice
Blackburn said more than 20,000 unhappy bank customers have
already signed up to join Australia's largest ever class action
against 12 banks to recover allegedly unjust penalty fees.
Maurice Blackburn chairman Bernard Murphy said potential claimants
were registering their interest at a rate of 1000 per hour, with
22,000 having contacted the firm as of 12 p.m. (AEST).  He said
Maurice Blackburn did not expect to file the claim in the courts
for at least four weeks and it was hoped the banks would enter
into settlement negotiations.

Maurice Blackburn's claim will focus on a raft of exception fees
charged by banks over the past six years.  Mr. Murphy estimated
that in the past six years, banks had charged at least $5 billion
in exception fees.


BIG LOTS: Final Approval of $4 Million Settlement Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Big Lots, Inc., awaits final approval from the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana of a settlement agreement
resolving a complaint for $4 million, according to the company's
June 10, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended May 1, 2010.

In November 2004, a civil collective action complaint was filed
against the company alleging that the company violated the Fair
Labor Standards Act by misclassifying assistant store managers as
exempt employees.  The plaintiffs seek to recover, on behalf of
themselves and all other individuals who are similarly situated,
alleged unpaid overtime compensation, as well as liquidated
damages, attorneys' fees and costs.

On July 5, 2005, the District Court in Louisiana issued an order
conditionally certifying a class of all then-current and former
assistant store managers who have worked for the company since
Nov. 23, 2001.

As a result of that order, notice of the lawsuit was sent to
approximately 5,500 individuals who had the right to opt-in to the
Louisiana matter.  Approximately 1,100 individuals opted to join
the Louisiana matter.

The company filed a motion to decertify the class and the motion
was denied on Aug. 24, 2007.

The trial began on May 7, 2008, and concluded on May 15, 2008.

On June 20, 2008, the District Court in Louisiana issued an order
decertifying the action and dismissed, without prejudice, the
claims of the opt-in plaintiffs.

After this ruling, four plaintiffs remained before the District
Court in Louisiana.

On Jan. 26, 2009, three of the plaintiffs presented their
respective cases before the District Court in Louisiana.

Since then, the claims of one of the plaintiffs in the January
2009 action and the fourth plaintiff (who did not participate in
the January 2009 action) were dismissed with prejudice.

On April 2, 2009, the District Court in Louisiana awarded the two
remaining plaintiffs an aggregate amount of approximately
$100,000 plus attorneys' fees and costs, which, on June 25, 2009,
were determined to be $400,000.  The company appealed both of
these decisions.

Subsequent to the District Court in Louisiana's April 2, 2009
decision, approximately 172 of the opt-in plaintiffs filed
individual actions in the District Court in Louisiana.

On Aug. 13, 2009, the company filed a writ of mandamus challenging
the District Court in Louisiana's jurisdiction to
hear these cases.  This writ was denied on Oct. 20, 2009.

Since then, the claims of one of the plaintiffs in the January
2009 action and the fourth plaintiff (who did not participate

On Jan. 12, 2010, the Louisiana matter was settled for
$4.0 million.

Big Lots, Inc. -- http://www.biglots.com/-- is a national
broadline closeout retailer.  Big Lots, Inc.'s merchandising
categories include Consumables, Home, Seasonal and Toys, and
others.


BIG LOTS: Discovery in New York FLSA Violations Suit Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery in a civil collective action complaint against Big Lots,
Inc., alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, is
ongoing, according to the company's June 10, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended May 1, 2010.

In April 2009, a civil collective action complaint was filed
against the company in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of New York, alleging that the company violated the Fair
Labor Standards Act by misclassifying assistant store managers as
exempt employees.

In addition, the plaintiff seeks class action treatment under New
York law relating to those assistant store managers working in the
State of New York.  The plaintiff seeks to recover, on behalf of
himself and all other individuals who are similarly situated,
alleged unpaid overtime compensation, as well as liquidated
damages, attorneys' fees and costs.

On Jan. 21, 2010, a stipulation was filed and Order was rendered
limiting this action to current and former assistant store
managers working in the Company's New York stores.

Big Lots, Inc. -- http://www.biglots.com/-- is a national
broadline closeout retailer.  Big Lots, Inc.'s merchandising
categories include Consumables, Home, Seasonal and Toys, and
others.


BIG LOTS: Plaintiffs Appeal on Certification Denial Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
The appeal of the plaintiffs on the ruling of the Superior Court
of California, Los Angeles County denying class certification in a
lawsuit against Big Lots, Inc., remains pending, according to the
company's June 10, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended May 1, 2010.

In September 2006, a class action complaint was filed against the
company alleging that the company violated certain California wage
and hour laws by misclassifying California store managers as
exempt employees ("Seals matter").

The plaintiffs seek to recover, on their own behalf and on behalf
of all other individuals who are similarly situated, damages for
alleged unpaid overtime, unpaid minimum wages, wages not paid upon
termination, improper wage statements, missed rest breaks, missed
meal periods, reimbursement of expenses, loss of unused vacation
time, and attorneys' fees and costs.

On Oct. 29, 2009, the Court denied the plaintiffs' class
certification motion, with prejudice.

On Jan. 21, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal, and the
parties will have an opportunity to brief their positions in the
coming months.

Big Lots, Inc. -- http://www.biglots.com/-- is a national
broadline closeout retailer.  Big Lots, Inc.'s merchandising
categories include Consumables, Home, Seasonal and Toys, and
others.


BIG LOTS: Faces "Avitia" Action in California
---------------------------------------------
Big Lots, Inc., faces a class action complaint alleging violations
of certain California wage and hour laws, according to the
company's June 10, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended May 1, 2010.

In April 2010, a class action complaint was filed against the
company in the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County,
alleging that the company violated certain California wage and
hour laws by misclassifying California store managers as exempt
employees ("Avitia matter").

The plaintiffs seek to recover, on their own behalf and on behalf
of all other individuals who are similarly situated, damages for
alleged unpaid wages and overtime, untimely paid wages at
separation, improper wage statements, and attorneys' fees and
costs.  The Avitia matter is related to and overlaps the Seals
matter.

Big Lots, Inc. -- http://www.biglots.com/-- is a national
broadline closeout retailer.  Big Lots, Inc.'s merchandising
categories include Consumables, Home, Seasonal and Toys, and
others.


BIG LOTS: Court Denies Class Certification in "Caron" Action
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
granted Big Lots, Inc.'s motion to deny class certification in a
consolidated suit, according to the company's June 10, 2010, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended May 1, 2010.

In February 2008, three alleged class action complaints were filed
against the company by a California resident ("Caron matters").

The first was filed in the Superior Court of California, Orange
County.  This action is similar in nature to the Seals matter,
which enabled the company to successfully coordinate this matter
with the Seals matter in the Superior Court of California, Los
Angeles County.

The second and third matters, filed in the United States District
Court, Central District of California, and the Superior Court of
California, Riverside County, respectively, allege that the
company violated certain California wage and hour laws for missed
meal and rest periods and other wage and hour claims.

The plaintiffs seek to recover, on their own behalf and on behalf
of a California statewide class consisting of all other
individuals who are similarly situated, damages resulting from
improper wage statements, missed rest breaks, missed meal periods,
non-payment of wages at termination, reimbursement of expenses,
loss of unused vacation time, and attorneys' fees and costs.

The company believed these two matters overlapped and successfully
consolidated the two cases before the United States District
Court, Central District of California.

The company also believes the remaining allegations also overlap
some portion of the claims released through the class action
settlement in the Espinosa matter.

On Aug. 25, 2009, the Court denied, without prejudice, the
plaintiffs' class certification motion.

On April 21, 2010, the Court granted, with prejudice, the
company's motion to deny class certification.

Accordingly, the claims of one plaintiff remain before the Court.

Big Lots, Inc. -- http://www.biglots.com/-- is a national
broadline closeout retailer.  Big Lots, Inc.'s merchandising
categories include Consumables, Home, Seasonal and Toys, and
others.


CARACO PHARMA: Motion to Dismiss Consolidated Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Caraco Pharmaceutical Laboratories, Ltd.'s motion to dismiss a
consolidated amended complaint remains pending in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, according to
the company's June 9, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended March
31, 2010.

On July 17, 2009 and July 23, 2009, two purported class action
lawsuits were filed against the company and certain of its
executive officers.

The lawsuits allege securities violations related to the company's
public statements on U.S. Food and Drug Administration compliance
issues made between May 29, 2008 and June 25, 2009.

On Sept. 15, 2009, the plaintiffs in both of the purported
lawsuits filed motions for consolidation of the cases and for
approval of lead plaintiff.

On Nov. 9, 2009, a Stipulation and Order of Dismissal was entered
by the Court dismissing one of the two cases, effectively
consolidating the cases.

On Jan. 13, 2010, the Court entered a Stipulation and Order
appointing the lead plaintiff and lead counsel for plaintiff.

On Feb. 11, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated and amended
complaint, which also names Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited.

The defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss on April 12, 2010, which
is still being briefed to the Court by the parties.

Caraco Pharmaceutical Laboratories, Ltd. -- http://www.caraco.com/
-- is engaged in the business of developing, manufacturing,
marketing and distributing generic and private-label
pharmaceuticals to wholesalers, distributors, warehousing and non-
warehousing chain drugstores and managed care providers,
throughout the United States and Puerto Rico.


COUNTRYWIDE HOME: Settlement Hearing in Morgan Suit on June 28
--------------------------------------------------------------
Amelia Flood at The Madison/St. Clair Record reports that the
parties in a long-running Madison County class action over fees
charged to mortgage customers are asking for a judge's final
settlement approval.  Circuit Judge David Hylla will hear
arguments in favor of the final approval of the settlement between
lead plaintiff Todd Morgan and Countrywide Home Loans LLC June 28
at 10:30 a.m.

Mr. Morgan leads a class of mortgage holders who claim that
Countrywide overcharged closing costs.  Judge Hylla initially
approved the settlement Feb. 22.  Under the settlement, class
members would each receive $30.  The class representatives would
receive $10,000.

The class' attorneys, Bradley Lakin, Esq., Robert Schmieder II,
Esq., and Mark Brown, Esq., are asking for $100,000 in legal fees,
according to a May 24 motion.

Another class action against Countrywide that is also led by
Morgan is also set for hearing next week before Madison County
Circuit Judge Barbara Crowder.

The class actions were among a series filed beginning in 2003 by
the now defunct partnership between the current LakinChapman firm
and that of Freed & Weiss.  There has been little action in the
2004 case before Judge Crowder since Freed & Weiss withdrew in
2008.

The two suits were filed within a year of one another, part of a
series of class actions against mortgage brokers.  Both suits
allege similar claims that Countrywide charged improper fees and
overcharged customers.

Judge Crowder oversees the younger of the two suits.  The class
action before her was filed in 2004.

Paul Marks, Esq., represents Morgan and the class in both cases.
He may be reached at:

     Paul A. Marks, Esq.
     LAKINCHAPMAN, LLC
     300 Evans Avenue, P.O. Box 229
     Wood River, Illinois  62095-0229 (Madison Co.)
     Telephone: (618) 254-1127
     Facsimile: (618) 254-0193

Larry Hepler, Esq., represents Countrywide in the case before
Judge Crowder.  He may be reached at:

     Larry Hepler, Esq.
     HEPLERBROOM, LLC
     103 W Vandalia Street, Suite 300
     Edwardsville, IL 62025
     Telephone: (618) 307-1117
     E-mail: larry.hepler@heplerbroom.com

Beth Bauer, Esq., represents Countrywide in the case before Judge
Hylla.  She may be reached at:

     Beth A. Bauer, Esq.
     103 W Vandalia Street, Suite 300
     P.O. Box 510
     Edwardsville, IL 62025
     Telephone: (618) 307-1200
     E-mail: beth.bauer@heplerbroom.com

The Morgan case Judge Crowder oversees is Madison case number
04-L-1432.

The Morgan case before Judge Hylla is case number 03-L-980.


EXPEDIA.COM: Pays $123.4MM in Cash, Credits to Settle Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kelli B. Grant, writing for Dow Jones' SmartMoney.com, relates
that as part of a class-action lawsuit settlement, travel booking
site Expedia.com paid out $123.4 million in cash and site credits
earlier this month.  The lawsuit, filed in 2005 and settled in
2009, alleged that the company's bundled tax and service fees were
excessive and that bundling the charges unfairly prevented
consumers from assessing the amount and nature of individual fees.
Expedia denies any wrongdoing.

Asked by SmartMoney for comments, Expedia responded by directing
SmartMoney to its public filings on the lawsuit.  Seattle firm
Hagens Berman, which filed the lawsuit on behalf of consumers, did
not return calls for comment.

Affected consumers -- those who paid a bundled tax and service
charge to the site for a standalone or packaged hotel reservation
between Jan. 10, 2001, and June 11, 2008 -- who filed a claim last
year could opt to receive a cash payout of 30% of fees paid, or
site credit worth 65%.  Those who didn't automatically received
the site credit earlier this month.  It's available in the
"Coupons" section of your account and expires July 31, 2011.

"It's not much of an incentive to book through Expedia," says
Linda Sherry, a spokeswoman for advocacy group Consumer Action.
Only the most die-hard Expedia bookers will see more than a few
dollars.

But consumers hunting for the best deals may find even that little
bit is worth making a booking, says Rick Seaney, the chief
executive of deal-tracking site FareCompare.com.  Hold off until
there are more valuable coupon codes to be used in conjunction.
Expedia frequently offers coupons good for $100 off airfare and
hotel packages, for example.


FIRST AMERICAN: 9th Cir. Tells Trial Court to Try Again
-------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit says that
the U.S. District Court needs to reexamine some if its rulings in
a lawsuit brought against The First American Corporation and its
wholly owned subsidiary, First American Title Insurance Company,
that alleges a national scheme by which First American paid
millions of dollars to individual title companies and received
written exclusive referral agreements in return.

A three-judge panel says that the District Court:

     -- did not abuse its discretion in denying the nationwide
        class;

     -- abused its discretion in denying nationwide discovery; and

     -- abused its discretion in denying a so-called Tower City
        (Ohio) class.

A copy of the Ninth Circuit's Memorandum dated June 21, 2010,
in Edwards v. First American Corp., et al., Nos. 08-56536 and
08-56538 (9th Cir.), is available at:

     http://www.leagle.com/unsecure/page.htm?shortname=infco20100621150


FOOT LOCKER: Defends "Pereira" Suit in Pennsylvania
---------------------------------------------------
Foot Locker, Inc., continues to defend the suit captioned Pereira
v. Foot Locker in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania.

Certain of the company's subsidiaries are defendants in a number
of lawsuits filed in state and federal courts containing various
class action allegations under state wage and hour laws, including
allegations concerning classification of employees as exempt or
nonexempt, unpaid overtime, meal and rest breaks, and uniforms.

In Pereira v. Foot Locker, one of the class actions, plaintiff
alleged that the company permitted unpaid off-the-clock hours in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.  In September 2009, the
court conditionally certified a nationwide collective action.

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 May 1, 2010.

Foot Locker, Inc. -- http://www.footlocker-inc.com/-- is a global
retailer of athletic footwear and apparel, operated 3,785
primarily mall-based stores in the U.S., Canada, Europe,
Australia, and New Zealand as of Feb. 2, 2008.  The company,
through its subsidiaries, operates in two segments: Athletic
Stores and Direct-to-Customers.  The Athletic Stores segment is an
athletic footwear and apparel retailer, whose formats include Foot
Locker, Lady Foot Locker, Kids Foot Locker, Champs Sports and
Footaction.  The Direct-to-Customers segment reflects
Footlocker.com, Inc., which sells, through its affiliates,
including Eastbay, Inc., to customers through catalogs and
Internet Web sites.  The Foot Locker brand is the company's
principal brand.


GOOGLE INC: No End in Sight Yet for Book Case
---------------------------------------------
Tom Krazit, writing for CNET.com, relates the Google Books case
drags on with no hint of when the six-year dispute might finally
be settled, four months after a final hearing was supposed to
decide the issue once and for all.  Google and the plaintiffs --
representatives of authors and publishers -- agreed to settle the
massive case in October 2008 but delays after delays have
prevented Google from offering out-of-print yet copyright-
protected books in its Google Book Search product.

Representatives for the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York -- which is handling the case -- declined to
comment on whether the matter is even close to being resolved.
Google likewise had nothing to share on when the case might
finally be resolved, saying it had heard nothing from the court
since the final hearing wrapped up in New York in February.

"The timing for approving (or rejecting) the settlement has not
struck me as particularly unusual, especially given the complexity
of the case, the voluminous submissions, and the many forcefully
argued positions on multiple sides," said Eric Goldman, a
professor at Santa Clara University who tracks legal matters in
the Internet industry.

At issue is whether Google will be allowed to display and sell
digital copies of books that have gone out-of-print due to lack of
demand but are still protected by U.S. copyright law.  Google
first began scanning such books earlier this decade, announcing
plans to create the world's largest digital library in 2003.
However, the company was sued by groups representing authors and
publishers in 2005, and the case has dragged on ever since,
despite the October 2008 settlement agreement.

The judge is considering whether the settlement overstepped its
bounds in granting the right for Google to offer those types of
books in Google Book Search: something Google's competitors and
critics argue is a far-too-sweeping use of a class action
settlement to essentially create law.  The Department of Justice
has weighed in on the settlement, initially blocking a first
proposal and later voicing concerns that the revised settlement
still might raise antitrust issues.

In the meantime, the e-book market continues to take off with the
success of Amazon's Kindle and the early interest in Apple's iPad.
Google has said it plans to open a Web-based digital book store
sometime in June or July called Google Editions, which is focused
on books that Google clearly has the right to sell either through
agreements with publishers or because the works have entered the
public domain.

With the summer vacation season just starting, it's not clear
whether Google's long literary struggle will be wrapped up anytime
soon.  The New York Times recently reported that the decision
could arrive within "months," but the only person who really knows
is Judge Denny Chin, and he's not talking.  Complicating matters
is the fact that Chin was recently nominated and confirmed for a
spot on the U.S. Appeals Court, although he remains in charge of
the Google case.

Given the high-profile nature of the case among authors,
librarians, privacy advocates, and the U.S. government, it's
likely Chin is crafting a very comprehensive and detailed opinion
in anticipation of further review from appeals courts, said
Deborah Hensler, a professor at Stanford and an expert on class
action lawsuits.  She also said she wouldn't be surprised if the
Supreme Court wound up considering this case, although cautioned
that predicting the types of cases that will get considered at the
highest court in the U.S. can be tricky.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Brodsky & Smith Files Securities Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Law Office of Brodsky & Smith, LLC filed a class action lawsuit in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
seeking to recover damages on behalf of purchasers of the common
stock of The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. between February 6, 2007
and April 30, 2010, inclusive.  Goldman is a global investment
banking and financial services firm headquartered in New York
City.

The Complaint alleges that Goldman and certain of its officers and
directors failed to disclose and misrepresented material adverse
facts which were known, or were recklessly disregarded, in
connection with the marketing of synthetic collateralized debt
obligation and other products including, among others, ABACUS
2007-AC1, by issuing materially misleading: (i) statements about
Goldman's client-focused business model, risk controls and
business practices; and (ii) statements made in an effort to
downplay profits Goldman made from shorting the housing market.
Additionally, the defendants failed to reserve for probable losses
stemming from the Company's illicit actions, and thus understated
expenses and inflated Goldman's reported financial results. The
defendants also failed to disclose that the SEC had opened an
investigation into Goldman's activities since mid-2008.

If you purchased or acquired Goldman common stock during the Class
Period, and lost money on the transaction, you may wish to serve
as the lead plaintiff. You may, no later than June 25, 2010,
request that the Court appoint you as the lead plaintiff. A lead
plaintiff is a representative that acts on behalf of other class
members throughout the litigation. To be appointed lead plaintiff,
the Court must determine that the class member's claim is typical
of the claims of all class members, and that the class member will
adequately represent the class. Your ability to share in any
recovery is not affected by the decision whether or not to serve
as lead plaintiff. If you want to discuss your legal rights, you
may e-mail or call the law office of Brodsky & Smith, LLC who
will, without obligation or cost to you, attempt to answer your
questions. You may contact:

     Evan J. Smith, Esq.
     Marc L. Ackerman, Esq.
     BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC
     Two Bala Plaza, Suite 602
     Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
     Toll Free: 877-LEGAL-90
     E-mail: clients@brodsky-smith.com


HARTFORD FINANCIAL: Has Initial Approval of $72.5-Mil. Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
According to Insurance & Financial Advisor, The Hartford Courant
reported that The Hartford Financial Services Group has received
preliminary approval on a settlement to pay $72.5 million to
resolve a class action suit accusing the firm of keeping millions
in fees that should have been distributed to 21,000 accident
victims.

The Hartford Courant reported that a federal judge in Bridgeport,
Conn., granted the initial approval to settle the national lawsuit
that dates back to 2005.  The suit involved plaintiffs injured and
eligible for personal injury or workers' compensation claims from
The Hartford Financial Services Group, according to the report.
Rather than receiving a lump sum, the Courant reported, The
Hartford paid "structured settlements," or payments over time with
annuities typically used to provide the payments through its life
insurance division, Hartford Life.

According to the report, The Hartford told these individuals the
value of the settlement, but neglected to mention it would take at
least 15% for fees, taxes and profit, the lawsuit alleged and The
Hartford denied.

A spokesman for the insurer told the Courant it is "confident"
each claimant received the amount specified in structured
settlement agreements, and is settling the suit "to avoid the
uncertainties and costs of continued litigation."

Each of the more than 21,000 claimants in the class action suit
will receive about $3,300 before lawyer fees and expenses,
according to the plaintiff's law firm.


HEALTHTRONICS INC: Settles Suit on Endo Pharma Merger
-----------------------------------------------------
HealthTronics, Inc., the members of the Board of Directors of the
Company, Endo Pharmaceuticals Holdings Inc., and HT Acquisition
Corp. -- as defendants -- entered into an agreement with the
parties to the purported shareholder class action lawsuits filed
against the defendants in connection with the previously-announced
business combination between the Company and Endo Pharmaceuticals.

The terms of the agreement provide for a release and settlement by
the purported class of Company shareholders of all claims against
the defendants in relation to the previously-announced business
combination, that the Company would provide additional disclosures
in its previously-filed Schedule 14D-9, and that the defendants
would not oppose plaintiffs' counsel's application to the court
for fees and expenses in an amount not to exceed $292,500.  The
settlement is conditioned on further definitive documentation,
court approval, dismissal of the actions with prejudice,
satisfactory confirmatory discovery by plaintiffs' counsel, and
completion of the tender offer and merger.

The Company has filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
an Amendment No. 1 to amend the Tender Offer Statement on Schedule
TO filed on May 19, 2010.  A full-text copy of Amendment No. 1 is
available at no charge at:

                        http://is.gd/d0B9f

The Company also has filed Amendment No. 2 to amend and supplement
the Solicitation/Recommendation Statement on Schedule 14D-9
initially filed on May 19, 2010.  A full-text copy of Amendment
No. 2 is available at no charge at:

                        http://is.gd/d0Bik

If any of the conditions are not met, the defendants will continue
to vigorously defend against these lawsuits.

The Company believes that the lawsuits are without merit and that
it and the other defendants have valid defenses against all the
claims, but has agreed to settle the lawsuits in an effort to
minimize the cost and expense of litigating these lawsuits.

HealthTronics, Inc. -- http://www.HealthTronics.com/-- is a
urology company providing an exclusive suite of healthcare
services and technology, including urologist partnership
opportunities, surgical and capital equipment, maintenance
services and anatomical pathology services. The Company's product
portfolio includes a full line of urology equipment and products,
including lithotripters, cryoablation products used for the
treatment of prostate cancer, surgical lasers for treatment of
BPH, and anatomical pathology services.  As a service provider,
HealthTronics offers the latest technology in lithotripsy services
and prostate therapy services, including BPH treatments and
prostate cancer treatments.


HEALTHWAYS INC: Hearing on Class Settlement Slated for Sept. 24
---------------------------------------------------------------
                UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE
                       DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
                        NASHVILLE DIVISION


    JOHN RICHARD BEACH,
    Individually and on Behalf
    of All Others Similarly
    Situated,                    ) Civil Action No. 3:08-cv-00569
    ---------------------------  ) (Consolidated)

                     Plaintiff,  ) CLASS ACTION
                     ----------  ) ------------

         vs.                     ) Judge Todd J. Campbell

         ---                     ) Magistrate Judge Juliet Griffin

    HEALTHWAYS INC., et al.,     ) SUMMARY NOTICE
    ------------------------

                     Defendants.
                     -----------

TO: ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED HEALTHWAYS, INC. ("HEALTHWAYS")
SECURITIES BETWEEN JULY 5, 2007 AND AUGUST 25, 2008, INCLUSIVE.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that, pursuant to an Order of the United
States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee,
Nashville Division, a hearing will be held on September 24, 2010,
at 2:00 p.m., before the Honorable Todd J. Campbell, Chief United
States District Judge, at the Estes Kefauver Federal Building and
United States Courthouse, 801 Broadway, Nashville, Tennessee
37203, for the purpose of determining: (1) whether the proposed
settlement of the above-captioned Litigation for the sum of
$23,600,000 in cash should be approved by the Court as fair,
reasonable, and adequate; (2) whether, thereafter, this Litigation
should be dismissed with prejudice as set forth in the Stipulation
of Settlement dated May 21, 2010 (the "Stipulation"); (3) whether
the Plan of Allocation is fair, reasonable, and adequate and
therefore should be approved; and (4) the reasonableness of the
application of Lead Counsel for the payment of attorneys' fees and
expenses and the reimbursement of Plaintiffs' expenses incurred in
connection with this Litigation.

If you purchased Healthways securities during the period beginning
July 5, 2007 through August 25, 2008, inclusive, your rights may
be affected by this Litigation and the settlement thereof. If you
have not received a copy of the Notice of Pendency and Proposed
Settlement of Class Action ("Notice") and a copy of the Proof of
Claim and Release form, you may obtain copies by writing to the
Claims Administrator:

     Healthways Securities Litigation
     Claims Administrator
     c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC
     P.O. Box 8040
     San Rafael, CA 94912-8040

If you are a Class Member, in order to share in the distribution
of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof of Claim and
Release form postmarked no later than October 25, 2010,
establishing that you are entitled to a recovery. You will be
bound by any judgment rendered in the Litigation unless you
request to be excluded, in writing in the manner and form
explained in the Notice, to the Claims Administrator at the above
address, postmarked no later than September 10, 2010.

Any objection to the settlement, the Plan of Allocation, or the
application for attorneys' fees and expenses must be filed with
the Clerk of the Court at the address below no later than
September 10, 2010:

     CLERK OF THE COURT
     UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
     MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
     NASHVILLE DIVISION
     Estes Kefauver Federal Building and
        United States Courthouse
     801 Broadway, Room 800
     Nashville, TN  37203

    and copies received by the following counsel no later than
September 10, 2010:

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

          - and -

     John L. Latham, Esq.
     ALSTON & BIRD, LLP
     One Atlantic Center
     1201 West Peachtree Street
     Atlanta, GA  30309
     Counsel for Defendants

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

     Dated: June 2, 2010


     BY ORDER OF THE COURT
     UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
     MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
     NASHVILLE DIVISION


HERLEY INDUSTRIES: Trial in Class Suit Set for Mid-July 2010
------------------------------------------------------------
The trial date in a consolidated class action against Herley
Industries, Inc., has been set for mid-July 2010, according to the
company's June 10, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended May 2, 2010.

In June and July 2006, the company was served with several class-
action complaints against the company and certain of its current
and former officers and directors in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

The complaints have been consolidated into one class action.

The claims are made under Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.  The
plaintiffs seek unspecified damages on behalf of a purported class
of purchasers of the company's securities during various periods
before June 14, 2006.

All defendants in the class-action complaints filed motions to
dismiss on April 6, 2007.

On July 17, 2007, the Court issued an order denying the company's
and its former Chairman's motion to dismiss and granted, in part,
the other defendants' motion to dismiss.  Specifically, the Court
dismissed the Section 10(b) claim against the other defendants and
denied the motion to dismiss the Section 20(a) claim against them.

On Oct. 9, 2009, the Court issued an order granting plaintiffs'
motion for class certification.  The Court certified a class
consisting of all purchasers of Herley stock between Oct. 1, 2001
and June 14, 2006, who sustained a loss as a result of that
acquisition.

A trial date of mid-July of this year has been set for this
action.

Herley Industries, Inc. -- http://www.herley.com/-- is a leader
in the design, development and manufacture of microwave technology
solutions for the defense, aerospace and medical industries
worldwide.  Based in Lancaster, PA, Herley has seven manufacturing
locations and approximately 1000 employees.


IPO LITIGATION: Judge Scheindlin Requires $25,000 Appeal Bond
-------------------------------------------------------------
As reported in the Class Action Reporter, a $586 million
settlement in In re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation,
Case No. 21 MV 92 (S.D.N.Y.), was approved on October 5, 2009,
providing closure to almost ten years of litigation involving 309
consolidated actions, 55 investment banks, thousands of individual
defendants, and more than seven million potential class members.
Out of the seven million potential class members, less than two
ten-thousandths of one percent (0.0002%) -- approximately 140
class members -- submitted objections to the proposed settlement.

Several objectors appealed that decision, contending that the
District Court made a variety of errors in reaching its
conclusion.  The Plaintiffs argue that the Objectors' appeals are
frivolous and request that each Objector group be compelled to
post an appeal bond of $500,000 pursuant to Rule 7 of the Federal
Rules of Appellate Procedure. Unsurprisingly, the Objectors
oppose.

After considering the matter, the Honorable Shira A. Scheindlin
orders the Objectors to post a $25,000 bond (for which all
Objectors are jointly and severally liable).  A copy of Judge
Scheindlin's Opinion and Order dated June 18, 2010, is available
at:

     http://www.leagle.com/unsecure/page.htm?shortname=infdco20100618a92


JO-ANN STORES: $5 Million Settlement Gets Final Approval
--------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los
Angeles, gave its final to the $5 million settlement in the
purported wage and hour class-action suit, Patti Blair et al. v.
Jo-Ann Stores, Inc. et al., Case No. BC394795, according to the
company's June 10, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended May 1, 2010.

In the complaint, as amended, six former company employees,
individually and on behalf of the purported class members, allege
that certain current and former California store team leaders
employed by the company since July 21, 2004, were classified
improperly as exempt employees (and thus not paid for overtime
work), and that current and former hourly employees employed by
the company's California stores since July 21, 2004, missed rest
and meal breaks for which they were not properly compensated and
at times worked off the clock without compensation.

The amended complaint alleges other violations of California law
arising from the alleged wage and hour violations.  The amended
complaint seeks substantial monetary damages, injunctive relief
and attorney's fees.

On May 19, 2009 the court certified this matter to proceed as a
class action.

In September 2009, an agreement in principle, which has been
executed by the company, was negotiated with counsel for the
plaintiff.

In November 2009, the court granted preliminary approval of the
negotiated settlement.

The negotiated settlement provides for the payment by the company
of up to $5.0 million, depending on the number of claims that are
filed by the purported class members.

In May 2010, the Court gave final approval to the negotiated
settlement.

Jo-Ann Stores, Inc. -- http://www.joann.com/-- is a specialty
retailer of fabrics and crafts, serving customers in their
pursuit of apparel and craft sewing, crafting, home decorating and
other creative endeavors.  The company's retail stores
(operating as Jo-Ann Fabric and Craft stores and Jo-Ann stores)
and Website (www.Joann.com) feature a variety of merchandise
used in sewing, crafting and home decorating projects, including
fabrics, notions, crafts, frames, paper crafting material,
artificial floral, home accents, finished seasonal and home decor
merchandise.  As of Jan. 31, 2009, the company operated
764 stores in 47 states (554 small-format stores and 210 large-
format stores).


K-V PHARMACEUTICAL: Opposes Plaintiffs' Move to Amend Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------------
K-V Pharmaceutical Company has filed a memorandum in opposition to
plaintiff's motion to alter or amend the judgment and for leave to
amend a consolidated complaint, according to the company's June
10, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended
Dec. 31, 2010.

The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri has
dismissed a consolidated complaint against K-V Pharmaceutical
Company alleging breach of fiduciary duty, according to the
company's April 29, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2009.

On Feb. 3, 2009, plaintiff Harold Crocker filed a putative class-
action complaint against the company in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Missouri captioned Crocker v. KV
Pharmaceutical Co., et al., No. 4-09-cv-198-CEJ.

The Crocker case was followed shortly thereafter by two similar
cases, also in the Eastern District of Missouri:

     (1) Bodnar v. KV Pharmaceutical Co., et al.,
         No. 4:09-cv-00222-HEA, filed on Feb. 9, 2009, and

     (2) Knoll v. KV Pharmaceutical Co., et al.,
         No. 4:09-cv-00297-JCH, filed on Feb. 24, 2009.

The two later cases were consolidated into Crocker so that only a
single action now exists, and the plaintiffs filed a Consolidated
Amended Complaint on June 26, 2009.

The Complaint purports to state claims against the company and
certain current and former employees for alleged breach of
fiduciary duties to participants in the company's 401(k) plan.
Defendants, including the company and certain of its directors and
officers, moved to dismiss the amended complaint on Aug. 25, 2009,
and briefing of those motions was completed on Oct. 19, 2009.

The court granted the motion to dismiss of the company and all
individual defendants on March 24, 2010.

A motion to alter or amend the judgment and second amended
consolidated complaint was filed on April 21, 2010.

The company, on May 17, 2010, filed a Memorandum in Opposition to
plaintiff's motion to alter or amend the judgment and for leave to
amend the consolidated complaint.

K-V Pharmaceutical Company -- http:/www.kvpharmaceutical.com/ --
is a fully-integrated specialty pharmaceutical company that
develops, manufactures, markets, and acquires technology-
distinguished branded prescription pharmaceutical products.  The
company markets its technology-distinguished products through
Ther-Rx Corporation, its branded drug subsidiary.


K-V PHARMACEUTICAL: Briefing on Plaintiffs' Appeal Completed
------------------------------------------------------------
The briefing on the plaintiffs' motion for relief from the order
of dismissal and to amend their complaint against K-V
Pharmaceutical Company has been completed, according to the
company's June 10, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Dec. 31, 2010.

On Dec. 2, 2008, plaintiff Joseph Mas filed a complaint against
the company, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Missouri styled Mas v. KV Pharma. Co., et al., Case No.
08-cv-1859.

On Jan. 9, 2009, plaintiff Herman Unvericht filed a complaint
against the company captioned Unvericht v. KV Pharma. Co., et al.,
Case No. 09-cv-0061, also in the Eastern District of Missouri.

On Jan. 21, 2009, plaintiff Norfolk County Retirement System filed
a complaint against the company, again in the Eastern District of
Missouri.  The suit is Norfolk County Retirement System v. KV
Pharma. Co., et al., Case No. 09-cv-00138.

The operative complaints in these three cases purport to state
claims arising under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of a putative class of stock
purchasers.

On April 15, 2009, the Honorable Carol E. Jackson consolidated the
Unvericht and Norfolk County cases into the Mas case already
before her.

The amended complaint for the consolidated action, styled
Public Pension Fund Group v. KV Pharma. Co., et al., Case No.
4:08-cv-1859 (CEJ), was filed on May 22, 2009.

Defendants, including the company and certain of its directors and
officers, moved to dismiss the amended complaint on July 27, 2009,
and briefing was completed on the motions to dismiss on Sept. 3,
2009.

The court granted the motion to dismiss of the company and all
individual defendants in February 2010.

On March 18, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a motion for relief from
the order of dismissal and to amend their complaint, and also
filed a notice of appeal.

The company filed its opposition to plaintiffs' motion for relief
from judgment and to amend the complaint on April 8, 2010.

Briefing was completed on April 29, 2010.

K-V Pharmaceutical Company -- http:/www.kvpharmaceutical.com/ --
is a fully-integrated specialty pharmaceutical company that
develops, manufactures, markets, and acquires technology-
distinguished branded prescription pharmaceutical products.  The
company markets its technology-distinguished products through
Ther-Rx Corporation, its branded drug subsidiary.


K-V PHARMA: Remains a Defendant in 2 Suits Over Product Recalls
---------------------------------------------------------------
K-V Pharmaceutical Company remains a defendant in two putative
class actions relating to its voluntary product recalls, according
to the company's June 10, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 31,
2010.

The company or ETHEX Corp. are named defendants in at least 34
pending product liability lawsuits that relate to the voluntary
product recalls initiated by the company in late 2008 and early
2009.  The plaintiffs in these lawsuits allege damages as a result
of the ingestion of purportedly oversized tablets allegedly
distributed in 2007 and 2008.  The lawsuits are pending in federal
and state courts in various jurisdictions.

Of the 34 pending lawsuits, including four that have settled but
have not yet been dismissed, 2 plaintiffs allege economic harm, 24
plaintiffs allege that a death occurred, 32 plaintiffs allege
personal injury and the plaintiffs in the remaining lawsuits
allege non-fatal physical injuries.

Plaintiffs' allegations of liability are based on various theories
of recovery, including, but not limited to strict liability,
negligence, various breaches of warranty, misbranding, fraud and
other common law and/or statutory claims. Plaintiffs seek
substantial compensatory and punitive damages.

Two of the lawsuits are putative class actions, one of the
lawsuits is on behalf of 24 claimants, and the remaining lawsuits
are individual lawsuits.  The company believes that these lawsuits
are without merit and is vigorously defending against them, except
where, in its judgment, settlement is appropriate.

In addition to the 34 pending lawsuits, there are at least 208
pending pre-litigation claims (at least 30 of which involve a
death) that may or may not eventually become lawsuits.  The
company has also resolved a significant number of related product
liability lawsuits and pre-litigation claims.  In addition to self
insurance, the company possesses third party product liability
insurance, which the Company believes is applicable to the pending
lawsuits and claims.

K-V Pharmaceutical Company -- http:/www.kvpharmaceutical.com/ --
is a fully-integrated specialty pharmaceutical company that
develops, manufactures, markets, and acquires technology-
distinguished branded prescription pharmaceutical products.  The
company markets its technology-distinguished products through
Ther-Rx Corporation, its branded drug subsidiary.


KENTUCKY TAX: Ky. App. Ct. Revives Delinquent Tax Fee Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kentucky Tax Bill Servicing, Inc., purchases delinquent county
real estate tax bills and Kentucky Foreclosure Management, Inc.,
assists in the collection process.  Two delinquent taxpayers filed
suit, contesting interest, administrative and attorneys' fees
payable to the tax certificate purchaser.  The trial court
dismissed the lawsuit, apparently saying that it didn't have
jurisdiction over the dispute.

A three-judge panel in Spencer, et al. v. Kentucky Tax Bill
Servicing, Inc., et al., No. 2009-CV-000792-MR, says the trial
court has jurisdiction, reversed the trial court's ruling, and
remanded the case to the trial court.  A copy of the decision is
available at:

     http://www.leagle.com/unsecure/page.htm?shortname=inkyco20100618280

The taxpayers are represented by:

          Charles T. Lester, Jr., Esq.
          ERIC C. DETERS & ASSOCIATES, P.S.C.
          5247 Madison Pike
          Independence, KY 41051-7941
          Telephone: 859-363-1900
          E-mail: cteljr@yahoo.com and clester@ericdeters.com

The tax certificate purchaser and servicer are represented by:

          Gary J. Sergent, Esq.
          Christopher J. Arlinghaus, Esq.
          O'HARA, RUBERG, TAYLOR, SLOAN & SERGENT
          25 Town Center Boulevard, Suite 201
          PO Box 17411
          Covington, KY 41017-0411
          Telephone: (859) 331-2000
          E-mail: gsergent@ortlaw.com
                  carlinghaus@ortlaw.com


KNAUF PLASTERBOARD: Settles Two Drywall Lawsuits
------------------------------------------------
Allen Johnson Jr., writing for Bloomberg News, reports that
Chinese drywall maker Knauf Plasterboard Tianjin Co. settled with
two U.S. property owners, resulting in the dismissal of a trial
intended to help determine issues in related lawsuits nationwide.

Terms of the agreements weren't immediately filed following a
settlement conference June 18 in the New Orleans chambers of U.S.
District Judge Eldon Fallon, who oversees Chinese drywall cases in
federal courts.  Knauf is among about 1,000 defendants that may
face claims, Judge Fallon said last month.

Judge Fallon ordered the dismissal of the two suits brought
against Knauf by Paul Clement and Celeste Schexnaydre and by John
Campbell, who own real estate near New Orleans that they claimed
had been tainted by contaminated drywall that can cause health
problems.

Clement, Schexnaydre and Campbell were among more than 2,000
plaintiffs in a class-action suit filed in December against Knauf
by New Orleans Saints Head Coach Sean Payton, and his wife, Beth
Payton, who complained that Knauf drywall contaminated their home
at Mandeville, Louisiana.

The Clement and Campbell cases had been selected by the
manufacturers to be heard together in a jury trial overseen by
Judge Fallon and used as a benchmark for property damage in other
cases.  Judge Fallon may discuss the effect of the settlements on
pending cases at a regular monthly status conference for the
multidistrict litigation on June 24.

The cases against Knauf were settled the same day a state jury in
Florida awarded $2.5 million in damages to a couple whose home was
contaminated with defective Chinese drywall.

The case is In re Chinese-Manufactured Drywall Products Liability
Litigation, 2:09-md-02047 (E.D. La.).


LG DISPLAY: Zwerling Schachter Files Suit on Price-Fixing Scheme
----------------------------------------------------------------
Zwerling, Schachter & Zwerling, LLP, and its South Korean
co-counsel, We The People Law Group, have filed a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of all those who purchased or
otherwise acquired the securities of LG Display Co., Ltd. (f/k/a
LG Philips LCD Co., Ltd.) on the Korea Stock Exchange during the
period from July 16, 2004 to November 13, 2008, inclusive, to
recover damages caused by defendants' violations of the federal
securities laws.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. During the Class
Period, defendants made a series of materially false and
misleading statements concerning LG's business affairs, how it was
able to post historic profits, and the likelihood that it would be
exposed to a massive criminal fine.  Specifically, defendants
failed to disclose and/or misrepresented, among other things, the
following adverse facts: (a) From on or about September 21, 2001
to on or about June 1, 2006, LG and its co-conspirators engaged in
a price-fixing scheme in order to suppress and eliminate
competition in the LCD panel industry in unreasonable restraint of
interstate and foreign trade and commerce.  The price-fixing
scheme consisted of an ongoing agreement, understanding, and
concert of action among LG and its co-conspirators.  The purpose
of the scheme was to fix the prices of LCD panel products; (b) In
order to carry out the scheme, LG and its co-conspirators
participated in meetings, including group meetings commonly
referred to by the participants as "crystal meetings,"
conversations and communications in the U.S., Taiwan and Korea to
agree to charge prices for LCD panel products at certain levels to
be sold to certain resellers and consumers. The scheme involved
issuing price quotations, as well as exchanging information on
sales of LCD panel products; (c) The Company was reporting
inflated revenues, profit margins and financial results that did
not reflect its true business, but rather the results of the
price-fixing scheme; (d) LG's Class Period financial strength and
cost competitiveness were the result of its participation in the
price-fixing conspiracy; and (e) following the announced raid by
the South Korea Fair Trade Commission of LG's headquarters on or
about December 8, 2006 and through November 12, 2008, defendants
misled investors worldwide by touting its financial strength, cost
savings, business structure, competitive advantages and strategic
initiatives, while denying involvement in the price-fixing scheme
and failing to disclose the strong likelihood that LG and a number
of its senior executives would be forced to plead guilty to the
antitrust conspiracy which had allowed it to inflate its profits
and share price, and which ultimately resulted in the payment of a
historic criminal fine of $400 million.

If you purchased the securities of LG during the Class Period, you
may apply to serve as lead plaintiff. The lead plaintiff is
responsible for overseeing the prosecution of the action and
ensuring that the interests of the class are protected. Should you
desire to be lead plaintiff, you may apply to be appointed through
Zwerling Schachter.  The lead plaintiff deadline is August 20,
2010.

If you wish to discuss this securities class action or have any
questions concerning your rights and interests with respect to
this matter, please contact:

     Paul Kleidman, Esq.
     Shaye Fuchs, Esq.
     ZWERLING, SCHACHTER & ZWERLING, LLP
     Telephone: (800) 721-3900
     E-mail: pkleidman@zsz.com
             sfuchs@zsz.com

You may also contact South Korean co-counsel:

     Young-Ki Rhee, Esq.
     WE THE PEOPLE LAW GROUP
     Telephone: (822) 2285-0062
     E-mail: ykrhee@wethepeople.co.kr

Zwerling Schachter -- http://www.zsz.com/-- concentrates its law
practice in prosecuting class actions nationwide on behalf of
investors.  The firm currently plays a leading role in numerous
major securities and complex commercial litigations pending in
federal and state courts and has offices in New York, Garden City,
N.Y., and Seattle. The firm has been recognized by courts
throughout the country as highly experienced and skilled in
complex litigation, particularly with respect to federal
securities class action litigation.


LOUISIANA: Judge OKs Plaintiffs' Bid for Legal Fees, Subpoena
-------------------------------------------------------------
Alejandro de los Rios at The Louisiana Record reports that Orleans
Parish District Court Judge Paulette Irons ruled on three motions
brought forth June 18 in a class action suit against the Louisiana
Department of Social Services in Orleans Parish Civil District
Court.  Judge Irons granted the plaintiffs' motion to allocate
attorneys fees and signed a consent judgment on a motion to set
damages.  She denied the defense's motion to quash subpoenas duces
tecum -- which requires production of documents.  In this case,
the request the plaintiffs had requested names of potential class
members.

Gretna attorney Robert Creely, Esq., and New Orleans attorney
Mickey Landry, Esq., filed the nine-year-old suit on behalf of
employees of the LDSS who were allegedly exposed to toxic mold and
mold spores in the building they worked at from 1996 to 2002.  New
Orleans resident Sherry Watters is the lead plaintiff of the
class.

The suit alleges that the offices at Plaza Tower -- owned and
operated by BG Real Estate, Bahar Development, Baha Towers LP,
NOOB I GP and NOOB I LP -- had problems with "water leaks,
defective elevators, the presence of unknown toxic substances and
safety hazards."  The exposure to mold allegedly caused "sinus and
allergy problems, debilitating headaches, skin irritation, watery
eyes, and fatigue."

The class action was consolidated with a similar class action,
Kristen Rhodes et al. vs. BG Real Estate Services Inc. et al.,
filed by New Orleans attorney Richard Stanley, Esq., on behalf of
a class of foster parents that were contractually obliged to enter
the LDSS offices at the Plaza Tower.

Five members of the class -- Ms. Watters, Gina Recasner, Wendy
Lemieux, Frances Breyne and Gretchen Wiltz -- were awarded
$119,617.68 paid by the State of Louisiana.  From that amount,
$93,126.44 relates to the damages and interest awarded to each
class representative and the remaining $26,491.24 relates to the
costs taxed against the State for the suit.

Plaintiff counsel filed the motion to set attorney's fees and
costs on June 3.  The motion asked that the court "award an
attorney fee of 36% of the $93,126.44 damage award pursuant to La.
Code of Civil Procedure article 595."  It also asked that the
remaining $26,491.24 paid by the state for owed costs "be
transferred to the escrow account used in previous settlements to
reimburse class members for the costs they have previously paid to
counsel."

A seven-day bench trial in March 2008 awarded five of the class
representatives $25,000 in general damages for pain and suffering
and $10,000 for mental anguish and emotional distress.  The ruling
was affirmed on appeal and is the final judgment.

A status conference was held on April 8 to determine the award for
the remaining class members and to discuss possible mediation.
Negotiations stalled because the plaintiffs could not name all the
members of the class.

The defense filed the motion to quash subpoenas duces tecum on
April 27 after the plaintiff attorneys requested a list of all the
employees and "contract foster-parents" which were present in the
tower from 1996 until 2002. The defense stated that the
"information requested is not relevant to any material issue in
this case, nor is the use of a subpoena appropriate under the
circumstances."

The plaintiffs opposed the motion by saying their subpoena was
"seeking materials evidencing the names and addresses of potential
class members" and that information "is critical to ensuring that
these individuals can pursue their claims."

Orleans Parish Case 2001-17775


LULULEMON ATHLETICA: "Stephens" Settlement Gets Preliminary Nod
---------------------------------------------------------------
The San Diego Superior Court, California gave its preliminary
approval to the settlement agreement entered into by lululemon
athletica inc. and the plaintiffs in the matter Mia Stephens
et al. v. lululemon athletica inc., according to the company's
June 10, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended May 2, 2010.

On April 2, 2009, three former hourly company employees filed a
class action lawsuit alleging that the company violated various
California Labor Code sections by requiring employees to wear
lululemon clothing during working hours without reimbursing such
employees for the cost of the clothing and by paying certain bonus
payments to its employees in the form of lululemon gift cards
redeemable only for lululemon merchandise.

The complaint also alleges that the company owes waiting time
penalties as the result of failing to pay employees all wages due
at the time of termination.

The plaintiffs are seeking an unspecified amount of damages.

The company and the plaintiffs have reached an agreement on
settlement terms and the agreement has received tentative approval
from the court.

Plaintiffs and the Company must now go through the process of
obtaining final approval.

lululemon athletica inc. -- http://www.lululemon.com/-- is a
designer and retailer of technical athletic apparel primarily in
North America.  Its yoga-inspired apparel is marketed under the
lululemon athletica brand name.  The company offers a line of
apparel and accessories, including fitness pants, shorts, tops and
jackets designed for athletic pursuits, such as yoga, dance,
running and general fitness.  It offers a line of performance
apparel and accessories for both women and men.  The company's
fitness-related accessories include an array of items such as
bags, socks, underwear, yoga mats, instructional yoga digital
versatile discs, water bottles and headbands.


LULULEMON ATHLETICA: "Kohlenberg" Settlement Pact Gets Court Nod
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Orange County Superior Court, California gave its preliminary
approval to the settlement agreement between lululemon athletica
inc. and the plaintiff in the matter  Brett Kohlenberg et al v.
lululemon athletica inc., according to the company's June 10,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended May 2, 2010.

On March 26, 2009, a former hourly Company employee filed a class
action lawsuit alleging that the company violated various
California Labor Code sections by failing to pay its employees for
certain rest and meal breaks and "off the clock" work, and for
penalties related to waiting times and failure to provide itemized
wage statements.

The company and the plaintiffs have reached an agreement on
settlement terms and the agreement has received tentative approval
from the court.  Plaintiffs and the company must now go through
the process of obtaining final approval.

lululemon athletica inc. -- http://www.lululemon.com/-- is a
designer and retailer of technical athletic apparel primarily in
North America.  Its yoga-inspired apparel is marketed under the
lululemon athletica brand name.  The company offers a line of
apparel and accessories, including fitness pants, shorts, tops and
jackets designed for athletic pursuits, such as yoga, dance,
running and general fitness.  It offers a line of performance
apparel and accessories for both women and men.  The company's
fitness-related accessories include an array of items such as
bags, socks, underwear, yoga mats, instructional yoga digital
versatile discs, water bottles and headbands.


MGA ENTERTAINMENT: Sued in Calif. Over 'Bratz' License Rights
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that in a federal class action,
the Singing Machine Co. claims MGA Entertainment charged it and
others "millions of dollars in fees and royalties" to use the
Bratz concept and identity, without the right to do so, "as MGA
pirated the 'Bratz' concept and identity from its competitor,
Mattel."

A copy of the Complaint in The Singing Machine Company, Inc. v.
MGA Entertainment Inc., et al., Case No. 10-cv-04536 (C.D.
Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/06/22/Bratz.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Anton N. Handal, Esq.
          Gabriel G. Hedrick, Esq.
          Pamela Chalk, Esq.
          HANDAL & ASSOCIATES
          1200 Third Ave., Suite 1321
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: 619-544-6400
          E-mail: anh@handal-law.com
                  ghedrick@handal-law.com
                  pchalk@handal-law.com


NEWFOUNDLAND & LABRADOR: Moose Victims Mull Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------
CBC News reports that people calling for measures to reduce moose
accidents on Newfoundland and Labrador's highways say they'll step
up pressure if they don't get what they want at a meeting with
provincial government officials Tuesday.  The group argues the
number of moose in the province needs to be culled, or controlled
with fences, and more brush near roads needs to be cut in order to
prevent highway accidents and deaths.

"We're going to arrange a parade at the Confederation Building [in
St. John's]. We're going to put the people in wheelchairs -- and
there's many in this province totally disabled -- they are going
to be in the front line. We're going to have many, many people
from the public that have been affected by moose accidents behind
them," said Eugene Nippard, a leader of the Save Our People Action
Committee.

Leaders of the Save Our People Action Committee were scheduled to
meet with three provincial cabinet ministers Tuesday.

Provincial officials say about 700 moose-vehicle accidents are
reported annually across Newfoundland and Labrador.

Moose aren't native to the island of Newfoundland but wildlife
officials estimate that since they were introduced to the province
more than a century ago, their population has grown to about
120,000 animals.

Last fall, more than 20,000 people signed the action committee's
petition calling on the provincial government to do more to
control moose.  In March, the province announced it would increase
the number of moose hunting licenses it issues this coming fall.

But Mr. Nippard said that's not enough.  He said Tuesday morning
that the group has been speaking with a lawyer about filing a
class action suit against the provincial government for failing to
protect people from moose.


NOVA SCOTIA: Plaintiffs Seek Clean-up, Not Money
------------------------------------------------
Keith Doucette at The Canadian Press reports that the Supreme
Court of Nova Scotia has been asked to determine whether a group
of 400 people can launch a class-action lawsuit over health
problems they claim they've suffered by living near the notorious
Sydney tar ponds.

Lawyer Ray Wagner, Esq., in his opening submission Monday before
Justice John Murphy, said the group wasn't seeking personal injury
claims against the federal and provincial governments.  Instead,
they want a cleanup of the soil around homes within a five-
kilometre radius of the former Sydney Steel Co. and adjacent coke
ovens operations, he said.  The group also wants a health study to
examine the impact of the toxic compounds produced by the former
Crown-owned operations between 1968 and 2000.

The tar ponds, created by the waste left behind after a century of
steelmaking, are among the most contaminated sites in Canada.
They are believed to contain 700,000 tonnes of toxic sludge.

"What the community wants is: they want their day in court," Mr.
Wagner told the court. "They trust the courts, but now in 2010
they do not trust the government."

Mr. Wagner said the case was about "the contamination of an entire
community."

Mr. Wagner said he alleged both levels of government knew there
were harmful substances in the runoff from the industrial
operation and failed to inform the community.  As well, the
governments mischaracterized evidence presented in subsequent
health studies, he said.

Mr. Wagner argued a group action was the best way to seek justice
because the costs would be too high for individual litigants.  The
lawsuit would represent the first environmental class action in
Nova Scotia, he added.

"These are not astronomical claims," Mr. Wagner said outside
court.  "We are not looking for personal injuries for people who
have died of cancer, people who are suffering from cancer, people
who will suffer from cancer . . . People will be free to bring
those if they choose, on their own," said Mr. Wagner.

Mr. Wagner said the cleanup request was the focus of the lawsuit.

"Those properties that are contaminated and can be proven to be
contaminated above a certain level . . . should be remediated so
people can live in a healthy environment and not be concerned
about what's in their home and in their backyards."

But lawyers for both the province and Ottawa contend a class
action isn't appropriate given that there would be too many
"individual issues" that would have to be resolved to determine
liability.

Federal lawyer Michael Donovan, Esq., said on health issues alone,
the case would have to delve into personal medical histories
dating back 40 years, including the length and amounts of exposure
to toxic substances suffered by people living in the area.

"We're simply saying that's too big a piece to take on," Mr.
Donovan said outside court.  "There's so much variation that you
really need to try individual cases."

Agnes MacNeil, Esq., a lawyer for the Nova Scotia government, also
took issue with the notion that the plaintiffs are after a "modest
settlement."  She said any cleanup of neighborhoods in Sydney
alone would cost millions of dollars.  "They're (the litigants)
talking about digging up a foot of topsoil across a three-and-a-
half mile radius," she said. "That's a lot of land to remove from
Sydney and that would be very expensive."

Both levels of government have already committed $400 million
toward the cleanup of the tar ponds and coke ovens sites, which is
expected to be completed by 2014.

Nine days have been set aside for the hearing, which is being
broadcast live over the Internet.  The proposed action would bring
the claimants under one umbrella for a single trial.

Raymond Wagner, Esq., may be reached at:

     Raymond F. Wagner, Esq.
     WAGNERS LAW FIRM
     3rd Floor, Pontac House
     Historic Properties
     1869 Upper Water Street
     Halifax NS B3J 1S9
     Telephone: (902) 425-7330
     Toll Free: 1-800-465-8794
     Facsimile: (902)422-1233
     E-mail: seriousinjury@wagnerslawfirm.com


ORLEANS PARISH SCHOOL: Class Settlement Taken Under Advisement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Alejandro de los Rios, writing for The Louisiana Record, reports
that Judge Sidney Cates IV took under advisement a motion June 18
to determine the distribution of settlement funds in a class
action suit filed by teachers against the Orleans Parish School
Board in Orleans Parish Civil District Court.

Angelyn Mills, Diane Nzinga and the United Teachers of New Orleans
filed a class action suit against the OPSB in 2003 after they were
denied pay raises mandated by Louisiana State Act 1341 which
amended Louisiana Revised Statute 17:1202.

As part of a settlement agreement on April 25, 2005, the OPSB
authorized the payment of $6,844,433.67 that was saved as a result
of Act 1341 to eligible members of the class.  The payments were
to be made in two installments, the first at with the first
payroll of September 2005 and the second with the last payroll of
December 2005.

Act 1341 cut down on the amount of sick leave given to teachers
and imposed additional requirements on teachers applying for
extended sick leave in exchange for a pay raise for all Parish
School Boards in Louisiana with the monies saved by the
amendments.

In November 2009, the OPSB filed a memorandum in opposition of the
plaintiff's motion for final approval of the settlement and
distribution of funds, looking to be refunded $2.4 million of the
unclaimed settlement funds.  The motion stated that less than 60%
of eligible class members claimed compensation and, as a result,
the 3,057 claimants who submitted a proof of claim form would
improperly receive a windfall and be paid forty percent or more
above the amount each person is owed.

After a hearing in December 2009, Judge Cates signed a consent
judgment itemizing the partial distribution of settlement funds
for different categories of the eligible class members.  The OPSB
voted against the consent judgment and re-urged their original
motion.

The plaintiffs are represented by:

     Charles Samuel III, Esq.
     RITTENBERG, SAMUEL & PHILLIPS, L.L.C.
     715 Girod Street, Suite 100
     New Orleans, LA 70130
     Telephone: (504) 524-5555 (Ext. 17)
                (504) 715-0484 (Mobile)
     Facsimile: (504) 524-0912

New Orleans attorneys John Etter, Esq., and Regina Bartholomew,
Esq., are representing the OPSB.  New Orleans attorney Donesia
Turner, Esq., began as defendant counsel but withdrew in July
2005.


PFIZER INC: May 2011 Trial Date Set for Zahn's Hormone Drug Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Amon at Bloomberg News reports that Pfizer Inc. faces a
Texas trial over its hormone-replacement drugs after a judge
overseeing lawsuits related to the medicines sent 200 cases back
to their home courts.

A judge in Galveston, Texas, set a May 2011 trial date for Karen
Zahn's claims against Pfizer's Wyeth unit.  Zahn says in her suit
that the Prempro menopause drug helped cause her breast cancer.
It's one of the first of more than 8,000 lawsuits over the
medicine consolidated in federal court in Arkansas to be returned
for trial, plaintiffs' lawyers said.

U.S. District Judge William Wilson in Little Rock, Arkansas, is
supervising pretrial proceedings in the cases against Wyeth and
Pharmacia & Upjohn, another Pfizer unit.  He returned the 200
cases to their courts in March and told lawyers to get another 400
ready to go back later this year.

"Pfizer is now going to have to gear up and hire lawyers all over
the country to try these cases," said Carl Tobias, a professor at
the University of Richmond law school who teaches classes on mass-
tort law.  "That makes things more expensive and may provide some
incentive to settle."

Officials of New York-based Pfizer said that while Judge Wilson
has sent back some cases, he refused plaintiffs' requests to send
back all the suits at one time.

"No decision has been made about how many additional cases will be
remanded or when," Pfizer spokesman Chris Loder said in an
e-mailed statement.  It also isn't clear how many of the remanded
cases will go to trial, he said.

Mr. Loder refused to comment on whether Pfizer will seek to settle
the remaining Prempro cases before Judge Wilson.  The company
faces at least 8,000 Prempro claims, Wyeth officials said in a
2009 regulatory filing.

"Pfizer will continue to vigorously defend its hormone therapy
medicines," he said in a statement.  "We do not comment on the
number of cases pending, nor do we comment on our legal strategy."

The case is In Re Prempro Products, 03-cv-15070 (E.D. Ark.).

On Thursday, the Class Action Reporter, citing The Associated
Press, said the U.S. Supreme Court allowed 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.


PINNACLE GROUP: Seeks 2nd Cir. OK to Challenge Class Cert.
----------------------------------------------------------
Jarrett Murphy, writing for City Limits, relates that two months
after a federal judge granted class action status to a group of
tenants suing the Pinnacle Group, the formal process of finding
people who think they were wronged by the giant landlord is on
hold.  Pinnacle has asked the Second Circuit Court of Appeals for
permission to challenge that class certification, and a ruling on
that motion could come any day.

Until that ruling comes, those who might have been eligible to
join the class, which would include all current and some former
rent-regulated residents of Pinnacle buildings, aren't receiving
official notification of their right to add their name to the
suit.  But that hasn't stopped the plaintiffs and their supporters
like Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer from informally
starting to recruit people to join the case.  On Saturday,
plaintiff Kim Powell and a representative from Mr. Stringer's
office briefed a tenant group about it.

Pinnacle lawyer Ken Fisher, Esq., predicted in an interview with
City Limits that the plaintiffs will get few takers.  He said that
a poll of Pinnacle's residents found that 70% of tenants were
satisfied with their landlord.  "Ultimately, we don't think many
people are going to come forward."

Ms. Powell disagrees.  She says her law firm tells her that "their
phone is non-stop ringing.  They are backlogged for months."
The back and forth reflects Powell and Pinnacle's extremely
acrimonious relationship.  In one incident, Ms. Powell's mother
Margaret Powell, who shares Ms. Powell's apartment, was arrested
in 2006 for writing graffiti on an elevator.  Ms. Powell says the
graffiti was to protest poor service by Pinnacle.  The prosecutor
dropped the charges against Margaret Powell, and Pinnacle dropped
a civil complaint when she agreed to refrain from creating
"nuisances" and pay back rent.

The lawsuit started in 2007, when a group of 10 Pinnacle tenants
sued the landlord, owner of some 20,000 rent regulated apartments
across the city, alleging that the company had raised rents
improperly and filed eviction notices frivolously as part of a
scheme to drive rent-regulated tenants out of their apartments
so the landlord could raise rents or sell the units as condos or
co-ops.

The suit claimed that Pinnacle had violated not just state law but
also the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
act, or RICO.  The tenants sought an injunction compelling
Pinnacle to stop the alleged practices and asked the court to
force Pinnacle to pay damages to tenants who'd been wronged.  It
also asked for certification of Pinnacle tenants as a class.

In April, District Judge Colleen McMahon granted that
certification, but she has yet to issue any findings on the merits
of the case yet.  Even if the Second Circuit upholds Judge
McMahon's decision, it will be many months before any ruling on
the truth of the residents' claims.  Five of the original
plaintiffs have already settled and left the case.

Supporters of the remaining plaintiffs -- residents of three
Pinnacle-owned buildings in Harlem -- have cast the case as a
potential landmark victory for renter's rights, and a potential
model for actions against other landlords.

But if the Second Circuit accepts Pinnacle's bid for an appeal
hearing, the ultimate ruling might also set a precedent -- not for
tenants, but for other citizens who try to sue under RICO.

RICO applies when some person or group commits at least two
different crimes in furtherance of the same criminal enterprise.
It is a tool for prosecutors but also for private citizens. If a
person can prove they've been harmed by a RICO enterprise they can
collect three times as much as the illegal acts cost them.

Since Pinnacle hasn't filed an appeal yet, it's unclear what other
arguments it might make to the Second Circuit.  But Pinnacle has
already argued that under RICO, private citizens can't ask for
injunctive relief -- a thorny point on which federal courts have
split.

In broader arguments against the tenants' case, Pinnacle also
claims that the tenants' charges aren't specific enough to meet
RICO standards: For instance, when the lawsuit alleges that
Pinnacle committed mail fraud by sending notices of fraudulent
rent increases through the mail, it doesn't say exactly who
committed the alleged crime.  Pinnacle also claims that the
tenants lack standing and have already had their day in court (in
housing court or in administrative proceedings).

Beyond the legal arguments, Pinnacle -- the target of bad press
for years -- is also showing concern for its public image.
The Rent Stabilization Association, a landlord lobby group, has
filed a friend-of-the-court brief with the District Court
asserting that Pinnacle's rates of apartment turnover and
deregulation of rent-regulated units compare favorably with
citywide averages.

Pinnacle's campaign to clear its name led it to send a freedom of
information law (or FOIL) request in 2008 to Mr. Stringer asking
the beep for letters and emails from constituents that would
support Mr. Stringer's statement that year that "The name Pinnacle
is just simply a code word for mass eviction."  When the BP
released some records but withheld others saying they were exempt
from FOIL, Pinnacle sued.  Mr. Stringer handed over the remaining
documents.  Fisher claims none of the complaints Mr. Stringer
gathered were substantive, but Mr. Stringer's office disputes
that.

Some of the concerns about Pinnacle have attracted the attention
of law enforcement officials -- former Attorney General Spitzer,
his successor Andrew Cuomo and former Manhattan District Attorney
Robert Morgenthau.

In 2006, Messrs. Spitzer and Morgenthau launched investigations of
Pinnacle.  Late that year, Mr. Spitzer said his investigators had
found some instances of Pinnacle overcharging tenants at one
building.  Pinnacle agreed to several conditions, including hiring
a forensic accounting firm to evaluate its rents. Fisher claims
that forensic study validated Pinnacle's rents in 95% of cases,
but the plaintiffs say Pinnacle provided false information to the
accountants.

In a statement to City Limits, the Manhattan DA's office said its
probe "didn't lead to a criminal prosecution." But, added
spokeswoman Jennifer Kushner, "the Pinnacle Group agreed to the
placement of a monitorship within the company for a period of
time."  Under the agreement with Mr. Spitzer, Pinnacle agreed to
make regular reports on its rent law compliance for a year.

Mr. Cuomo's office also investigated Pinnacle.  In late 2008, the
office announced, with little fanfare, that its investigators,
posing as potential tenants, were told that Section 8 vouchers
were not accepted at one Pinnacle building, in violation of the
rules of a subsidy program in which that building had
participated.  Pinnacle agreed to better inform employees and
tenants of renters' rights, create a waiting list for Section 8
renters for when any apartments are available, and, separately,
set aside apartments for Section 8 renters.

But Pinnacle admitted no wrongdoing -- and denied Cuomo's findings
-- in their agreement with the AG.  In fact, "Pinnacle has never
acknowledged any deliberate wrongdoing and certainly not on the
scale that's being alleged, and no court or regulator has ever
found deliberate wrongdoing," Mr. Fisher said. "That's not to say
that Pinnacle hasn't made mistakes."

State regulators have documented some of those mistakes.  "There
have been many instances or cases where DHCR issued an order
finding that a rent overcharge had occurred -- and the rent was
subsequently reduced and a refund ordered -- for an apartment at a
building owned by Pinnacle. We've also had a smaller amount of
orders that reduce rent for decreases in services," says Jim
Plastiras, a spokesman for the state Department of Housing and
Community Renewal, which oversees rent regulated apartments.
But Mr. Plastiras adds: "We have not issued any orders where there
has been a finding of harassment, however, and there have also
been instances where we've issued orders to say there had not been
an overcharge or a decrease in services."

Mr. Fisher says: "Pinnacle is proud if its record of providing
safe and well-managed housing to thousands of New York families."
When the company makes mistakes, "they work hard to correct them
when they do and the notion of some vast conspiracy as claimed in
this lawsuit is completely overblown."

Pinnacle's counsel may be reached at:

     Kenneth K. Fisher, Esq.
     COZEN O'CONNOR
     277 Park Avenue
     New York, New York 10172
     Telephone: (212) 883-4962
     Toll Free: (888) 864-3013
     Facsimile: (212) 986-0604
     E-mail: kfisher@cozen.com


PRIMFORCE REAL ESTATE: Faces Class Suit; Owners Declare Bankruptcy
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jean-Francois Bertrand at The Ottawa Citizen reports that the
owners of a Gatineau investment firm that a group of investors is
trying to sue for allegedly defrauding its members of millions of
dollars have declared personal bankruptcy, court heard Monday.

The group of more than 150 investors had asked Superior Court in
Gatineau to authorize a class-action suit against a list of
defendants, including the owners of Primforce Real Estate
Investments Inc. -- Fran‡ois Roy, Marc Jemus and Robert Primeau --
but "we cannot legally sue them," said Pierre Sylvestre, Esq.,
lawyer for David Brown, a Ganonoque investor who is the main
petitioner.

The hearing, which began Monday, will determine if the class
action application is granted and the case can proceed.  Mr.
Sylvestre, Esq., said outside of court that he asked to authorize
a class action against two financial brokers, Gatineau notary Jean
Lafreniere, B2B Trust and Whitney Canada, a real estate training
company.

"We claim that they were negligent, that they didn't keep their
eyes open, that they're were not watchdogs."

None of the claims have been proven in court. A criminal
investigation by the RCMP has concluded after two years of
investigation.  The report is now in the hands of the Crown
attorney's office in Gatineau, which will decide whether charges
should be laid.

The hearing was to resume Monday afternoon.


PUTNAM INVESTMENT: Case Management Conferences Held Wednesday
-------------------------------------------------------------
Amelia Flood, writing for The Madison/St. Clair Record relates
that three class actions over allegedly mismanaged mutual funds
may be dead in the water even as case management conferences in
all three are set.

Madison County Circuit Judge Barbara Crowder was scheduled to
oversee the conferences Wednesday in a mutual fund class action
brought by lead plaintiffs Carl Kircher and Robert Brockway as
well as two nearly identical cases led by Steve and Beth Dudley.

The Fifth District Appellate Court in Mount Vernon recently found
that the Kircher case ran afoul of the 1998 Securities Litigation
Uniform Standards Act.  The case was then dismissed.

In the two Dudley cases, Judge Crowder heard arguments for and
against the dismissal of those suits in May.

While the defense argued that the Kircher decision should be
applied to the nearly identical Dudley suits, the plaintiffs pled
to be allowed to amend the suits to keep them alive.

Judge Crowder took the moves under advisement.

However, the defense entered a notice May 27 of a settlement in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland in a federal
mutual funds class action.  That settlement, overseen by U.S.
District Judge J. Frederick Motz, preliminarily enjoins the Dudley
cases from proceeding.  The decision from Maryland came the same
day Crowder took the dismissal motions and move to amend under
advisement.

Final approval of the Maryland settlement remains pending.

A number of cases over the management of mutual funds are pending
across the country.

The Dudley cases ping-ponged back and forth between federal court
and Madison County.  They eventually went to the U.S. Supreme
Court on the issue of removal before they returned to
Edwardsville.

The Kircher case and the Dudley cases were filed by Stephen
Tillery and Christine Moody.  The defendants in the Kircher case
are Putnam Funds, Putnam Investment Management LLC, Evergreen
Investment Management LLC and Evergreen Internationl Trust.

Rebecca Jackson, Esq., represents the Putnam defendants in the
Kircher case.  She may be reached at:

     Rebecca R. Jackson, Esq.
     BRYAN CAVE
     St. Louis, MO
     Telephone: (314) 259-2217
     Facsimile: (314) 552-8217
     E-mail: rrjackson@bryancave.com

Ann Barron, Esq., represents the Evergreen defendants in the
Kircher case.

In the Dudley cases, the defendants include Putnam Equity Funds
and Putnam Investment Management.

Ms. Jackson and others represent the defendants in the Dudley
cases.

The Kircher case is Madison case number 03-L-1255.

The two Putnam cases are case numbers 03-L-1539 and 03-L-1540.


ROBERT GUENTHER: Pro Se Plaintiff Won't Be Representing Any Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Karen M. Hunphreys says that a pro se plaintiff
in trust and estate-related litigation won't be representing any
potential elder abuse plaintiff class because "a pro se plaintiff
proceeding in forma pauperis is not capable of 'fairly and
adequately protecting the interests of the class.'"  That
statement appears in a Memorandum and Order entered in Kastner v.
Guenther, Case No. 10-cv-01013 (D. Kan.), and a copy of the order
dated June 18, 2010, is available at:

     http://www.leagle.com/unsecure/page.htm?shortname=infdco20100618a78


SPECTRANETICS CORP: To Pay $8.5-Mil. to Settle Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
The Spectranetics Corporation has agreed in principle to settle
both the securities class action litigation pending against the
company and certain of its current and former officers and
directors and the stockholder derivative case naming the company
as a nominal defendant and certain of its current and former
officers and directors as defendants.  The class action was
brought on behalf of persons and entities who bought or acquired
shares of Spectranetics' common stock between March 16, 2007 and
September 4, 2008.

Under the proposed class action settlement, the claims against
Spectranetics and its officers and directors will be dismissed
with prejudice and released in exchange for a cash payment of $8.5
million to be funded by Spectranetics' Insurers.  The proposed
settlement remains subject to the satisfaction of various
conditions, including negotiation and execution of a final
stipulation of settlement, and approval by the U.S. District Court
for the District of Colorado following notice to members of the
class.  Terms for distribution of the settlement fund to class
members, less fees awarded by the court to class counsel, and
other terms of the settlement will be disclosed in a notice to be
sent to class members after preliminary court approval.

Under the terms of the proposed derivative settlement, plaintiffs
(on their own behalf and derivatively on behalf of Spectranetics)
will dismiss the stockholder derivative case with prejudice and
release their claims in exchange for formalizing certain corporate
governance procedures and payment of attorneys fees of $350,000.
As with the class action settlement, the proposed settlement will
be funded by Spectranetics' Insurers and remains subject to the
satisfaction of various conditions, including negotiation and
execution of a final stipulation of settlement and approval by the
U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado.

The Company and the individual defendants have steadfastly
maintained that the claims raised in the class action litigation
and stockholder derivative case were without merit, and have
vigorously contested those claims.  As part of the settlements,
the Company and the individual defendants continue to deny any
liability or wrongdoing under the securities laws.

"I'm pleased that, upon approval by the Court, we can put the
securities class action lawsuit and stockholder derivative case
behind us and avoid the distraction and cost associated with
protracted litigation," said Emile J. Geisenheimer, Spectranetics'
Chairman of the Board of Directors, President and Chief Executive
Officer.

The Company also recently became aware that three Spectranetics
stockholders filed an individual lawsuit on May 28, 2010 in the
United States District Court for the District of Colorado
asserting various federal and state claims arising out of the same
facts alleged in the securities class action. Two of the three
stockholders who brought this case had previously moved
unsuccessfully to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the securities
class action where they claimed a loss of $1.27 million.
Spectranetics intends to defend this lawsuit vigorously.

The Spectranetics Corporation -- http://www.spectranetics.com/--
develops, manufactures, markets and distributes single-use medical
devices used in minimally invasive procedures within the
cardiovascular system. The Company's products are sold in 40
countries throughout the world and are used to treat arterial
blockages in the heart and legs as well as the removal of
problematic pacemaker and defibrillator leads.

The Company's Vascular Intervention (VI) products include a range
of peripheral and cardiac laser catheters for ablation of occluded
arteries above and below the knee and within coronary arteries.
The Company also markets aspiration and thrombectomy catheters for
the removal of thrombus and support catheters to facilitate
crossing of coronary and peripheral arterial blockages.

The Lead Management (LM) product line includes excimer laser
sheaths and cardiac lead management accessories for the removal of
problematic pacemaker and defibrillator cardiac leads.


SUNTECH ENTERPRISES: Recalls 8,400 Baby Walkers
-----------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Suntech Enterprises Inc., of Commerce, Calif., announced a
voluntary recall of about 8,400 Baby Walkers.  Consumers should
stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise
instructed.

The recalled walkers can fit through a standard doorway and fail
to have sufficient stair-fall protection to prevent falls down
stairs.  Babies using these walkers can be seriously injured or
killed if they fall down stairs.

No injuries or incidents have been reported.

This recall involves baby walkers that have a plastic frame
supported by four wheels and eight brake pads.  The walkers were
sold in blue, pink, and green with a white activity tray and
patterned, vinyl seat.  Item number WK110 or WK112 is printed on
the side of the packaging.  Pictures of the recalled products are
available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10269.html


The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold through
consumers should immediately stop using the walkers and return
them to the store where purchased for a full refund.

For additional information, contact Suntech Enterprises toll-free
at (888) 268-8139 between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Pacific Time,
Monday through Friday.  This recall is being conducted
voluntarily, however, in May 2010, CPSC issued a new mandatory
rule on baby walkers that is effective on December 21, 2010.  The
walkers will be required to either: 1) be too wide to fit through
a standard doorway, or 2) have features, such as a gripping
mechanism, to stop the walker at the edge of a step.


TELIK INC: 2nd Cir. Affirms Shareholder Class Action Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals affirmed a settlement approved
by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
in 2008 between a class of shareholder-plaintiffs and Telik, Inc.
Coverage of that $5 million settlement appeared in the Class
Action Reporter on Dec. 29, 2008.  A copy of the appellate court's
decision in May v. Telik, Inc., No. 08-5341 (2d Cir. June 21,
2010), is available at:

     http://www.leagle.com/unsecure/page.htm?shortname=infco20100621094

The Shareholder Class is represented by:

          Stanley D. Bernstein, Esq.
          Joseph R. Seidman, Jr., Esq.
          BERNSTEIN LIEBHARD LLP
          10 East 40th Street, 22nd Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 779-1414
          E-mail: bernstein@bernlieb.com
                  seidman@bernlieb.com

Telik, Inc., and various insiders are represented by:

          Jamie A. Levitt, Esq.
          MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
          1290 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10104-0050
          Telephone: (212) 468-8000
          E-mail: jlevitt@mofo.com


TOYS R US: Defends Consolidated Lawsuit by Internet Retailers
-------------------------------------------------------------
Toys "R" Us, Inc., continues to defend a consolidated class action
case brought by internet retailers.

On July 15, 2009, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania granted the class plaintiffs' motion for class
certification in a consumer class action commenced in January
2006, which was consolidated with an action brought by two
Internet retailers that was commenced in December 2005.

Both actions allege that Babies "R" Us agreed with certain baby
product manufacturers to impose, maintain or enforce minimum price
agreements in violation of antitrust laws.

In addition, in December 2009, a third Internet retailer filed a
similar action and another class action was commenced making
similar allegations involving most of the same Defendants.

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

Toys "R" Us' Inc. -- http://www.toysrus.com/-- is one of the
world's largest toy retailers.  Toys "R" Us sells its wares in
about 1,500 stores in the US and abroad and through Web sites.  In
addition to about 585 US namesake stores selling toys, games, and
other items for kids, Toys "R" Us sells infant and toddler
apparel, furniture, and feeding supplies at some 260 Babies "R" Us
stores in more than 40 states.  It's owned by KKR, Bain Capital,
and real estate firm Vornado Realty Trust, which together took the
toy seller private in a $6.6 billion deal.  Toys "R" Us acquired
troubled toy icon FAO Schwarz in 2009.


U.S. BANK: Ore. Employee Class Doesn't Recover Legal Fees
---------------------------------------------------------
The Oregon Court of Appeals turned down an employee plaintiff
class' request for payment of legal fees in Belknap and Brulc v.
U.S. Bank National Association, No. 030100042, A138636 (June 16,
2010).  The Plaintiffs requested payment of $151,000.  Seeing
noticing problems, the trial court awarded $16,000.  The appellate
court says nothing is payable in its decision available at:

     http://www.leagle.com/unsecure/page.htm?shortname=inorco20100616435

The employees are represented by:

          A. E. Bud Bailey, Esq.
          J. Dana Pinney, Esq.
          Jacqueline L. Koch, Esq.
          BAILEY, PINNEY & ASSOCIATES, LLC
          1498 S.E. Tech Center Place, Suite 290
          Vancouver, WA 98683
          Telephone: (360) 567-2551
          E-mail: bbailey@wagelawyer.com
                  jdpinney@wagelawyer.com

U.S. Bank is represented by:

          Christopher F. McCracken, Esq.
          Timothy R. Volpert, Esq.
          Carol J. Bernick, Esq.
          DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
          1300 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 2300
          Portland, OR 97201-5630
          Telephone: (503) 241-2300
          E-mail: chrismccracken@dwt.com
                  timvolpert@dwt.com
                  carolbernick@dwt.com


VALEANT PHARMA: Kendall Launches Class Suit on Biovail Merger
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kendall Law Group is investigating Valeant Pharmaceuticals
International for shareholders in connection with the proposed
merger with Biovail.  The firm's investigation seeks to determine
whether Valeant and its Board breached their fiduciary duties by
entering into the agreement without properly shopping for a deal
that would provide better value for shareholders.  If you are a
Valeant shareholder and would like additional information about
your rights, contact the Kendall Law Group at 877-744-3728 or by
email at jmckey@kendalllawgroup.com

On June 21, 2010, the companies announced that they had entered
into an agreement for Valeant to be acquired by Biovail in a
transaction valued at approximately $3.2 billion. Under the terms
of the agreement, Valeant shareholders will receive a cash
dividend of $16.77 per share and 1.7809 shares of Biovail common
stock for each share of Valeant stock held. Based on Biovail's
closing price of $14.60 the day before the deal was announced,
this offer values Valeant stock at $42.77 per share. Because
Valeant shares closed at $45.87 on Friday, the firm believes this
offer to be inadequate for the shareholders.

Kendall Law Group may be reached at:

     KENDALL LAW GROUP LLP
     Jamie McKey, Esq.
     Telephone: (214) 744-3000
     Toll Free: (877) 744-3728
     Facsimile: (214) 744-3015
     E-mail: jmckey@kendalllawgroup.com

Dallas-based Kendall Law Group -- http://www.kendalllawgroup.com/
-- was founded by a former federal judge, includes a former United
States Attorney, prosecutors and securities lawyers who are
experienced in complex securities litigation. The firm has been
counsel in numerous merger and acquisition cases nationwide,
including some of the largest transactions in the United States.
Since leaving the bench to return to trial work, Mr. Kendall has
had tremendous success at the prosecution of patent, consumer and
securities class action litigation either as lead, co-lead or
liaison counsel.


VIVENDI SA: Investors Ask Paris Court to Compel Repayment
---------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Amon at Bloomberg News reports that Vivendi SA investors
asked a Paris court to order former Chief Executive Officer Jean-
Marie Messier and six other former executives, as well as the
company, to repay them money lost during a $77 billion acquisition
spree.

Vivendi isn't a defendant and has participated in the trial
claiming it was also a victim of the acquisition campaign that
preceded Mr. Messier's 2002 ouster.  The company's lawyer said
June 18 that its goal was to "aid in a manifestation of the truth"
of the Messier era and said it should pay no damages.

Vivendi joined the case "so that we might at last turn the page,
so that we can focus on what Vivendi does now," company lawyer
Herve Pisani said.

Shareholder lawyer Frederik-Karel Canoy asked the court to "set a
precedent," estimating the loss at 160 euros ($198) per share and
seeking 10 euros a share in prejudice.  He told the court Vivendi
should join in paying.  An award would tell shareholders "if we
can stay in France or do we have to go to the U.S."

French investors joined a class action in New York, where the jury
in January cleared Mr. Messier and former Chief Financial Officer
Guillaume Hannezo of wrongdoing while finding the company liable
for misleading investors.  Vivendi has appealed and set aside 550
million euros for any potential award.


VONAGE HOLDINGS: Court Says Multiple Domains for Spam is Okay
-------------------------------------------------------------
California's Business and Professions Code section 17529.5,
subdivision (a)(2), provides that it is unlawful to advertise in a
commercial electronic mail (e-mail) advertisement -- commonly
known as "spam" -- if the advertisement "contains or is
accompanied by falsified, misrepresented, or forged header
information."  In Kleffman v. Vonage Holdings Corp., No S16995
(Cal.), California's highest court was asked whether, under this
section, it is unlawful to send commercial e-mail advertisements
from multiple domain names for the purpose of bypassing spam
filters.  On the undisputed facts of this case, the answer is
"no."  A copy of the Court's decision is available at:

     http://www.leagle.com/unsecure/page.htm?shortname=incaco20100621062

The spammed plaintiffs are represented by:

          Steve W. Berman, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO
          1918 Eighth Ave., Suite 3300
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 623-7292
          E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          Reed R. Kathrein, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO
          715 Hearst Ave., Suite 202
          Berkeley, CA 94710
          Telephone: (510) 725-3000
          E-mail: reed@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          Elaine T. Byszewski, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO
          700 South Flower Street, Suite 2940
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 330-7149
          E-mail: elaine@hbsslaw.com

Vonage is represented by:

          Judith B. Gitterman, Esq.
          PERKINS COIE
          1888 Century Park E., Suite 1700
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-1721
          Telephone: (310) 788.9900
          E-mail: JGitterman@perkinscoie.com

               - and -

          Elizabeth L. McDougall, Esq.
          Rebecca S. Engrav, Esq.
          PERKINS COIE
          1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4800
          Seattle, WA 98101-3099
          Telephone: (206) 359.8000
          E-mail: EMcDougall@perkinscoie.com
                  REngrav@perkinscoie.com

The Email Sender and Provider Coalition and ValueClick, Inc., as
Amici Curiae on behalf of Vonage, are represented by:

          Daniel M. Kolkey, Esq.
          GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER
          555 Mission Street, Suite 3000
          San Francisco, CA 94105-2933
          Telephone: (415) 393.8200
          E-mail: dkolkey@gibsondunn.com

               - and -

          S. Ashlie Beringer, Esq.
          Michael B. Smith, Esq.
          Benjamin M. Glickman, Esq.
          GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER
          1881 Page Mill Road
          Palo Alto, CA 94304-1211
          Telephone: (650) 849.5300
          E-mail: aberinger@gibsondunn.com
                  msmith@gibsondunn.com
                  bglickman@gibsondunn.com


YTB INTERNATIONAL: Class Suit Re-Filed in Madison County
--------------------------------------------------------
The Riverfront Times' Chad Garrison reports that a class-action
lawsuit first filed in federal court in Illinois has been re-filed
in Madison County accusing the Wood River-based YTB International
Inc. of being a "pyramid scheme."

The lawsuit follows years of allegations that YTB operates as a
Ponzi scheme.  In 2009, the California attorney general reached a
settlement in which YTB agreed to pay $1 million in restitution to
victims of the company's so-called pyramid scheme in that state.

Last year, the Illinois attorney general also sued YTB on
allegations that the company's leaders unfairly profited on the
recruitment fees of junior members.

The class action filed in Madison County this month launches
similar allegations as those made by the attorneys general.

St. Louis attorney Jay Kanzler, Esq., one of several lawyers
bringing the class-action suit, tells Daily RFT that his team is
representing more than a thousand alleged victims in the states of
Illinois, Missouri, Utah and Georgia.  Mr. Kanzler may be reached
at:

     Jay L. Kanzler, Jr., Esq.
     WITZEL, KANZLER, DIMMITT, KENNEY & KANZLER LLC
     2001 S. Big Bend Boulevard
     Richmond Heights, MO 63117
     Telephone: (314) 645-5367
     Facsimile: (314) 645-5387

A federal judge dismissed the suit earlier on the argument that
Illinois consumer-fraud laws don't apply to people living outside
the state.  While Mr. Kanzler and his team are appealing that
ruling, the decision was made to file the case in Madison County
Court -- the local jurisdiction for YTB.

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


* Adam Savett to Lead CCB's Securities Class Actions Service
------------------------------------------------------------
Claims Compensation Bureau, LLC, a majority owned subsidiary of
Portfolio Recovery Associates, Inc., unveiled the appointment of
Adam Savett as director, Securities Class Actions, a newly created
position to manage all aspects of CCB's securities class actions
service.

"CCB's status as a pioneer in the claims filing industry coupled
with Adam's vast securities litigation experience represents an
exciting combination of expertise and skill sets," said Brad
Heffler, president and founder, Claims Compensation Bureau. "We
are thrilled to welcome Adam to CCB."

Prior to joining CCB, Mr. Savett served as director of Securities
Class Action Services at RiskMetrics Group, which was recently
acquired by MSCI Inc.  He is an industry leader in the field of
Securities Class Actions and has authored a number of original
research pieces on such topics as international institutional
investor involvement in U.S. securities class actions, the
fiduciary duty of institutions to file claim forms, and subprime
litigation.  He is frequently quoted in the media on securities
litigation-related topics and speaks at institutional investor and
corporate action conferences on similar topics.  At RiskMetrics,
Mr. Savett consulted for and serviced major mutual funds,
custodial companies, money managers, hedge funds, and other
securities companies that had interest in the determination,
calculation, administration and recovery of securities class
actions.  Before joining RiskMetrics, Mr. Savett was a securities
litigator representing and advising institutional investors,
including public and private pension funds, as well as Taft-
Hartley plans on all aspects of securities litigation.  Recently,
Mr. Savett was named one of the "100 Lawyers You Need to Know in
Securities Litigation" by Lawdragon Magazine.

CCB may be reached at:

     Adam Savett
     CLAIMS COMPENSATION BUREAU, LLC
     1100 E. Hector St. #250
     Conshohocken, PA 19428-2377
     Telephone: (610) 834-9010
     Facsimile: (610) 834-9014
     E-mail: info@claimscompensation.com

                 About Claims Compensation Bureau

Based in Conshohocken, Pa., Claims Compensation Bureau --
http://www.claimscompensation.com/-- was founded in 1996 and is a
leading provider of class action claims, settlement recovery
services and related payment processing to corporate clients.  CCB
has over 300 clients, including Fortune 500 companies,
institutional investors and large privately held companies.  CCB's
processes are designed to allow clients to maximize settlement
recoveries, in many cases participating in settlements they would
otherwise not know existed.  CCB charges fees for its services and
works with clients to identify, prepare and submit claims to class
action administrators charged with dispersing class action
settlement funds.

                About Portfolio Recovery Associates

Portfolio Recovery Associates' business revolves around the
detection, collection, and processing of both unpaid and normal-
course receivables originally owed to credit grantors,
governments, retailers and others.  The company's primary business
is the purchase, collection and management of portfolios of
defaulted consumer receivables.  These are the unpaid obligations
of individuals to credit originators, which include banks, credit
unions, consumer and auto finance companies, and retail merchants.
Portfolio Recovery Associates also provides fee-based services,
including collateral-location services for credit originators via
its IGS subsidiary, revenue administration, audit and debt
discovery/recovery services for government entities through both
its RDS and MuniServices businesses and class action claims
recovery services and related payment processing through its CCB
subsidiary.


* Garden City Group Unveils New Corporate Web Site
--------------------------------------------------
The Garden City Group, Inc. unveiled a newly redesigned corporate
Web site that reflects the firm's recent rebranding initiative.
GCG is the recognized leader in legal administration services for
class action settlements, bankruptcy cases and legal noticing
programs, with more than 400 employees in offices coast-to-coast.
The overall rebranding effort, new logo and revamped Web site --
http://www.gardencitygroup.com/-- created in tandem with SoHo
advertising agency Barker/DZP, present a more contemporary,
dynamic image that better reflects the firm's forward-thinking
outlook, breadth of services, expertise and technology leadership.

"For more than 25 years, GCG has earned the confidence and respect
of the legal community when it comes to handling administration
services for class action settlements, bankruptcy cases and legal
notice programs," said David A. Isaac, chief executive officer of
GCG. "Our recent rebranding, as reflected in this new website,
more effectively communicates our capabilities, dedication to
quality and technology leadership."

GCG has handled some of the largest and most complex cases in
class action history, including the $6.1 billion WorldCom Inc.
securities litigation, Visa MasterMoney antitrust litigation and
Engle Trust Fund distribution.  On the bankruptcy side, GCG has
handled several high-profile administrations, including the
General Motors bankruptcy, which is viewed by many as the largest
and most complex bankruptcy of all time.

"At GCG we are constantly looking towards the future and our new
rebranding initiative will help us do that," said Neil L. Zola,
president and chief operating officer of GCG.  "Our new website
provides a fresh, well-designed look which creates an informative
experience for our online visitors."

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

Barker/DZP -- http://www.barkerdzp.com/-- is a fast-growing full-
service independent agency built from a core team of large-agency
veterans who understand the new world of consumer engagement.
Barker/DZP delivers high-impact digital innovation, branding,
advertising and social media for clients such as P&G, Estee
Lauder, The McGraw-Hill Companies, Phoenix Capital, BEST Sports
and Entertainment, Viacom, dunhill, IDB Bank and others.

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


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Belville Case v. 83 Firms Filed June 7 in W.Va.
----------------------------------------------------------------
An asbestos lawsuit styled Naomi J. Belville, executrix of the
Estate of Bernard C. Belville, decease vs. A.W. Chesterton
Company, Allied Chemical Corporation, American Cyanamid Company et
al., was filed against 83 defendant corporations in Kanawha
Circuit Court, W.Va., on June 7, 2010, The West Virginia Record
reports.

Mrs. Belville, of Lawrence County, Ohio, claims the defendants are
responsible for the death of her husband.

Mr. Belville worked for about 26 years at various sites through
Insulator Local 80 in West Virginia and was exposed to various
insulating and building materials containing asbestos, according
to the suit. He was diagnosed with lung cancer and died on June
20, 2008.

Mrs. Belville seeks compensatory and punitive damages.

William K. Schwartz, Esq., represents Mrs. Belville.

Case No. 10-C-1015 is assigned to a visiting judge.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Scudder Case v. CSX Filed June 8 in Kanawha Co.
----------------------------------------------------------------
An asbestos lawsuit styled Roy E. Scudder vs. CSX Transportation,
Inc., individually and as successor-in-interest to Chesapeake &
Ohio Railway Company; and Chessie System was filed on June 8, 2010
in Kanawha Circuit Court, W.Va., The West Virginia Record reports.

Roy E. Scudder was employed by CSX Transportation, Inc. from 1948
until 1984 as a laborer and operator. He claims he was exposed to
toxic substances, including asbestos, chemicals and diesel
exhaust, which caused him to develop lung cancer.

Mr. Scudder seeks damages in an amount to be determined by a jury.

James A. McKowen, Esq., and John E. Guerry III, Esq., represent
Mr. Scudder.

Case No. 10-C-1023 is assigned to a visiting judge.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Osborne Case v. CSX Filed June 8 in Kanawha Co.
----------------------------------------------------------------
An asbestos lawsuit entitled Althea F. Osborne, individually and
as executrix of the Estate of Jesse Elwood Osborne, deceased vs.
CSX Transportation, Inc., individually and as successor-in-
interest to Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company; and Chessie System
was filed on June 8, 2010 in Kanawha Circuit Court, W.Va., The
West Virginia Record reports.

Jesse Elwood Osborne was employed by CSX Transportation, Inc. from
1947 until 1987 as a laborer, equipment operator and engineer.
Althea Osborne claims he was exposed to toxic substances,
including asbestos, chemicals and diesel exhaust, which caused him
to develop lung cancer.

Mrs. Osborne seeks damages in an amount to be determined by a
jury.

James A. McKowen, Esq., and John E. Guerry III, Esq., represent
Mrs. Osborne.

Case No. 10-C-1024 is assigned to a visiting judge.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Davis Claim v. CSX Filed June 8 in Kanawha Co.
---------------------------------------------------------------
An asbestos lawsuit entitled Natalie Davis, individually and as
executrix of the Estate of Eugene Floyd, deceased vs. CSX
Transportation, Inc., individually and as successor-in-interest to
Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company; and Chessie System was filed on
June 8 2010 in Kanawha Circuit Court, W.Va., The West Virginia
Record reports.

Eugene Floyd was employed by CSX Transportation, Inc. from 1967
until 1993 as a machine operator and foreman.

Natalie Davis claims her husband was exposed to toxic substances,
including asbestos, chemicals and diesel exhaust, which caused him
to develop lung cancer. She seeks damages in an amount to be
determined by a jury.

James A. McKowen, Esq., and John E. Guerry III, Esq., represent
Mrs. Davis.

Case No. 10-C-1025 is assigned to a visiting judge.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chancey Claim v. 48 Firms Filed May 14 in W.Va.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Shirley Guy and Louise Dale Chancey, on May 14, 2010, filed an
asbestos-related lawsuit against 48 defendant corporations in
Kanawha Circuit Court, W.Va., The West Virginia Record reports.

The suit says that Mr. Chancey was diagnosed with lung cancer on
Aug. 19, 2009. He was employed by Union Carbide Corporation from
1959 until 1991 as an insulator.

The Chanceys claim Mr. Chancey smoked on and off from 1952 until
2009, but has since quit. They seek a jury trial to resolve all
issues involved in the case.

Victoria Antion, Esq., and Lawrence J. Tweel, Esq., represent the
Chanceys.

Case No. 10-C-879 has been assigned to a visiting judge.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Says Navy Partly Liable in Collins Claim
---------------------------------------------------------------
A California Appeals Court allocated a share of fault to the U.S.
Navy for veteran Ulysses Collins' exposure to asbestos,
Asbestos.com reports.

Mr. Collins died of malignant mesothelioma in 2005. He had a 31-
year history working in naval shipyards where he experienced
exposure to asbestos on a regular basis.

In an earlier ruling, the jury awarded Mr. Collins more than US$10
million in damages and allocated 20 percent of the shared fault to
Plant Insulation Company.

A total of 17 entities shared the fault with Plant. However, Plant
Insulation was the sole entity to appeal the exclusion of the U.S.
Navy from the list of responsible parties.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Johnson Claim v. 47 Firms Filed May 17 in W.Va.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Judson and Sharon Marie Judson, on May 17, 2010, filed an
asbestos lawsuit against 47 defendant corporations in Kanawha
Circuit Court, W.Va., The West Virginia Record reports.

Mr. Johnson had worked for FMC Corporation from 1972 until 1980.
He also worked for E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company in 1980,
according to the complaint. On May 14, 2009, Mr. Johnson was
diagnosed with lung cancer.

Mr. Johnson claims he smoked one to two packs of cigarettes per
day from 1965 until 1969, but then quit. The Johnsons seek a jury
trial to resolve all issues involved in the case.

Victoria Antion, Esq., and James A. McKowen, Esq., represent the
Johnsons.

Case No. 10-C-890 has been assigned to a visiting judge.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ariz. Contractors Fined $100T for NESHAP Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Arizona Department of Environmental Quality and Arizona
Attorney General's Office, on June 18, 2010, announced that Hunt
Building Comp, Ltd., Camp Pendleton and Quantico Housing, LLC and
Flores-Sierra Contractors, Inc. have agreed to pay a US$100,000
penalty under a consent judgment for asbestos air quality
violations, according to an ADEQ press release dated June 18,
2010.

These violations occurred during housing renovations at Marine
Corps Air Station-Yuma in 2006.

In addition, the defendants agreed to reimburse any uninsured
costs of medical screening for asbestos exposure of residents
living in 24 base housing units within the Capehart military
family housing neighborhood in January and February 2006. The
defendants will be working with the base to send written
notification to the residents known to have lived in these units
during that time period.

In January and February 2006, Hunt Building Comp., Ltd. and
Flores/Sierra Contractors Inc. disturbed regulated asbestos-
containing materials during the renovation activities that
involved disturbance of more than 6,400 square feet of wood and
stucco. Military family residents reported the activities to ADEQ
for investigation because they were concerned with potential
exposure from dust generated by the renovations.

The violations are of the National Emissions Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants for Asbestos (Asbestos NESHAP).

ADEQ Director Benjamin H. Grumbles said, "Proper inspection and
safe handling of asbestos from the start keeps people out of
harm's way and companies in compliance with the law. The good news
is that after ADEQ's efforts the companies came into compliance
and completed the project."

Attorney General Terry Goddard said, "Strict compliance with
asbestos identification, notification and handling requirements is
necessary to ensure safe handling and disposal of these
carcinogenic materials. Arizona's asbestos handling rules protect
our communities, workforce and public health. Violations will not
be tolerated."

The consent judgment is subject to court approval.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Durabla Accused of Filing Phony Bankruptcy Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Asbestos lawyers from Philadelphia are accusing Durabla
Manufacturing Corp., a former gasket manufacturer, of filing a
phony bankruptcy petition to shield owner David Moser from
liability, The Madison/St. Clair Record reports.

Natalie Ramsey, Esq., of Wilmington wrote for the Shein Law Firm
of Philadelphia in May 2010, "DMC has nothing to reorganize, and
did not file its Chapter 11 case for the good faith purpose of
reorganizing its business."

For the moment, Durabla's bankruptcy prevents Shein clients from
pursuing claims against Mr. Moser as the company's "alter ego."
Mr. Moser has started an adversary proceeding that would enjoin
alter ego claims.

Ms. Ramsey wrote that before DMC filed its petition, in a case
filed by Shein plaintiffs in the Philadelphia Court of Common
Pleas, Mr. Moser and related companies lost motions to dismiss the
same alter ego claims they now seek to enjoin.

For Durabla, Thomas Francella, Esq., of Wilmington, Del., answered
on June 9, 2010 that Mr. Moser does not intend to escape alter ego
claims.

Mr. Moser and his other companies have offered to contribute to a
trust in exchange for the protections of an injunction against
alter ego asbestos claims, Mr. Francella wrote.

Durabla faced more than 100,000 asbestos suits when it petitioned
for bankruptcy.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Taylor Case v. 77 Firms Filed May 20 in Kanawha
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ross J. and Claris Vivian Taylor, on May 20, 2010, filed an
asbestos lawsuit against 77 defendant corporations in Kanawha
Circuit Court, W.Va., The West Virginia Record reports.

Mr. Taylor was diagnosed with mesothelioma last April 23, 2010.

The plaintiffs claim Mr. Taylor was exposed to and did inhale dust
and asbestos fibers, which caused the mesothelioma. They seek
compensatory and punitive damages.

Brian A. Prim, Esq., represents the Taylors.

Case No. 10-C-915 is assigned to a visiting judge.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Queensland Local Awarded 6-Figure Compensation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ian Hutcheon, a 75-year-old resident of Queensland, Australia,
received an undisclosed six-figure sum after developing
mesothelioma from working at the Rockhampton Power Station, a
defunct power plant in Queensland, the Australian Associated Press
reports.

Mr. Hutcheon took legal action and was awarded a six-figure out-
of-court compensation payout. His lawyer, Roger Singh, says the
money would not return his quality of life.

Mr. Hutcheon was diagnosed with asbestos disease in May 2009 after
suffering breathing problems and now receives around-the-clock
palliative care.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chorleywood Resident's Death Linked to Exposure
----------------------------------------------------------------
An inquest at the Hatfield Coroners Court on June 22, 2010 heard
that the death of Michael Wareham, of Chorleywood, Hertfordshire,
England, was linked to exposure to asbestos, the Watford Observer
reports.

Mr. Wareham died at the age of 73 on May 19, 2010, at his home in
Heronsgate Road.

The court heard how Mr. Wareham, a former carpenter and joiner,
had been exposed to asbestos for a 12-year period from 1951, when
he would regularly cut and fit sheets of the fireproof material.

Coroner Edward Thomas explained how this prolonged exposure,
during a time when the dangers of the material were not fully
understood, had caused Mr. Wareham's death.

Mr. Thomas said, "Witness statements show extensive exposure to
asbestos dust for some years, between 1951 and 1963. Although that
is more than 46 years ago it is not uncommon that somebody who is
exposed that long ago displays symptoms some 50 years later."

Mr. Thomas, referring to witness statements, said Mr. Wareham, who
was diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma in June 2009, had been
working in unventilated areas without modern safety equipment.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Preston Pensioner Gets GBP162,000
--------------------------------------------------
A 72-year-old unnamed pensioner from Preston, Lancashire, England,
received GBP162,000 in asbestos compensation after he developed
mesothelioma about 50 years ago, the Lancashire Evening Post
reports.

The pensioner worked as an engineer with Leyland Motors from 1953
until 1958. Exposed to asbestos during the work he did as a
teenager, it was more than 50 years before the asbestos severely
affected his health and led to him developing mesothelioma.

Susan Dawson, an industrial disease specialist with Fentons
Solicitors LLP, said, "My client was diagnosed with mesothelioma,
a painful cancer which affects the lungs and is nearly always
caused by exposure to asbestos fibres.

"Following his work at Leyland Motors and his National Service, my
client never returned to engineering, instead pursuing a
successful career in the public sector.

"But in 2006 he developed a cough, pains in his chest, and started
to feel very tired. After various treatments and tests he was
still no better, and on June 10 last year, he was diagnosed."

The pensioner made an appeal in the Evening Post for any former
colleagues who might remember the working conditions from the
1950s to come forward. He said, "I started my apprenticeship at
the North Works Site in Leyland, where I made and repaired vehicle
parts for buses and lorries.  My work included producing parts,
stampings and drop forgings, and I would also repair faulty
vehicle parts.

"In late 1954, I was transferred to the Farington site, where I
worked in the maintenance department and the foundry. There was
pipe work all over the foundry, running up and around the outer
walls, along gantry supports, and to the furnaces and the
machinery. I remember being told that all of this pipe work was
lagged with asbestos."

Miss Dawson says she received numerous calls following the appeal,
including some from people who thought they might be able to help
the pensioner's case. She said, "Thankfully, we were able to get
hold of sufficient evidence that my client's claim was not
disputed, and the insurers settled the case for just over
GBP162,000."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Derby Inquest Rules on Alvaston Joiner's Death
---------------------------------------------------------------
An inquest at the Derby and South Derbyshire Coroner's Court heard
that the death of George Marshall, a former joiner of Alvaston,
England, was linked to exposure to asbestos, the Derby Telegraph
reports.

Mr. Marshall, who died at the age of 84, served in France, Egypt,
Greece and Gibraltar during the Second World War. He developed
bronchial pneumonia as a result of being exposed to asbestos
during his working life.

Mr. Marshall first came into contact with asbestos when he worked
as an apprentice in Loughborough in the early 1940s. During this
time, he said he also fitted windows which were fixed into place
with putty, molded by hand and contained asbestos. After the war,
he returned to work in Loughborough but left in 1949.

The court heard Mr. Marshall developed a cough in 2003 which
developed into a chest infection. After collapsing, he was taken
to the former Derby City Hospital where it was discovered he had
scarring on his lungs. A scan further showed he had fibrosis,
which was discovered to be asbestos.

Following Mr. Marshall's death on April 21, 2010, a postmortem
examination by Dr. Gurprit Atwal gave his medical cause of death
as bronchial pneumonia as a result of asbestosis.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Estep Claim v. 56 Firms Filed May 14 in Kanawha
----------------------------------------------------------------
On May 14, 2010, John Wheeler Estep Jr., of Catlettsburg, Ky.,
filed an asbestos lawsuit against 56 defendant corporations in
Kanawha Circuit Court, W.Va., The West Virginia Record reports.

On Oct. 30, 2009, Mr. Estep was diagnosed with lung cancer. He
worked for General Motors Company from 1966 until 1968 and also
worked for Ashland Oil from 1968 until 1993 as a laborer.

Mr. Estep claims he smoked one pack of cigarettes per day from
1957 until 2009, but has since quit. He seeks a jury trial to
resolve all issues involved in the case.

Cindy J. Kiblinger, Esq., and Victoria Antion, Esq., represent Mr.
Estep.

Case No. 10-C-877 has been assigned to a visiting judge.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cleanup at Liverpool Cathedral Cost GBP200,000
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Liverpool Daily Post disclosed that more than GBP200,000 was
spent clearing asbestos from Liverpool Cathedral in Liverpool,
England, for the past 12 months.

Moreover, the work to remove asbestos from the Cathedral is set to
continue, although assurances were made the building will not be
closed while renovations are carried out.

Music at services is likely to suffer. Organists have been told
not to use 641 of the organ's 10,268 pipes for fear of dislodging
the carcinogenic fibers.

The Dean of Liverpool Cathedral, the Very Reverend Justin Welby,
said they had been advised to get rid of the asbestos by safety
experts following an inspection on May 26, 2010, but there was no
danger to the congregation.

So far, GBP203,000 has been spent and it is estimated another
GBP70,000 will be spent on making the area around the organ safe.

After Christmas, scaffolding will go up in the South Case so the
asbestos can be removed. It was originally put in as lagging
around water pipes.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos to be Removed from Newton High School
---------------------------------------------------------------
The removal of asbestos from old Newton North High School in
Newton, Mass., is part of a US$10 million demolition project, the
Mesothelioma Resource Center reports.

The demolition of the old Newton North High School will begin in
the summer of 2010 and will continue through most of the coming
year.

As the asbestos in the building is widespread, and the location of
the school is in a residential neighborhood, careful removal of
asbestos is a particular concern to environmental officials.

According to the Daily News Tribune, the Environmental Protection
Agency and the Massachusetts Department of Environmental
Protection will oversee the asbestos abatement and disposal.

The city also plans to hire an independent industrial hygienist to
monitor the process.

The 445,000-square-foot building will be gutted from the inside
out as workers trained in removing asbestos will take out interior
walls, flooring, ceiling and insulation where most of the
hazardous material is located, city officials told the newspaper.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Derby Ex-Electrician's Death Linked to Exposure
----------------------------------------------------------------
An inquest at the Derby Coroner's Court heard that the death of
Walter Jukes, a retired electrician from Derby, England, was
related to workplace exposure to asbestos, the Derby Telegraph
reports.

Mr. Jukes had worked for various employers like Butlins,
Wolverhampton Council, Bristol Hippodrome and Leicester
Corporation. He retired in 1981 and died at Burton Lodge Nursing
Home, in Derby, on Dec. 19, 2010.

Coroner Dr. Robert Hunter told the inquest it was likely that the
82-year-old Mr. Jukes was exposed to asbestos while at work during
the 1960s and 1970s.

A postmortem examination found signs of pleural plaques -- an
asbestos-related disease -- and asbestos fibers in Mr. Jukes'
lungs.

The cause of death was recorded as bronchial pneumonia due to
asbestosis with heart disease playing a "significant" role in Mr.
Jukes' death.

Dr. Hunter recorded a verdict of death from industrial disease.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: ADAO Decries Quebec Gov't. Plan to Revive Mine
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization urges the Canadian
Parliament to oppose Quebec government's offering of $58 million
loan guarantee that would enable Jeffrey Mine Inc. to open up a
new underground asbestos mine in Asbestos, Quebec, according to an
ADAO press release dated June 23, 2010.

The Company's present open-pit mine has run out of asbestos. With
this government subsidy, the Jeffrey mine will be able to
promulgate 200,000 tons of asbestos each year to developing
countries for the next quarter of a century.

The World Health Organization estimates the mineral, regardless of
the type, causes 90,000 preventable deaths each year around the
world.

No reputable health agency has ever identified a concentration of
asbestos that will not negatively affect health. These agencies
include the U.S. Surgeon General, Environmental Protection Agency,
Centers for Disease Control/ National Institute for Occupational
Safety and Health, Consumer Product Safety Commission,
Occupational Safety and Health Administration, World Health
Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer, and
International Programme for Chemical Safety.

Over 52 countries have banned asbestos, including all members of
the European Union. South Korea and South Africa are also in the
progress of implementing a ban. The United States and Canada lag
far behind other industrialized nations in eliminating exposure.

Richard Lemen, PhD, MSPH, Assistant Surgeon General, USPHS (Ret.)
& Rear Admiral (Ret.) and ADAO Science Advisory Board Co-Chair,
said, "ADAO is appalled at the recent development whereby the
Canadian Government may provide $58 million to jump-start the
Canadian Asbestos Industry.

"After a century of knowledge concerning the health effects of
asbestos and its devastating trail of disease and death around the
world, such an initiative by Canada is a giant misstep backwards.
By offering this subsidy, Quebec is endangering thousands of
lives, both in Canada and worldwide."


SBESTOS UPDATE: Ventura Apartments, Contractor Facing Penalties
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tony Biedul, the owner of an apartment complex in Ventura County,
Calif., and contractor, Bill Bigler, who owns Quality Custom
Painting, who removed asbestos popcorn ceilings from a number of
apartments could face more than US$10,000 in fines for their
actions, the Ventura County Star reports.

Several tenants at the Ventura Village Green apartments on
Telephone Road asked Mr. Biedul and Mr. Bigler, as the work was
being done last May 2010, if there was asbestos in the ceiling.
They were assured there was not, and they remained in their
apartments as the work was done.

However, when the Ventura County Air Pollution Control District
tested some of the materials scraped from the ceiling, an elevated
level of asbestos was found.

Both Mr. Biedul and Mr. Bigler were issued multiple notices of
violation that each carry fines as high as US$10,000, said Keith
Duval, deputy air pollution control officer with the district.

Mr. Biedul said he did not think there was any asbestos in the
apartments that were built in 1964. He told Mr. Bigler to go ahead
with work that involved replacing small parts of the ceilings in
some apartments and completely scraping an entire ceiling in
another.

Mr. Duval said it is common knowledge among contractors that most
popcorn ceilings installed before 1976 have some traces of
asbestos. Prolonged exposure to asbestos can lead to cancer,
according to the American Cancer Society.

The problem started in May 2010 after leaking pipes in 36 town
homes in the 150-unit complex dripped into the walls and ceilings.
Mr. Bigler was called in to help repair the damaged walls and
ceilings. He said Mr. Biedul told him there was no asbestos in the
homes.

Mr. Bigler does not have the necessary contractor's classification
to work with asbestos.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Devon's Council Issues Warnings v. Fly-Tippers
---------------------------------------------------------------
The East Devon District Council in Devon, England, warned fly-
tippers that they face stiff penalties after recent incidents in
Devon that saw asbestos sheeting being dumped, BBC News reports.

The Council said households needed to be aware that they were
responsible for disposing of waste properly. Anyone who had waste
illegally dumped faced fines of up to GBP50,000 or a two-year jail
term, the Council added.

The Council said it had cleared waste from Bickham Wood, near
Yarcombe, Honiton and Ottery St Mary.

Corrugated asbestos sheets have been found dumped in Bickham Wood
three times. The Council said it was working with South Somerset
District Council on the matter because a road known as Old Coach
Lane ran through the wood into south Somerset.

About half a ton of asbestos has been picked up by Council teams
from the woods adjacent to the lane, the Council said.

The fly-tipping around Honiton and Ottery St Mary saw materials
including garden waste, asbestos and general household clearance
rubbish dumped.

The Council said, "This is a legal requirement. You have a legal
duty of care for your rubbish and waste, and if that rubbish is
found fly-tipped, you can still be liable."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Judge Angell Rejects Reports in Lawsuits v. CSX
----------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Magistrate Judge Faith Angell, on May 25, 2010, rejected
reports from two former doctors in 173 asbestos exposure lawsuits
filed against CSX Transportation, Inc., The Madison/St. Clair
Record reports.

Judge Angell gave Roger Lane, Esq., of Jacksonville, Fla., thirty
days to obtain independent confirmation of diagnoses from Isabella
Sharpe and Samir Najjar of Jacksonville.

Judge Angell added that only certified practitioners can provide
expert medical evidence. She wrote, "Since Drs. Sharpe and Najjar
are not certified at this time, they cannot provide expert oral
testimony and thus their reports cannot be used as evidence."

Mr. Lane filed the suits at federal court in Georgia, on behalf of
CSX workers.

The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multi District Litigation transferred
the suits to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, where District
Judge Eduardo Robreno and magistrates manage tens of thousands of
asbestos suits.

CSX moved for summary judgment, arguing that neither Dr. Sharpe
nor Dr. Najjar submitted sworn statements under penalty of
perjury. CSX claimed their reports did not assert a reasonable
degree of medical certainty.

Judge Angell granted summary judgment, without prejudice.

Randall Jordan, Esq., of St. Simons Island, Ga., represented CSX
Transportation.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: OSHA Checking Claims at Holyoke Renovation Job
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration is probing an
anonymous complaint that workers had found high levels of asbestos
while working on a renovation project at Holyoke High School in
Holyoke, Mass., Mesothelioma.com reports.

However, the project manager on site has assured that testing was
completed. He noted that regulations have been followed throughout
the year, and that both the air and dust were tested.

School Superintendent Eduardo B. Carballo noted, "These are
serious allegations . . . but I am assured by the manager of the
project that they are going to check it out."

Company owner of Samsyd Window and Door Co., John Samysd, noted
that one of his employees asked for caulk surrounding the high
school's windows to be tested for asbestos.

Three of the four samples tests displayed high levels of asbestos.

Project designer for Forbes & Wheeler, Stephen W. Niec, said his
firm had regularly tested the air and dust at the high school.
However, Mr. Niec noted that, in light of the complaint, he would
be returning to the high school to complete more tests.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Princess Elizabeth in Guernsey Contains Hazards
----------------------------------------------------------------
Asbestos was uncovered in certain areas of the Princess Elizabeth
Hospital in Guernsey, which is a British Crown Dependency, BBC
News reports.

Workers were told to wear protective clothing in plant rooms and
service ducts after asbestos was found during a survey prior to
refurbishment. The hospital said there was no suggestion any
asbestos had entered public areas and patients and visitors were
safe.

The asbestos was previously used as lagging to pipe-work and
insulation. A spokesman said, "There is no risk to members of the
public from the materials identified."

He said any staff that may have been exposed to asbestos had been
informed. A specialist has been brought to deal with the asbestos.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Buckles Legal Malpractice Lawsuit Goes to Trial
----------------------------------------------------------------
An asbestos-related legal malpractice lawsuit filed by Judy
Buckles against the law firm of Goldenberg Heller, Antognoli and
Rowland of Edwardsville, Ill., is ongoing, the Mesothelioma &
Asbestos Awareness Center reports.

Mrs. Buckles is suing for the firm's failure to secure large
enough settlements in her husband's mesothelioma claims.

Mrs. Buckles originally filed her suit in 2001, and re-filed it
five years later. She has also accused the firm of allowing some
of her husband's claims to lapse.

Both parties have argued over the role attorney John Simmons
played in the claims. The Goldenberg defendants have even argued
that it was the attorney's fault the claims had lapsed.

At one point, several attorneys overlapped in representing Mrs.
Buckles.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ky. Woman's Claims v. 144 Firms Filed on May 17
----------------------------------------------------------------
Joni L. Johnson, of Lexington, Ky., filed an asbestos lawsuit on
May 17, 2010 against 144 defendant corporations in Kanawha Circuit
Court, W.Va., The West Virginia reports.

On Feb. 23, 2010, Ms. Johnson was diagnosed with mesothelioma. She
claims her father was employed by the defendants from 1948 until
1976 as a pipefitter.

Ms. Johnson claims she is a non-smoker. She seeks a jury trial to
resolve all issues involved in the case.

Victoria Antion, Esq., Scott A. McGee, Esq., John D. Hurst, Esq.,
and Joseph Satterley, Esq., represent Ms. Johnson.

Case No. 10-C-893 has been assigned to a visiting judge.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Small Heath Widow Calls For Help in Payout Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Christine Clayton, of Small Heath, Birmingham, England, is calling
for her late husband's for colleagues to get justice over his
death stemming from asbestos exposure, the Birmingham Mail
reports.

John Clayton, who died at the age of 70, worked for two decades at
Birmingham giants Lucas Aerospace but died six months after
becoming unwell. A post mortem revealed it was from mesothelioma.

An inquest found that Mr. Clayton was exposed to asbestos but an
open verdict was returned in June 2008 as there was no clear
evidence to show where he was exposed to the lethal asbestos
fibers.

Mrs. Clayton needs to piece together her husband's employment
history to prove the exposure.

Family solicitor Satinder Bains, from Irwin Mitchell, said, "The
link between asbestos exposure and John's illness was only made
after his death and Christine now faces the difficult task of
putting together the pieces."

Lucas had over 18,000 workers and 15 factories centered on
Birmingham.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Holbury Locals to Fight Plans on Hazard Storage
----------------------------------------------------------------
The residents of Holbury, Hampshire, England, are planning to
fight controversial plans to store asbestos at a waste site that
backs onto homes in a Hampshire village, the Southern Daily Echo
reports.

Solent Environmental Services wants to install a large-scale skip
at its headquarters in Holbury as a temporary holding site for the
asbestos.

However, the scheme has already been attacked by some neighbors
who say it is too close to peoples' homes and lies near a popular
route to school.

Company bosses insist the plan is safe and have offered to talk to
any one who is concerned at their Long Lane offices.

Under the plans, waste would be transferred to the Long Lane depot
at the end of each day, with the 40 cubic yard roll-off skip
emptied around every fortnight. The container would hold around
six tons of waste before being taken to a secure disposal site.

The firm needs permission from Hampshire County Council before the
transfer station can be set up. If approved, the plans will go to
Hampshire County Council's regulatory committee, who will make
their decision on July 28, 2010.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hazard Cleanup at Ohio Grocery to Push Through
---------------------------------------------------------------
Asbestos piping and floor tiles will be removed from part of the
Valu King Food Market grocery store building in Reynoldsburg,
Ohio, as the Ohio Department of Development has awarded the city
with a US$415,000 grant to fund the abatement, Mesothelioma.com
reports.

Reynoldsburg Development Director, Lucas Haire, said, "Hopefully,
through the grant, the cleanup will make it a much more attractive
space to lease out. Most retailers that come in want all of the
asbestos removed from the building, but the cost deters
developers."

The 49,600-square-foot building is considered a Brownfield because
it contains hazardous materials that prevent it from being used
for future development, reports the Columbus Local Record.

Mr. Haire noted that developer Red Raider Capital LLC remediated
the 32,000 square feet of space it occupies, without state
funding.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Former Seekonk Bldg. to be Tested for Asbestos
---------------------------------------------------------------
The former town hall of Seekonk, Mass., is riddled with mold and
must be tested for asbestos, Mesothelioma.com reports.

Although the floods of late March 2010 have subsided, it is clear
that the water has affected the building. The old town hall was
said to have taken on four feet of water during the storm.

The source of the leak is still trying to be determined, however,
a substantial amount of mold has already grown in the town hall's
basement.

In January 2010, town administrator Michael Carroll approached the
selectmen about testing the building for lead paint and asbestos.
To do so, it would have cost US$1,800. At the time, the selectmen
voted against doing so.

However, weeks after the selectmen had voted against testing, Mr.
Carroll learned that the Department of Environmental Protection
requires such action before a move with the building is made.

If the building is asbestos ridden, abatement would need to occur.
The selectmen have now decided to test for levels of asbestos and
lead in the building.

The study is being conducted by RI Analytical, a private
environmental firm, according to EastBayRI.com.

                            *********

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

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills,
Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland
USA.  Gracele D. Canilao, Leah Felisilda, Rousel Elaine Fernandez,
Joy A. Agravante, Ronald Sy and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2010.  All rights reserved.  ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via
e-mail.  Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each.  For subscription information, contact Christopher
Beard at 240/629-3300.

                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *