CAR_Public/100629.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Tuesday, June 29, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 126

                            Headlines

ANADARKO PETROLEUM: KSF Files Securities Fraud Class Action
APPLE INC: Data Plan Class Suit Amended to Include More Customers
BARBIZON SCHOOL: Sued for Consumer Fraud & Deceptive Advertising
BEXCO ENTERPRISES: Recalls 156,000 Drop-Side Cribs
BP PLC: Eastland Lawyer Says RICO Claims "Just Tip of Iceberg"

CANADIAN SOLAR: Goldfarb Branham Files Securities Class Suit
CANADIAN SOLAR: Hagens Berman Files Securities Fraud Suit
CHILD CRAFT: Recalls 40,000-50,000 "Crib 'N' Double Bed"
CHILD CRAFT: Recalls Craft Brand Drop-Side Cribs
COMVERSE TECHNOLOGY: Court Awards 25% Fee Totaling $56 Mil.

COSTCO WHOLESALE: Suit Over "Proper Seating" Dismissed
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Plaintiff Dismisses "George" Suit
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Class Certification Appeal Remains Pending
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Final OK of "Fuel" Suit Settlement Pending
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Plaintiffs' Appeal in "Milk" Suit Pending

COSTCO WHOLESALE: Continues to Defend "Salmon" Suit in Calif.
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Appeal of Plaintiffs' Injunction Bid Pending
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Faces "Kilano" Suit in Michigan
DELTA ENTERPRISE: Recalls 747,000 Drop-Side Cribs
DOMINO'S PIZZA: Minn. Judge Certifies Drivers' Class Suit

DUPONT CO: West Virginia Residents File Personal Injury Suits
EVENFLO INC: Recalls 750,000 Jenny Lind Cribs
GOLDMAN SACHS: Pomerantz Files Securities Fraud Suit
H&R BLOCK: Judge Considers Certifying Suit on Guarantees
HOMETOWN AMERICA: Can't Seek Indemnity From Liberty

JARDINE ENTERPRISE: Recalls 130,000 Jardine Drop-Side Cribs
LAJOBI INC: Recalls 306,000 Drop-Side Cribs
LEAD-IMPACTED COMMUNITIES: Violated Open Meeting Act
MERRILL LYNCH: SPDR ETF Receives $8.8-Mil. Settlement Payment
MICRON TECHNOLOGY: DRAM Makers to Settle Suit for $173-Mil.

NEW YORK: Majority of Sick 9/11 Responders Accept Settlement
NORTH YORK HOSPITAL: Plans for Class Action Suit Dropped
NOVA SCOTIA: Sup. Ct. Will Certify Class Suit, Subject to Changes
PROCTER & GAMBLE: 35,000 Bottles Scope(R) Original Mint Mouthwash
QUIZNO?S CANADA: Ontario Appeals Court Upholds Class Certification

RAJGOPAL MENON: Loses Bid to Block Class Suit by Former Patients
RHODE ISLAND: More Complaints Filed Against Truancy Court Program
SIMMONS JUVENILE: Recalls 50,000 Simmons Drop-Side Cribs
STEWARDSHIP CREDIT: Sued for Investment in Petters Group
SYNGENTA CROP: Initial Deal on Discovery Reached in Atrazine Case

TOYOTA MOTOR: Rival's Workers Can't Take Stand as Expert Witness
TOYOTA MOTOR: Recalls 17,000 2010 Lexus HS 250h Vehicles
WAL-MART: Sex Discrimination Lawsuit Allowed as Class Action
WASTE MANAGEMENT: Mass. State Court Approves $7-Mil. Settlement
WILTON INDUSTRIES: Recalls 7,300 Children's Tiara

* Parker McCay Atty. Speaks on Class Suits at N.J. Counties Confab
* Schwartz Says Oil Spill Suits May Drain Funds From Legit Victims


                            *********

ANADARKO PETROLEUM: KSF Files Securities Fraud Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC, filed a class action lawsuit against
Anadarko Petroleum Corporation (NYSE: APC) in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York, on behalf of
purchasers of the common stock of the Company between June 12,
2009 and June 9, 2010, inclusive.  No class has yet been certified
in this action.

If you would like to discuss your legal rights, along with the
lead plaintiff position and its related responsibilities including
overseeing lead counsel with the goal of obtaining a fair
settlement, you may contact KSF's Director of Client Relations:

     Neil Rothstein, Esq.
     KAHN SWICK & FOTI, LLC
     206 Covington St.
     Madisonville, LA 70447
     Telephone: (877) 694-9510
                (330) 860-4092 (cell)
     E-mail: neil.rothstein@ksfcounsel.com

Additionally, KSF's Managing Partner may be contacted direct, toll
free at:

     Lewis Kahn, Esq.,
     KAHN SWICK & FOTI, LLC
     206 Covington St.
     Madisonville, LA 70447
     Telephone: (866) 467-1400, ext. 100
     E-mail: lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com

Anadarko and certain of its Officers are charged with making a
series of materially false and misleading statements related to
the Company's business and operations in violation of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

In particular, the Complaint charges Anadarko, 25% owner of the
Macondo/Deepwater Horizon well currently leaking millions of
gallons of oil into the Gulf of Mexico, with failing to disclose,
among other things: that there was no effective Exploration and
Oil Spill Response Plan for Macondo/Deepwater Horizon; that BP
implemented drilling procedures solely to cut costs at the expense
of safety; that the Company lacked adequate systems of internal,
operational or financial controls to maintain adequate insurance
reserves or to meet the known or foreseeable risks associated with
its deepwater drilling liabilities; and that defendants lacked any
reasonable basis to claim that Anadarko was operating according to
plan, or that Anadarko could achieve guidance sponsored and/or
endorsed by defendants.

On April 20, 2010, the Macondo/Deepwater Horizon rig exploded
killing 11 platform workers and injuring 17 others. In the wake of
this tragedy, defendants continued to issue materially false and
misleading statements representing that the Company would likely
incur only approximately $177.5 million in liability for its part
in the Macondo/Deepwater Horizon venture. However, these
statements were materially false and misleading.

On June 1, 2010, the public began to learn the truth about
Anadarko's business, operations, management, and the intrinsic
value of Anadarko common stock when it was reported that the
Macondo/Deepwater Horizon well could not be capped and investors
came to realize there was effectively no plan in place to stop the
spill.  That day, shares of Anadarko fell almost $10.00 per share
-- or approximately 20% -- falling from a close of $42.10 per
share, from a prior day's close of $52.33 per share, on huge
volume of over 44.8 million shares traded. Shortly thereafter, on
June 9, 2010, shares of Anadarko fell another 20% after investors
learned of the material deficiencies in the Macondo/Deepwater
Horizon Exploration and Oil Spill Response Plan, via the
Huffington Post, and further learned that the Company would now be
responsible for over $1 billion in clean up costs.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff in this class action
lawsuit, you must request this position by application to the
court no later than 60 days from June 24.  Any member of the
putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff
through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and
remain an absent class member.  To learn more about KSF, you may
visit http://www.ksfcounsel.com/ KSF is a law firm focused on
securities class action litigation with offices in New York and
Louisiana.  KSF's lawyers have significant experience litigating
complex securities class actions and have recovered tens of
millions of dollars over the past two years for aggrieved
investors.


APPLE INC: Data Plan Class Suit Amended to Include More Customers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit, Adam Weisblatt, Joe Hanna, and David Turk,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
Apple Inc., AT&T Inc., AT&T Mobility LLC, and Does 1-10, Case No.
10-cv-02553 (N.D. Calif.), filed on June 9 against Apple and AT&T
over the discontinued unlimited-data plan for the iPad 3G has been
amended and re-filed to include additional iPad 3G customers.

Nick Bilton, writing for The New York Times, relates the proposed
class action lawsuit currently names three individuals who claim
that Apple and AT&T "baited" them into purchasing an iPad 3G with
the promises of a flexible unlimited data plan, "only to have that
promise reneged upon within weeks of their purchases."

The case, filed in the United States District Court in San Jose,
Calif., represents customers from several different states.

One of the lawsuits main contentions involves AT&T and Apple's
claim that iPad 3G customers could easily opt-in and opt-out of an
unlimited data connection on the iPad 3G without any penalty.
AT&T announced in May that it planned to eliminate the unlimited
data plan for new iPad 3G customers and replace it with data plans
offering either 250 megabytes or 2 gigabytes a month.  Although
the company agreed to allow current customers to keep the
unlimited data plan, if they decide to skip a month of data they
lose the option to return to the unlimited option.  The suit also
says that AT&T was abrupt in its changes, giving customers less
than a week's notice that the data plan would be eliminated.

Neither AT&T nor Apple responded to a request for comment.
Lawyers from Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, Esq., which
represents the plaintiffs and specializes in consumer class action
lawsuits, could not be reached for comment.


BARBIZON SCHOOL: Sued for Consumer Fraud & Deceptive Advertising
----------------------------------------------------------------
Carrie Jass, et al., on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated v. Instruction and Education Enterprises, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 2010-CH-26892 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty. June 23, 2010),
asserts violations of the Private Business and Vocational Schools
Act and the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business
Practices Act.  Mrs. Jass accuses Instruction and Education
Enterprises (d/b/a Barbizon School of Schaumburg, Royal Model &
Talent Management, Royal Model Management, and Barbizon Model
Center) and its owner, president and operator Charles R. Nemes, of
falsely misrepresenting that graduates of its Barbizon program
will receive lifetime representation (by Royal Model Management,
Barbizon's placement agency) and that graduates will be able to
earn $50 to $150 per hour or more working as models, to induce
students to enroll in its modeling and acting courses.  Based on
these representations, Mrs. Jass says that she enrolled her child,
Mirisa Hunsader, in a Barbizon acting and modeling course only to
find out that the promised modeling or acting work was totally
worthless, because the school made no attempt to represent her
daughter in her modeling career or find her employment as a model
after completing the course.  Mrs. Jass relates that Barbizon
failed to disclose that only one percent or less of graduates of
its courses actually find careers in print, television, or
commercials, and that in fact, of the 172 students who completed
its course in the previous year, none were employed, citing
Barbizon's report to the Wisconsin Directory of Private
Postsecondary Schools in May of 2009.  Mrs. Jass explains that
Barbizon failed to disclose this fact to her when she enrolled her
daughter at the school.  Had this information been disclosed, she
says she would not have enrolled her daughter at the school and
paid for the tuition (of at least $2,145).

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Peter S. Lubin, Esq.
          Vincent L. DiTommaso, Esq.
          Patrick Austermuehle, Esq.
          DiTOMMASO LUBIN, P.C.
          17W 220 22nd St., Suite 200
          Oakbrook Terrace, IL 60181
          Telephone: (630) 333-0000

               - and -

          Howard Schickler, Esq.
          3711 North Ravenswood, Suite 149
          Chicago, IL 60640
          Telephone: (773) 935-9404


BEXCO ENTERPRISES: Recalls 156,000 Drop-Side Cribs
--------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Bexco Enterprises, Inc., d.b.a. Million Dollar Baby, announced a
voluntary recall of about 156,000 drop-side cribs.  Consumers
should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

The cribs' drop sides can malfunction, detach or otherwise fail,
causing part of the drop side to fall out of position, creating a
space into which an infant or toddler can roll and become wedged
or entrapped, which can lead to strangulation or suffocation.  A
child can also fall out of the crib.  Drop-side incidents can also
occur due to incorrect assembly and with age-related wear and
tear.

CPSC and Million Dollar Baby have received 43 reports of drop side
failures.  There were eight reports of children being entrapped
between the mattress and drop side resulting in three reports of
bruises to the head or upper body . Additionally, three children
fell out of the crib when the drop side failed but they were not
injured.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10277.html

The recalled products were manufactured in Taiwan and China and
sold through children's product stores and other retailers
nationwide from January 2000 through March 2010 for between $100
and $330.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled cribs and
contact Million Dollar Baby for a free repair kit that will
immobilize the drop side.  In the meantime, find an alternate,
safe sleeping environment for the child, such as a bassinet, play
yard or toddler bed depending on the child's age.  Repair kits
will be available to consumers within a few weeks.  For additional
information, contact Million Dollar Baby toll-free at (888) 673-
6488 anytime, or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.themdbfamily.com/safety


BP PLC: Eastland Lawyer Says RICO Claims "Just Tip of Iceberg"
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hiram Eastland, Esq., principal attorney with Eastland Law
Offices, PLLC, in Greenwood, Mississippi, has told Brendan
DeMelle, a freelance writer and researcher, writing for The
Huffington Post, that the claims filed against BP PLC pursuant to
the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act "are just
the tip of the iceberg, and we fully anticipate adding additional
claims and defendants as this civil litigation progresses.  The
public deserves to know the whole truth."

The Class Action Reporter reported on the RICO suit on June 18,
2010.

"It's not just the people of the South, but people from all over
the country who have come to love the Gulf of Mexico and our Gulf
shores just as much as we do.  They love our pristine seashores,
our pelicans and sea gulls and sandpipers, our dolphins and our
seafood and the whole way of life we enjoy on the Gulf Coast.  And
they passionately believe as we do that it's past time to get
action, if not get medieval on BP's unlawful conduct and what they
have done to our shared waters and our Coast," Mr. Eastland told
Mr. DeMelle.

"There are a number of issues in addition to the textbook mail and
wire fraud RICO predicate acts involved in our civil complaints
that fully warrant further investigation and potential additional
claims. Just the fact that other big oil companies admitted before
Congress that they submitted essentially identical emergency
response plans to secure offshore drilling permits -- plans these
companies now acknowledge they were never capable of carrying out
-- raises serious questions as to whether there was an overall
conspiracy by Big Oil. All of these companies made such
representations and assurances in order to make billions on
offshore drilling while ignoring the need for actual safeguards
against environmental and economic catastrophe."

The case is Robert L. Rinke, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, v. BP PLC, BP Products North America,
Inc., BP Corporation of North America, Inc., BP Company of North
America, Inc. BP Exploration and Production, Inc., BP America,
Inc., Anthony Hayward, and John and Jane Does, 1-100, Case No.
10-cv-00206 (N.D. Fla.), and the plaintiffs are represented by:

     Amanda R. Slevinski, Esq.
     Brian H. Barr, Esq.
     J. Michael Papantonio, Esq.
     Neil E. McWilliams, Jr., Esq.
     LEVIN, PAPANTONIO, THOMAS, MITCHELL,
        ECHSNER, RAFFERTY & PROCTOR, P.A.
     316 S. Baylen Street, Suite 600
     Pensacola, Florida 32502
     Telephone: (850) 435-7074
     Facsimile: (850) 436-6034

          - and -

     Hiram C. Eastland, Jr., Esq.
     Jacob K. Eastland, Esq.
     Eastland Law Offices, PLLC
     307 Cotton Street
     Greenwood, MS 38930
     Telephone: (662) 453-1227
     Facsimile: (601) 510-9697

A copy of the complaint is available at:

               http://www.mediafire.com/?mzzmmtt2ydl


CANADIAN SOLAR: Goldfarb Branham Files Securities Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Goldfarb Branham, a national securities law firm, is pursuing
claims against Canadian Solar due to the company's recent
revelation that the SEC issued subpoenas for 2009 sales
transactions.  On news of the subpoena and delayed financials,
shares of the company plummeted over 14% in one day.  Shareholders
who wish to become plaintiffs in an action against the company are
encouraged to contact:

     Hamilton Lindley, Esq.
     GOLDFARB BRANHAM LLP
     Saint Ann Court
     2501 N. Harwood St., Suite 1801
     Dallas, TX 75201
     Telephone: (214) 583-2233
                (877) 583-2855 (Toll Free)
     Facsimile: (214) 583-2234
     E-mail: hlindley@goldfarbbranham.com

According to the class action complaint filed in the Southern
District of New York, Canadian Solar made false and misleading
statements between May 26, 2009 and June 1, 2010.  Those
statements included: (1) the Canadian Solar was uncertain whether
it would receive full payments from certain customers; (2) certain
goods were subsequently returned after the quarter end; and (3)
Canadian Solar lacked adequate internal and financial controls.

Goldfarb Branham focuses its practice on securities fraud
litigation and other shareholder lawsuits. The firm's lawyers have
significant experience working on important securities fraud cases
that have resulted in substantial recoveries for shareholders.
Goldfarb Branham LLP is not afraid to give advice -- stand by it
-- and go to court to get results.


CANADIAN SOLAR: Hagens Berman Files Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman filed a new class-action lawsuit on behalf of
shareholders against Canadian Solar, Inc., in California, where
the company's sole U.S. operations exist and where most witnesses
reside.  The lawsuit identified new claims and new classes based
on an independent investigation undertaken by the law firm.

The complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California this week, alleged Canadian Solar
overstated its revenues and concealed necessary information about
the company's business operations ahead of the $100 million plus
October 2009 offering of common stock.  Defendants include
Canadian Solar senior officers, Arthur Chien and Shawn Qu, who
allegedly authorized recorded revenues from fictitious sales
transactions and failed to properly account for product returns in
2009, in the registration statements, prospectus and other
documents. As a result, the company sold CSIQ shares to investors
at inflated prices.

The new complaint -- which can be found at
http://www.hbsslaw.com/canadian-solar-- seeks to represent three
classes of investors who purchased CSIQ shares during the revised
Class Period from October 13, 2009 to June 1, 2010.  The three
classes of investors include:

     -- A class for all investors who acquired CSIQ shares
traceable to the company's false and misleading October 2009
registration statement form (strict liability);

     -- A class for all investors who acquired CSIQ shares
traceable to the company's false and misleading October 2009
prospectus (negligence); and

    -- A class of all investors who purchased CSIQ shares on or
after October 13, 2009 (fraud).

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

If you have significant losses from the October offerings or would
like to discuss your legal rights and move to be a lead plaintiff,
you may contact:

     Reed Kathrein, Esq.
     Managing Partner
     HAGENS BERMAN
     715 Hearst Ave., Ste. 202
     Berkeley, CA 94710
     Telephone: (510) 725-3000
     E-mail: csiq@hbsslaw.com

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

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

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


CHILD CRAFT: Recalls 40,000-50,000 "Crib 'N' Double Bed"
--------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Child Craft Industries, Inc., announced a voluntary recall of
about 40,000 and 50,000 Child Craft brand "Crib 'N' Double Bed"
full size stationary-side cribs with dowel.  Consumers should stop
using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed.

The cribs' stationary side can be assembled upside-down but still
appear to be assembled correctly.  If assembled upside-down, the
crib side contains a hazardous five-inch gap at the top of the
crib.  Infants or toddlers can become entrapped in this gap, which
can lead to entrapment, strangulation or other injuries.

CPSC has received four reports of children becoming entrapped
between the dowel and the crib's stationary front side.  In two of
those reports, the child was trapped by his/her head and was in
danger of being strangled.  In the other two reports, the child
was trapped by his/her arm.  This hazard can occur on both the
front and back sides of the crib.

All Child Craft brand cribs with the foot top dowel including, but
not limited to, the following models:

             Name                            Model Number(s)
             ----                            ---------------
             Child Craft convertible cribs       F36101

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10271.html

The recalled products were manufactured in Salem, Indiana or New
Salisbury, Indiana and sold through Babies 'R Us and other stores
nationwide between January 1998 and June 2009 for between $600 and
$650.

The CPSC staff urges parents and caregivers to examine these cribs
immediately and determine whether they have been assembled
properly.  The best way to do this is to measure the gap between
the front and back sides of the crib and the dowel that runs
parallel to the sides.  The gap should be no more than two and
three eighths inches (2 3/8").  If the gap is greater than 2 3/8",
the side has been installed upside-down and needs to be re-
assembled.  Another indicator that the side has been installed
improperly is the appearance of the barrel nut, as is visible in
the image above showing an incorrect assembly.  The barrel nut
should be at the bottom of the side, not the top.  If either of
these conditions is present, the side of the crib has been
installed upside-down and needs to be re-assembled so that the
barrel nut is not visible from the top and the gap between the
dowel and the side is no greater than two and three eighths inches
(2 3/8").  Consumers with these cribs should contact Foundations
Worldwide, Inc., to obtain instructions and decals to affix to the
stationary sides of the crib to ensure proper assembly in the
future.  For additional information, contact Foundations Worldwide
toll-free at (866) 614-0557 anytime, or visit the firm's Web site
at http://www.cribsafetyinfo.com/


CHILD CRAFT: Recalls Craft Brand Drop-Side Cribs
------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Child Craft Industries, Inc., announced a voluntary recall of
Craft brand drop-side cribs.  Consumers should stop using recalled
products immediately unless otherwise instructed.

The drop-side hardware can fail, causing the drop-side to detach
from the crib or fall to the dropped position.  When the drop side
detaches, even partially, it creates a space in which an infant or
toddler can become entrapped and suffocate or strangle.  Drop side
incidents can also occur due to incorrect assembly and with age
related wear and tear.  Additionally, when drop-side hardware
fails and/or disengages, an infant or toddler can be injured by
falling out of the crib.

CPSC has received seven reports of the drop side failing.  In one
of those reports, the child became entrapped in the gap created by
the drop-side failure.  In another incident, a child fell out of
the crib and suffered bruises to his head when the drop side
disengaged.

This recall involves drop-side Child Craft brand cribs using the
style of drop-side hardware shown below. "Child Craft" appears on
a label on the crib's frame.

     Drop-Side Crib Name                             Model Numbers
     -------------------                             -------------

                                                     F10151F10171
                                                      F10181
                                                      F10281
                                                      F16661
                                                      F13311
ALL CHILD CRAFT DROP-SIDE CRIBS                       F16131
WITH THE HARDWARE SHOWN BELOW                         F13761
MANUFACTURED BETWEEN 2000 and 2009                    F16001
                                                      F16011
                                                      F16131
                                                      F16661
                                                      F17001
                                                      F17701
                                                      F17731
                                                      F17801
                                                      F17811
                                                      F20161
                                                      F20181
                                                      F20191
                                                      F21041
                                                      F21081
                                                      F21091
                                                      F26131
                                                      F27301
                                                      F27771
                                                      F31061
                                                      F31701
                                                      F32901
                                                      F33301
                                                      F33601
                                                      F33801
                                                      F33901
                                                      F34101
                                                      F35101

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10272.html

The recalled products were manufactured in Salem, Indiana or New
Salisbury, Indiana and sold through Babies R Us, Sears, Burlington
Coat Factory, Target, and various specialty stores nationwide
between January 2000 and July 2009.

CPSC staff urges parents and caregivers to stop using these cribs
immediately and find an alternative, safe sleeping environment for
their baby.  Do not attempt to fix these cribs.  Although
Foundations Worldwide did not manufacture or sell any of the
recalled cribs, it has agreed to provide Child Craft owners with a
rebate towards the purchase of a new, fixed-side Child Craft brand
crib manufactured by Foundations Worldwide Inc.  For additional
information, contact Foundations Worldwide toll-free at (866) 614-
0557 anytime or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.cribsafetyinfo.com/


COMVERSE TECHNOLOGY: Court Awards 25% Fee Totaling $56 Mil.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Nathan Koppel at The Wall Street Journal's Law Blog reports that a
New York federal court resolved a fee dispute in a pending
securities fraud class action against Comverse Technology.  The
company agreed last year to pay $225 million to settle the
litigation.

Pomerantz Haudek, the lead plaintiffs' firm in the case, sought 25
percent of the settlement, or a fee of about $56 million.  A one-
third contingency fee, of course, has long been the industry
benchmark, but plaintiffs' lawyers in big-dollar securities fraud
settlements sometimes request fees of 15% or less. (Lawyers can
have a hard time convincing judges to award counsel one-third of
settlements that reach into the many billions of dollars.)

In the Comverse case, the Pennsylvania State Employees' Retirement
System, which owned shares in the company, claimed in court papers
that the 25% fee request was "unreasonable," the New York Law
Journal reports. But a Pomerantz Haudek lawyer told the New York
Law Journal that the firm's client had agreed to a 25% fee and
that such an amount is "well within the normative range of these
types of cases."

"Who won the day?" Mr. Koppel asks.  "Let's just say that the 25
attorneys at the Pomerantz firm likely will enjoy a lovely
weekend."

In his ruling, Brooklyn federal judge Nichoals Garaufis agreed
that a 25% fee was within the norm for "megafund" securities fraud
cases. "The fact that this fee request is the product of arm's-
length negotiation between [Pomerantz Haudek] and the lead
plaintiff is significant," he wrote.

"While it may be that a lower percentage would also be sufficient,
this court will not pretend that it has the expertise necessary to
divine the ideal percentage," the judge added. "This court is
particularly unwilling to undertake an endeavor in a case where
the fee award was set on the open market, and where an improperly
calibrated fee would provide a disincentive to future counsel to
take risks and pursue large class settlements that the SEC
cannot."

Nate Raymond, writing for New York Law Journal, reports that Judge
Garaufis noted that Pomerantz Haudek invested 43,573 hours of
attorney and support time in the case and over $1.6 million of its
own money.  And while it was "perhaps not as enormous as some
other recent securities class actions, it was large, protracted,
and bitterly contested," the judge said.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Suit Over "Proper Seating" Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------
A suit against Costco Wholesale Corp. continues alleging that it
failed to provide reasonable seating to employees in violation of
California law, has been voluntarily dismissed, 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 9, 2010.

The suit was filed on Oct. 28, 2009, in the San Mateo County
Superior Court, and is styled Jade Jue v. Costco Wholesale Corp.,
Case No. 489091.  Plaintiff alleges that the company failed to
provide reasonable seating to employees in violation of California
law.  Plaintiff seeks restitution/disgorgement, compensatory
damages, various statutory penalties, punitive damages, interest,
and attorneys' fees.

Jade Jue v. Costco Wholesale Corp., San Mateo County Superior
Court Case No. 489091.

The case was removed to federal court, Case No. 3:10-cv-0033 WHA.
The federal case was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff on
March 31, 2010.

A related state-court filing was voluntarily dismissed by the
plaintiff on May 10, 2010.

Costco Wholesale Corporation -- http://www.costco.com/-- operates
membership warehouses-based offering its members
products in a range of merchandise categories.  It buys the
majority of its merchandise directly from manufacturers and route
it to a cross-docking consolidation point (depot) or directly to
its warehouses.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Plaintiff Dismisses "George" Suit
---------------------------------------------------
The suit George v. Costco Wholesale Corp., Case No. 37-2010-
00086734-CU-OE-CTL, has been dismissed by the plaintiff, according
to Costco Wholesale Corp.'s June 10, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
May 9, 2010.

The suit was filed on March 1, 2010, alleging that as to
California non-exempt employees the company has unlawfully denied
meal and rest breaks, failed to pay wages, failed to provide
accurate wage-itemization statements, failed to maintain time
records, and willfully failed to pay termination wages.

Costco filed a motion to dismiss to which the plaintiff did not
respond; instead, she dismissed the case without prejudice, on
May 12, 2010.

Costco Wholesale Corporation -- http://www.costco.com/-- operates
membership warehouses-based offering its members
products in a range of merchandise categories.  It buys the
majority of its merchandise directly from manufacturers and route
it to a cross-docking consolidation point (depot) or directly to
its warehouses.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Class Certification Appeal Remains Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Costco Wholesale Corp.'s appeal on the class certification ruling
in the matter Shirley "Rae" Ellis v. Costco Wholesale Corp., Case
No. C-04-3341-MHP, remains pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit, 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 9, 2010.

The case, brought as a class action on behalf of certain present
and former female managers, in which plaintiffs allege denial of
promotion based on gender in violation of Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964 and California state law.  Plaintiffs seek
compensatory damages, punitive damages, injunctive relief,
interest and attorneys' fees.

Class certification was granted by the United States District
Court (San Francisco) on Jan. 11, 2007.

On May 11, 2007, the Ninth Circuit granted a petition to hear the
company's appeal of the certification.  The appeal was argued on
April 14, 2008.  Proceedings in the district court have been
stayed during the appeal.

The parties await a decision from the Ninth Circuit.

Costco Wholesale Corporation -- http://www.costco.com/-- operates
membership warehouses-based offering its members
products in a range of merchandise categories.  It buys the
majority of its merchandise directly from manufacturers and route
it to a cross-docking consolidation point (depot) or directly to
its warehouses.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Final OK of "Fuel" Suit Settlement Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Costco Wholesale Corp. is awaiting final approval from the U.S.
District Court for the District of Kansas of the settlement in the
matter In re Motor Fuel Temperature Sales Practices Litigation,
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 9, 2010.

Numerous putative class actions have been brought around the
United States against motor fuel retailers, including the
company, alleging that they have been overcharging consumers by
selling gasoline or diesel that is warmer than 60 degrees without
adjusting the volume sold to compensate for heat-related expansion
or disclosing the effect of such expansion on the energy
equivalent received by the consumer.

The company is named in these actions:

     -- Raphael Sagalyn, et al., v. Chevron USA, Inc., et al.,
        Case No. 07-430 (D. Md.);

     -- Phyllis Lerner, et al., v. Costco Wholesale Corporation,
        et al., Case No. 07-1216 (C.D. Cal.);

     -- Linda A. Williams, et al., v. BP Corporation North
        America, Inc., et al., Case No. 07-179 (M.D. Ala.);

     -- James Graham, et al. v. Chevron USA, Inc., et al.,
        Civil Action No. 07-193 (E.D. Va.);

     -- Betty A. Delgado, et al., v. Allsups, Convenience
        Stores, Inc., et al., Case No. 07-202 (D.N.M.);

     -- Gary Kohut, et al. v. Chevron USA, Inc., et al.,
        Case No. 07-285 (D. Nev.);

     -- Mark Rushing, et al., v. Alon USA, Inc., et al.,
        Case No. 06-7621 (N.D. Cal.);

     -- James Vanderbilt, et al., v. BP Corporation North
        America, Inc., et al., Case No. 06-1052 (W.D. Mo.);

     -- Zachary Wilson, et al., v. Ampride, Inc., et al.,
        Case No. 06-2582 (D. Kan.);

     -- Diane Foster, et al., v. BP North America Petroleum,
        Inc., et al., Case No. 07-02059 (W.D. Tenn.);

     -- Mara Redstone, et al., v. Chevron USA, Inc., et al.,
        Case No. 07-20751 (S.D. Fla.);

     -- Fred Aguirre, et al. v. BP West Coast Products LLC,
        et al., Case No. 07-1534 (N.D. Cal.);

     -- J.C. Wash, et al., v. Chevron USA, Inc., et al.;
        Case No. 4:07cv37 (E.D. Mo.);

     -- Jonathan Charles Conlin, et al., v. Chevron USA, Inc.,
        et al.; Case No. 07 0317 (M.D. Tenn.);

     -- William Barker, et al. v. Chevron USA, Inc., et al.;
        Case No. 07-cv-00293 (D.N.M.);

     -- Melissa J. Couch, et al. v. BP Products North America,
        Inc., et al., Case No. 07cv291 (E.D. Tex.);

     -- S. Garrett Cook, Jr., et al., v. Hess Corporation,
        et al., Case No. 07cv750 (M.D. Ala.);

     -- Jeff Jenkins, et al. v. Amoco Oil Company, et al.,
        Case No. 07-cv-00661 (D. Utah); and

     -- Mark Wyatt, et al., v. B. P. America Corp., et al.,
        Case No. 07-1754 (S.D. Cal.).

On June 18, 2007, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
assigned the action, entitled In re Motor Fuel Temperature Sales
Practices Litigation, MDL Docket No 1840, to Judge Kathryn Vratil
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas.

On Feb. 21, 2008, the court denied a motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint.

On April 12, 2009, the company agreed to a settlement involving
the actions in which it is named as a defendant.

Under the settlement, which is subject to final approval by the
court, the company has agreed, to the extent allowed by law, to
install over five years from the effective date of the settlement
temperature-correcting dispensers in the States of Alabama,
Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Nevada, New
Mexico, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah,
and Virginia.

Other than payments to class representatives, the settlement does
not provide for cash payments to class members.

On Aug. 18, 2009, the court preliminarily approved the settlement
and on April 1, 2010, held a hearing to consider final approval of
the settlement.

Further details of the proposed settlement can be obtained from
the notice to class members, which can be viewed at
http://www.costco.com/fuelsettlement.pdf

Costco Wholesale Corporation -- http://www.costco.com/-- operates
membership warehouses-based offering its members
products in a range of merchandise categories.  It buys the
majority of its merchandise directly from manufacturers and route
it to a cross-docking consolidation point (depot) or directly to
its warehouses.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Plaintiffs' Appeal in "Milk" Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
The appeal of the plaintiffs on the dismissal of all claims
against Costco Wholesale Corp. in a consolidated complaint
remains pending.

The company has been named as a defendant in two purported class
actions relating to sales of organic milk.

The suits are:

     (1) Hesse v. Costco Wholesale Corp., No. C07-1975
         (W.D. Wash.); and

     (2) Snell v. Aurora Dairy Corp., et al., No. 07-CV-2449
         (D. Col.).

Both actions claim violations of the laws of various states,
essentially alleging that milk provided to Costco by its supplier
Aurora Dairy Corp. was improperly labeled "organic."

Plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint on July 18, 2008.

With respect to the company, plaintiffs seek to certify four
classes of people who purchased Costco organic milk.

Aurora has maintained that it has held and continues to hold valid
organic certifications.

The consolidated complaint seeks, among other things, actual,
compensatory, statutory, punitive and/or exemplary damages in
unspecified amounts, as well as costs and attorneys' fees.

On June 3, 2009, the court entered an order dismissing with
prejudice, among others, all claims against the company.

Plaintiffs have appealed the dismissal.

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 9, 2010.

Costco Wholesale Corporation -- http://www.costco.com/-- operates
membership warehouses-based offering its members products in a
range of merchandise categories.  It buys the majority of its
merchandise directly from manufacturers and route it to a cross-
docking consolidation point (depot) or directly to its warehouses.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Continues to Defend "Salmon" Suit in Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Costco Wholesale Corp. continues to defend a purported class
action relating to sales of farm-raised salmon.

The suit is Farm Raised Salmon Coordinated Proceedings, Los
Angeles Superior Court Case No. JCCP No. 4329.

The action alleges that the company violated California law
requiring farm-raised salmon to be labeled as "color added."

The complaint asserts violations of the California Unfair
Competition Law, the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and
the California False Advertising Law, and negligent
misrepresentation, and seeks restoration of money acquired by
means of unfair competition or false advertising and compensatory
damages in unspecified amounts, injunctive relief remedying the
allegedly improper disclosures, and costs and attorneys' fees.

A California Superior Court ruling dismissing the action on the
ground that federal law does not permit claims for mislabeling of
farm-raised salmon to be asserted by private parties was reversed
by the California Supreme Court.

The company has denied the material allegations of the complaint.

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 9, 2010.

Costco Wholesale Corporation -- http://www.costco.com/-- operates
membership warehouses-based offering its members
products in a range of merchandise categories.  It buys the
majority of its merchandise directly from manufacturers and route
it to a cross-docking consolidation point (depot) or directly to
its warehouses.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Appeal of Plaintiffs' Injunction Bid Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs are appealing the decision of the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York denying their request for a
preliminary injunction seeking to prevent Costco Wholesale Corp.
from selling shrimp trays.

A purported nationwide class action styled In Verzani, et ano., v.
Costco Wholesale Corp., No. 09-CV-2117 was filed against the
company.

The plaintiffs allege claims for breach of contract and violation
of the Washington Consumer Protection Act, based on the failure of
the company to disclose on the label of its "Shrimp Tray with
Cocktail Sauce" the weight of the shrimp in the item as distinct
from the accompanying cocktail sauce, lettuce, and lemon wedges.

The complaint seeks various forms of damages, including
compensatory and treble damages and disgorgement and restitution,
injunctive and declaratory relief, attorneys' fees, costs, and
prejudgment interest.

On April 21, 2009, the plaintiff filed a motion for a preliminary
injunction, seeking to prevent the company from selling the shrimp
tray unless the company separately discloses the weight of the
shrimp and provides shrimp consistent with the disclosed weight.

By orders dated July 29 and Aug. 6, 2009, the court denied the
preliminary injunction motion and dismissed the claim for breach
of contract.

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 9, 2010.

Costco Wholesale Corporation -- http://www.costco.com/-- operates
membership warehouses-based offering its members
products in a range of merchandise categories.  It buys the
majority of its merchandise directly from manufacturers and route
it to a cross-docking consolidation point (depot) or directly to
its warehouses.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Faces "Kilano" Suit in Michigan
-------------------------------------------------
Costco Wholesale Corporation faces the matter In Kilano, et ano.,
v. Costco Wholesale Corp., No. 2:10-cv-11456-VAR-DAS, filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan,
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 9, 2010.

Two members purport to represent a class of certain Michigan
Executive level-members who received 2% rewards.  Plaintiffs
allege that Costco "guarantees" that the member will receive
rewards of no less than the $50 difference between Executive and
Gold Star membership and that the company is required to but has
failed to automatically reimburse members whose rewards are less
than this difference.

Plaintiffs allege violations of the Michigan Consumer Protection
Act, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment.  Plaintiffs seek
compensatory and statutory damages, injunctive relief, costs, and
attorneys' fees.

The company has yet to respond to the complaint.

Costco Wholesale Corporation -- http://www.costco.com/-- operates
membership warehouses-based offering its members products in a
range of merchandise categories.  It buys the majority of its
merchandise directly from manufacturers and route it to a cross-
docking consolidation point (depot) or directly to its warehouses.


DELTA ENTERPRISE: Recalls 747,000 Drop-Side Cribs
-------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Delta Enterprise, of New York, N.Y., announced a voluntary recall
of about 747,000 drop-side cribs; and all fixed and drop-side
cribs using wooden stabilizer bars.  Consumers should stop using
recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed.

The cribs' drop sides can malfunction, detach or otherwise fail,
causing part of the drop side to fall out of position, creating a
space into which an infant or toddler can roll and become wedged
or entrapped, which can lead to strangulation or suffocation.  A
child can also fall out of the crib.  Drop-side incidents can also
occur due to incorrect assembly and with age-related wear and
tear.  In addition, the wooden stabilizer bars on some Delta drop-
side and fixed-side cribs can be installed upside down, which puts
extra stress on the crib and can cause the mattress platform to
collapse, creating a gap in which an infant or toddler can become
entrapped and posing a risk of strangulation or suffocation.

CPSC and Delta have received 57 reports involving drop sides that
have malfunctioned or detached, resulting in three entrapments,
including two reports of bruises and one child who fell out of the
crib.  Additionally, CPSC is aware of 19 reports in which
stabilizer bars were installed upside-down, resulting in 10
mattress platform collapses.  Two children were entrapped but
freed without injury and one child sustained scratches.

This recall involves Delta drop-side cribs with three different
types of drop-side hardware and Delta cribs with wooden stabilizer
bars that support the mattress platform.  Consumers should visit
http://www.cribrecallcenter.com/ for photographs and models of
the affected hardware types and instructions on correct assembly
of the stabilizer bars.  Pictures of the recalled products are
available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10273.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China, Indonesia,
Thailand, and Croatia and sold through children's product retail
stores nationwide and on-line from January 2000 through May 2009
for between $100 and $300.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled drop-side
cribs and contact Delta to receive a free repair kit that will
immobilize the drop side.  In the meantime, find an alternate,
safe sleep environment for the child, such as a bassinet, play
yard or toddler bed depending on the child's age.  Consumers who
have cribs with wooden stabilizer bars supporting the mattress
should inspect the stabilizer bars to ensure they are correctly
installed in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions and
inspect the joints of their crib for any damage.  If the
stabilizer bars are installed upside down, stop using the crib
immediately and contact Delta for information on how to correctly
install the stabilizer bars or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.cribrecallcenter.com/ For additional information,
contact Delta Enterprise toll-free at (877) 342-3418 between 9:00
a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday or visit
the firm's Web site at http://www.cribrecallcenter.com/


DOMINO'S PIZZA: Minn. Judge Certifies Drivers' Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Chad Halcom, writing for Crain's Detroit Business, reports that
Ann Arbor-based Domino's Pizza Inc. may have to revisit a long-
standing wage and reimbursement plan for delivery drivers
nationwide, after a judge last week approved a class action
certification in a federal lawsuit.  U.S. District Judge Donovan
Frank in Minnesota awarded conditional class certification for all
delivery drivers employed at corporate-owned Domino's locations in
every state except New York and California, since March 2006.

That could number more than 22,000 past and present employees
based on information shared in discovery, said attorney E.
Michelle Drake, Esq., at Nichols Kaster PLLP, the law firm
representing the drivers.

The drivers allege that a per-delivery payment Domino's uses in
lieu of gas or mileage reimbursement effectively forces drivers to
collect less than the federal minimum wage, in violation of the
federal Fair Labor Standards Act.

Tim McIntyre, vice president of communications at Domino's, said
the company is defending itself against the allegations, but does
not oppose the judge's ruling.  "There's a pretty low legal
standard to meet on conditional certification," he said. "And the
judge essentially said they've been given the green light to
contact those drivers. We're not going to contest that decision,
and it is not any indication of the merits of the (drivers') case
itself."

Mr. Drake said the company imposes a delivery surcharge on
customers and later makes a per-delivery reimbursement to the
employee that does not actually cover vehicle expense.  The law
firm is also seeking a separate class action certification for
more than 400 Minnesota drivers who are allegedly entitled to
collect the delivery charge itself, but that request is still
pending.

"(Federal law requires) you have to actually be paid that minimum
wage, without anything due and owing back to your employer. The
drivers were making at or slightly above minimum wage, but were
providing gas, mileage, tires and other costs all for the benefit
of the employer," she said. "Domino's reimburses on a set, per-
delivery amount. That amount is so insignificant that effectively
their compensation is less than the minimum wage."

Mr. McIntyre contends the employee payment structure is legal and
the lawsuit against Domino's lacks merit.  "Reimbursement is not
part of their compensation. Compensation is wages plus tips," he
said. "So if they're arguing that reimbursement is part of their
compensation, that's going to be contested if the case proceeds in
court."

The drivers' counsel may be reached at:

     E. Michelle Drake, Esq.
     NICHOLS KASTER & ANDERSON, PLLP
     4600 IDS Center
     80 South 8th Street
     Minneapolis, MN  55402
     Telephone: (612) 256-3249
     Facsimile: (612) 338-4878
     E-mail: drake@nka.com


DUPONT CO: West Virginia Residents File Personal Injury Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Vicki Smith at Bloomberg News reports that Rebecca Morlock and
Waunona Crouser, in Spelter, West Virginia, sued DuPont Co. last
week in Harrison County Circuit Court, demanding damages for pain
and suffering, medical testing and treatment, lost wages,
emotional distress and more caused by DuPont chemicals.  The
amount of damages would be determined by a jury.

Ms. Morlock and Ms. Crouser declined to discuss their cases,
except to say that others like them will soon be filed.

Bloomberg notes the plaintiffs previously won a class-action
lawsuit against DuPont over long-term exposure to toxins from a
former zinc-smelting plant.

According to Ms. Smith, by Thursday morning, at least two people
who were not plaintiffs in the original case had also filed
complaints.  Joshua Finch of Meadowbrook and Amanda Finch of
Clarksburg blame DuPont for ailments ranging from rashes and
recurring infections to bone tumors.

The four complaints are virtually identical except for the list of
health problems, indicating the plaintiffs are collaborating.
None is represented by an attorney, and it's unclear why they are
filing the cases now.

Spokesman Dan Turner said DuPont has not yet seen the complaints
and could not comment.

The lawsuits accuse DuPont of negligence and list dozens of
maladies the plaintiffs say were caused by long-term exposure to
arsenic, cadmium, lead and other toxins from the Spelter smelter,
which operated in Harrison County for more than 90 years.  The
plant closed in 2001, and DuPont worked with state regulators to
demolish factory buildings and cap the site with plastic and clean
soil.  In 2007, a jury ruled DuPont was negligent in creating the
waste pile, and that it had deliberately downplayed and lied to
its neighbors about possible health threats.  It awarded $380
million in punitive damages, but the state Supreme Court later cut
that to $196 million.

The high court affirmed thousands of residents were entitled to a
$130 million, 40-year medical monitoring program and a $55.5
million cleanup fund for private properties.  Still, the case
remains unresolved: A jury has yet to decide whether the
underlying claims were filed in time to permit the remaining
damages.

Bloomberg says the new complaints also name other companies that
operated or worked at the site over the years, but most have since
dissolved, and in the class-action trial, DuPont was held
responsible for all activity on the property.


EVENFLO INC: Recalls 750,000 Jenny Lind Cribs
---------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Evenflo Inc., of Miamisburg, Ohio, announced a voluntary recall of
about 750,000 Jenny Lind Cribs.  Consumers should stop using
recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed. It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The cribs' drop sides can malfunction, detach or otherwise fail,
causing part of the drop side to fall out of position, creating a
space into which an infant or toddler can roll and become wedged
or entrapped, which can lead to strangulation or suffocation.  A
child can also fall out of the crib.  Drop-side incidents can also
occur due to incorrect assembly and with age-related wear and
tear.

CPSC and Evenflo have received 31 reports of drop sides that
malfunctioned or detached.  One involved the entrapment of a seven
month old boy between the drop side and the crib mattress. He
sustained bumps and bruises to his head.  Nine children fell out
of the crib when the drop side detached, unlocked or fell off.
Seven of those children sustained minor injuries, including bumps,
bruises and cuts.  Fourteen other incidents involved no injuries.
In addition, CPSC has received two reports of children who became
entrapped when the mattress support detached in one corner of
cribs manufactured between 2000 and 2004.

The following Evenflo crib models are included in this recall.
The model number is located on a label on the bottom beam of the
headboard.

   MODEL NUMBERS               MODEL NAMES
   -------------               -----------
   012614         Evenflo Jenny Lind Crib, Maple
   0126141        Evenflo Jenny Lind Crib, Maple
   012615         Evenflo Jenny Lind Crib, White
   012616         Evenflo Jenny Lind Crib, Oak
   012617         Evenflo Jenny Lind Crib, Natural
   014614         Evenflo Jenny Lind Convertible Crib, Maple
   014615         Evenflo Jenny Lind Convertible Crib, White
   014616         Evenflo Jenny Lind Convertible Crib, Oak
   014617         Evenflo Jenny Lind Convertible Crib, Natural
   0151614        Evenflo Jenny Lind Hidden Hardware Crib, Maple
   0151615        Evenflo Jenny Lind Hidden Hardware Crib, White
   0151616        Evenflo Jenny Lind Hidden Hardware Crib, Oak
   0151617        Evenflo Jenny Lind Hidden Hardware Crib, Natural
   0161614        Evenflo Jenny Lind Hidden Hardware Crib, Maple
   0161615        Evenflo Jenny Lind Hidden Hardware Crib, White
   0161617        Evenflo Jenny Lind Hidden Hardware Crib, Natural

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10274.html

The recalled products were manufactured in Mexico and China and
sold through children's product stores and various other retailers
nationwide from January 2000 through November 2007 for about $200.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled drop-side
cribs and contact Evenflo to receive a free repair kit that will
immobilize the drop side.  A repair kit for the mattress support
system is also available for cribs with model numbers starting
with 012 and 014 that were manufactured between 2000 and 2004.  In
the meantime, find an alternate, safe sleep environment for the
child, such as a bassinet, play yard or toddler bed depending on
the child's age.  The repair kits will be provided to consumers
within the next several weeks.  For additional information,
contact Evenflo at (800) 356-2229 between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.,
Eastern Time, Monday through Friday or visit the firm's web site
at http://safety.evenflo.com/


GOLDMAN SACHS: Pomerantz Files Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Haudek Grossman & Gross LLP filed a class action lawsuit
in the United States District Court, Southern District of New
York, against The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., and certain of its
top officers and directors.  The class action was filed on behalf
of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Goldman notes
and/or bonds.  The Complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.  Currently, class action complaints have
been filed in federal court in New York with the longest operative
Class Period of December 14, 2006 and June 9, 2010.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements regarding
Goldman's business model and reasons for Goldman's business
success during the Class Period.  Goldman also failed to disclose
its receipt of a Wells notice from the SEC in July 2009 indicating
that charges against the Company were probable.  As a result of
Defendants' false statements, Goldman's securities traded at
artificially inflated prices during the Class Period.  After
revelations of Defendants' fraud, the price of the Company's
securities declined significantly from its Class Period high.

If you are a shareholder who purchased the securities of Goldman
during the Class Period, you have until June 25, 2010 to ask the
Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff for the class.
Shareholders outside the United States may join the action,
regardless of where they live or which exchange was used to
purchase the securities.  A copy of the complaint can be obtained
at http://www.pomerantzlaw.com/ To discuss this action, contact:

     Nicola Brown, Esq.
     POMERANTZ HAUDEK GROSSMAN & GROSS LLP
     100 Park Avenue
     New York, NY 10017
     Telephone: (888) 476-6529
                (888) 4-POMLAW toll free
     E-mail: NBrown@pomlaw.com

Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their
mailing address and telephone number.

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


H&R BLOCK: Judge Considers Certifying Suit on Guarantees
--------------------------------------------------------
Steve Korris at The Madison/St. Clair Record reports that Mark
Brown, Esq., at LakinChapman claims H&R Block Tax Services tricked
customers into paying extra for "peace of mind" guarantees they
didn't need, but about 100,000 customers who bought it wound up
needing it.  Mr. Brown would prefer that U.S. District Judge
Michael Reagan focus on the millions who didn't need it as he
decides whether to certify a 13-year old class action for 11
states.

"Block knew that 99.7 percent of its customers would not use the
peace of mind coverage," Mr. Brown wrote on June 18.

Peace of mind coverage guarantees that Block will defend a
customer if the Internal Revenue Service detects an error.

Mr. Brown wrote that "the overwhelming majority of Block's clients
never have a peace of mind claim because their returns are so
simple that the likelihood of error by Block and the chance of
additional taxes being owed are remote."

Mr. Brown proposed a double class action for Illinois and three
other states, combining consumer fraud claims with allegations of
illegal insurance sales.  He sought injunctive relief for the four
states, without explaining what he meant.

Block lawyer John Clear, Esq., of St. Louis wrote on the same date
that, "A party cannot amend a pleading through statements in a
brief."  He wrote that "monetary damages are not merely incidental
to plaintiffs' class claim for injunctive relief but, in fact, are
the primary relief sought by plaintiffs."

"Federal rules of civil procedure require consideration of
plaintiffs' claims as they are pleaded, not as plaintiffs might
choose to characterize them in briefs," Mr. Clear wrote.

Mr. Brown responded that he would "cure this technical issue" by
amending the complaint.

The former Lakin Law Firm sued Block in Madison County circuit
court in January 2001, while President Bill Clinton occupied the
White House.

Lakin clients Lorie Marshall and Debra Ramirez alleged that Block
committed fraud by failing to disclose material information.

Madison County Associate Judge Ralph Mendelsohn certified Marshall
and Ramirez to represent a plaintiff class.  In an unusual step,
he certified a defendant class of Block entities.  He decertified
the defendant class in 2008, leaving H&R Block Tax Services as the
sole defendant.

Block removed the case to federal court, claiming Judge Mendelsohn
turned it into a new case for purposes of the federal Class Action
Fairness Act.

Judge Reagan discarded Judge Mendelsohn's order and started from
scratch.  He held a class certification hearing in April and asked
both sides to propose findings of fact and conclusions of law.

Mr. Brown wrote, "Plaintiffs allege that all class members
received the same information about peace of mind as a result of
uniform scripts concerning peace of mind and Block's standardized,
mandatory peace of mind sales procedures."

Block didn't disclose its extremely low error rate or the
extremely low IRS audit rate, he wrote.

Mr. Brown also claimed that Block didn't disclose that 99.7% to
99.9% of peace of mind purchasers never had a claim.  He wrote
that Block didn't disclose that the coverage far exceeds the
average claim.  He also wrote that Block didn't disclose that it
pays a 15% commission on peace of mind, he wrote.  He alleged
deceptive omission and breach of fiduciary duty in Arizona,
California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Massachusetts,
Michigan, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, and North Carolina, back
to 1997.

Mr. Brown asks for injunctive relief on a claim that peace of mind
constituted insurance that Block lacked authority to sell in
Arizona, California, Illinois and New Jersey.  He wrote that
"between 1998 and 2001, only 20,054 of its clients needed the
coverage."

"[B]etween 2000 and 2006, only 76,568 of its clients needed the
coverage," Mr. Brown wrote.

Those periods overlap, and he didn't report totals for 1997 or the
last four years, making an accurate count impossible.

"Because the question whether an omission was material is an
objective test, not a subjective test, there is no need to
determine whether individual class members would have decided not
to purchase peace of mind had the omitted information been
disclosed to them," Mr. Brown wrote.

"Because the issue of materiality is objective not subjective, the
determination of liability will be the same for each and every
class member based on the determination of whether failure to
disclose this information would be likely to deceive a reasonable
person."

Mr. Clear denied that preparers followed a uniform script, writing
that they used computer "screen shots" as a guide.  Preparers
didn't know IRS audit rates or Block error rates, Mr. Clear wrote.
Plaintiffs didn't claim commissions as a basis for relief for
eight years, he wrote.  He wrote that Judge Reagan would have to
account for differences between franchise offices and offices
Block owned.  He wrote that Block has paid more than $90 million
on peace of mind claims in the 11 states since 2000.

"It is not possible to determine the reasons for particular
purchase decisions without consideration of individualized facts
and circumstances," Mr. Clear wrote.

"Neither named plaintiff could recall the details of the
conversations she had with her tax professional.

"Cases such as this one that hinge on oral discussions are
uniquely unsuited for class treatment."

He wrote that laws of the 11 states differ on statutes of
limitations, punitive damages and fiduciary relationships.


HOMETOWN AMERICA: Can't Seek Indemnity From Liberty
---------------------------------------------------
Residents of Rosemount Woods, in Minn., sued Hometown America LLC,
in 2004 asserting violations of the Manufactured Home Park Lot
Rentals Act, Minn. Stat. Sections 327C.01-.15 (2004), and breach
of the terms of lease agreements.  The district court granted a
permanent injunction and partial summary judgment against
Hometown, and the Court of Appeals in Minnesota affirmed.  Renish
v. Hometown Am., L.L.C., No. A05-2384 (Minn. App. Aug. 29, 2006).
Hometown settled, paying the residents' attorney fees and repaying
improperly assessed utility charges.

Hometown then sued Liberty Insurance Corporation and Liberty
Mutual Fire Insurance Company, asserting they had been required to
indemnify it under a commercial-general-liability policy providing
coverage for "[i]njury to intangible property sustained by any
organization arising out of . . . [w]rongful entry."  But Liberty
won, and Hometown appealed.

In Hometown America, LLC v. Liberty Insurance Corporation, et al.,
Case No. A09-1755 (Minn. App. Ct.), Judge Kevin Ross wrote the
Renish class was certified merely to facilitate their lawsuit
arising from and remedying their injuries.  Because the parties
agree that the injuries alleged by the injured natural persons who
formed the class in Renish are not covered by the policy's
personal-injury endorsement, Judge Ross said Liberty had no duty
to defend or indemnify Hometown in the Renish litigation.

A copy of the Court's decision is available at:

     http://www.leagle.com/unsecure/page.htm?shortname=inmnco20100622282

Hometown is represented by:

     John F. Bonner, III, Esq.
     Robert J. Borhart, Esq.
     BONNER & BORHART, LLP
     220 6th Street S Suite 1750
     Minneapolis, MN 55402
     Telephone: (612) 313-0711
     Facsimile: (612) 455-2055

Liberty is represented by:

     Jeanne H. Unger, Esq.
     BASSFORD REMELE
     Telephone: (612) 376-1633
     Facsimile: (612) 746-1233
     E-mail: junger@bassford.com

          - and -

     Jessica Schulte Williams, Esq.
     BASSFORD REMELE
     Telephone: (612) 376-1624
     Facsimile: (612) 746-1224
     E-mail: jwilliams@bassford.com


JARDINE ENTERPRISE: Recalls 130,000 Jardine Drop-Side Cribs
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Jardine Enterprise Ltd., of Taipei, Taiwan, announced a voluntary
recall of about 130,000 Jardine drop-side cribs.  Consumers should
stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise
instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

The cribs' drop sides can malfunction, detach or otherwise fail,
causing part of the drop side to fall out of position, creating a
space into which an infant or toddler can roll and become wedged
or entrapped, which can lead to strangulation or suffocation.  A
child can also fall out of the crib.  Drop-side incidents can also
occur due to incorrect assembly and with age-related wear and
tear.

CPSC and Jardine have received 47 reports of drop sides that
detached or malfunctioned.  In one of these incidents, a child was
found unconscious after becoming entrapped and was hospitalized.
Nine other reports involving entrapments or fallouts resulted in
scratches and bruises, including one child who sustained a broken
collarbone.

All Jardine drop-side cribs have been recalled.  The model number
and date code can be found on the labels attached to one of the
end panels.

   Model #            Description              Date Code Between
   -------            -----------              -----------------
   0102B00       Natural Olympia Single        02/2007 - 11/2008
   0102P00       Black Olympia Single          04/2006 - 01/2009
   0108C00WP     White Capri Single            12/2007 - 12/2008
   0108L00WP     Antique Walnut Capri Single   12/2007 - 11/2008
   0115S00       Rubbed Black Claremont Single 12/2006 - 06/2007
   BC-33         Dark Pine 3-1 Convertible     01/2000 - 06/2004
   BC-66         White 3-1 Convertible         09/2001 - 08/2003
   DA0930B       Walnut Single                 -
   DA333BC       Natural Madison Single        01/2004 - 11/2004
   DA616BC       Dark Pine Siera 2 in 1        11/2001 - 04/2004
   DA616BN       Natural Siera 2 in 1          -
   DA618BC       Natural Hampton               11/2002 - 06/2003
   DA833BC       Natural Madison Single        05/2005 - 08/2005
   DV601BC       Dark Pine Windsor Single      03/2001 - 06/2003
   DV623BC       Cherry Windsor Single         11/2001 - 08/2003
   DV628BC       White Windsor Single          02/2003 - 09/2003

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10275.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and Vietnam and
sold through Babies "R" Us, Toys "R" Us, Geoffrey Stores and
KidsWorld nationwide from January 2002 through June 2009 for
between $150 and $480.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled cribs and
contact Jardine to receive a free repair kit that will immobilize
the drop side.  In the meantime, find an alternate, safe sleep
environment for the child, such as a bassinet, play yard or
toddler bed depending on your child's age.  For additional
information, contact Jardine at (800) 295-1980 between 9:00 a.m.
and 5:00 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday or visit the
firm's Web site at http://www.jdservice.biz/


LAJOBI INC: Recalls 306,000 Drop-Side Cribs
-------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
LaJobi Inc., of Cranbury, N.J., announced a voluntary recall of
about 306,000 Bonavita, Babi Italia and ISSI Drop-Side Cribs.
Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless
otherwise instructed.

The cribs' drop sides can malfunction, detach or otherwise fail,
causing part of the drop side to fall out of position, creating a
space into which an infant or toddler can roll and become wedged
or entrapped, which can lead to strangulation or suffocation.  A
child can also fall out of the crib. Drop-side incidents can also
occur due to incorrect assembly and with age-related wear and
tear.

CPSC and LaJobi have received 40 reports of drop sides that
detached or malfunctioned.  In one incident, a child fell out of
the crib when the drop side detached and sustained a bruise.

This recall involves all models of Bonavita, Babi Italia and ISSI
drop-side cribs manufactured by LaJobi.  The cribs have drop-side
hardware that contains metal or plastic pegs that are recessed
into either the drop side or the headboard and footboard of the
crib.  A label on the headboard of the crib identifies the
manufacturer as LaJobi.  Pictures of the recalled products are
available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10276.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China, Italy, Vietnam,
Thailand and the United States and sold through children's product
stores and various other retailers nationwide from May 1999
through May 2009 for between $300 and $430.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled cribs and
contact LaJobi for a free repair kit that will immobilize the drop
side.  In the meantime, find an alternate, safe sleep environment
for the child such as a bassinet, play yard or toddler bed
depending on the child's age.  For additional information, contact
LaJobi at (888) 738-5676 anytime or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.lajobi.com/


LEAD-IMPACTED COMMUNITIES: Violated Open Meeting Act
----------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of Oklahoma affirmed in part; reversed in part; and
remanded to the district court with instructions, the lower court's
decision in Johnny and Patty Lafalier and Missy Beets, individually
and on behalf of residents and property owners and former residents
and property owners of Picher, Oklahoma, v. The Lead-Impacted
Communities Relocation Assistance Trust, Case No. 107833 (Okla. Sup.
Ct.).

On April 2, 2009, the plaintiffs complained before the district court
in Ottawa County, Oklahoma, that: (1) The Trust had willfully violated
the Open Meeting Act by allowing the Secretary of the Environment and
appraisers' representatives into its executive sessions, and (2) the
plaintiffs were treated unequally due to the deduction of insurance
proceeds from the relocation assistance offer pursuant to title 27A,
section 2203(M) of the 2008 Oklahoma Statutes.  The plaintiffs sought
(1) class certification, (2) the appointment of an administrator to
audit the Trust, to reappraise the properties, to fairly compensate
the plaintiffs, to compensate for past under-payments, and to oversee
the Trust's future management, (3) reimbursement of amounts deducted
for private insurance or FEMA payments, (4) an order finding title
27A, sections 2203(M) and 2205 of the Oklahoma Statutes
unconstitutional, (5) an order for disclosure of all minutes and other
records from executive sessions which violated the Open Meeting Act,
and (6) attorney fees and costs.  The Trust asserted affirmative
defenses of sovereign immunity and estoppel, among other things.

The district court found that title 27A, section 2205 shields the
Trust from suit by invoking the government's sovereign immunity; and
that the Trust had the discretion to allow the Environment Secretary
and the appraisers' representatives into its executive sessions.  The
district court found that the plaintiffs have standing to sue.  The
plaintiffs appealed.

The justices were split on the matter.  The majority held that the
plaintiffs failed to show that title 27A, sections 2203(M) and 2205
are unconstitutional.  They agree with the plaintiffs that the Trust
has violated the Open Meeting Act, specifically section 307(D), by
allowing the Secretary of the Environment and the appraisers'
representatives to attend its executive sessions held for the purpose
of discussing appraisals and purchases of real property.  The
plaintiffs have also asked for access to the executive session
records.  The Court held that access to the records is allowed under
title 25, section 307(F)(2) if the Trust's violation of the Open
Meeting Act are willful.  This is a question for the district court on
remand.

A copy of the Court's decision is available at:

     http://www.leagle.com/unsecure/page.htm?shortname=inokco20100622496

The plaintiffs are represented by:

     John Wiggins, Esq.
     Emily N. Kitch, Esq.
     WIGGINS SEWELL & OGLETREE
     210 Park Avenue
     Suite 3100, Oklahoma Tower
     Oklahoma City, OK 73102
     Telephone: (405) 232-1211
     Facsimile: (405) 235-7025
     E-mail: jwiggins@wsolaw.net
             ekitch@wsolaw.net

          - and -

     Jeff D. Marr, Esq.
     MARR LAW FIRM
     4301 Southwest Third Street, Suite 110
     Oklahoma City, OK 73108
     Telephone: (405) 236-8000
     Facsimile: (800) 516-4299

The Trust is represented by:

     Scott D. Boughton, Esq.
     Assistant Attorney General
     Oklahoma Attorney General's Office
     Oklahoma City, Oklahoma


MERRILL LYNCH: SPDR ETF Receives $8.8-Mil. Settlement Payment
-------------------------------------------------------------
The SPDR(R) S&P 500 Exchange Traded Fund Trust received payment as
an authorized claimant from a class action settlement related to
Merrill Lynch & Co.  The total amount payable to the Fund is
listed below.  When the Fund calculates its net asset value per
share on Thursday, June 24, 2010, it is estimated that the Fund's
NAV will be impacted by the receipt of the corresponding payment
in the amount stated below based on the shares outstanding as of
June 22, 2010.

                                      Shares
                                      Outstanding
                         Settlement   as of
   Fund                  Payment      June 22, 2010   Per Share
   -----------------     ----------   -------------   ---------
   SPDR(R) S&P 500       $8,853,107    710,832,116    $0.0125
     ETF Trust
   -----------------     ----------   -------------   ---------

State Street manages more than $204 billion in SPDR ETF assets
worldwide (as of March 31, 2010) and is one of the largest ETF
providers in the US and globally.

State Street Global Advisors -- http://www.ssga.com/-- the
investment management arm of State Street Corporation, delivers
investment strategies and integrated solutions to clients
worldwide across every asset class, investment approach and style.
With $1.9 trillion in assets under management as of March 31,
2010, State Street Global Advisors has investment centers in
Boston, Hong Kong, London, Montreal, Paris, Singapore, Sydney,
Tokyo, Toronto and Zurich, and offices in 27 cities worldwide.

SPDR ETFs are a comprehensive family spanning an array of
international and domestic asset classes.  SPDR ETFs provide
professional investors with the flexibility to select investments
that are precisely aligned to their investment strategy.
Recognized as the industry pioneer, State Street -- in partnership
with the American Stock Exchange -- created the first ETF in 1993
(SPDR S&P 500 -- Ticker SPY).  SPDR ETFs are managed or marketed
by SSgA or SSgA Funds Management, Inc., a registered investment
adviser and wholly owned subsidiary of State Street Bank and Trust
Company.


MICRON TECHNOLOGY: DRAM Makers to Settle Suit for $173-Mil.
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Wall Street Journal's Jerry A. Dicolo reports that six
manufacturers of computer memory chips will pay $173 million plus
interest to settle antitrust lawsuits accusing them of price
fixing, according to plaintiffs including the states of Nevada and
California.  The defendants will make payments over two years,
plus interest, to 33 states and private class-action plaintiffs
that filed similar complaints.

The defendants were Micron Technology Inc., NEC Corp., Infineon
Technologies AG, Hynix Semiconductor Inc., Elpida Memory Inc. and
Mosel Vitelic Inc.

The settlement follows similar litigation by the U.S. Department
of Justice and the European Union into the market for dynamic
random access memory, or DRAM, a memory chip used in most personal
computers.

The charges stem from investigations into the memory market from
1998 to 2002, which revealed that salespeople and high-level
executives exchanged confidential information and agreed to quote
inflated prices.

Nevada and other states filed the lawsuit in federal court in
2006.  The case alleged that consumers, agencies and local
governments over-paid for products containing the chips at
inflated prices.

Several companies have pleaded guilty and agreed to pay fines to
the Justice Departments. Last month, European regulators fined
nine chip makers a total of EUR331 million ($407 million).

The Journal notes that Micron declined to comment on the
settlement.  None of the other memory chip makers could be
immediately reached for comment.


NEW YORK: Majority of Sick 9/11 Responders Accept Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that despite mixed emotions, most of
the 9/11 responders who appeared Wednesday at a daylong "fairness
hearing" in federal court in Manhattan said they favored a deal
that would end their seven-year legal fight over the toxic fallout
produced by the collapse of the World Trade Center.

In the end, U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein signed off on
the massive lawsuit settlement, clearing the way for final
approval by the plaintiffs themselves.  The deal "is fair," the
judge said.  "This has been a long and difficult process and I'm
very happy it's resolved."

Judge Hellerstein had given his preliminary approval on June 10 to
a settlement that would resolve suits filed by nearly 10,000
police officers, firefighters and construction workers suing the
city over their exposure to toxic ash.  The settlement would pay
$625 million to $712.5 million, depending on how many people take
the deal.

At the hearing Wednesday, the lawyers who reached the settlement
after lengthy negotiations urged the plaintiffs to accept it.

"There is no question in my mind that this settlement is
substantial, fairly administered and good for all plaintiffs,"
plaintiffs attorney Paul Napoli, Esq., said.

Kenneth Feinberg, who oversaw payouts to victims of the Sept. 11
attacks and was appointed to review appeals under the terms of the
settlement, gave his backing as well.  "To me it is a simple
choice," said Mr. Feinberg, speaking on a closed-circuit feed from
Washington.  "You have waited long enough."  Anyone who opts out
in hopes that Congress will pass compensation legislation, he
added, would be "making a mistake."

While most plaintiffs said they supported the plan, some
questioned a claims formula that favors those with lung cancer and
other respiratory diseases.

Judge Hellerstein responded that the deal was "far from perfect,
but it's the best we could do. . . . It's not that there's an
infinite amount of money."

About half the people covered by the settlement are suffering from
minor health ailments or aren't ill at all but have joined the
lawsuit because they worry about getting sick in the future. They
would qualify for payments of $3,250 to $11,000.

The bulk of the award -- an estimated 94% -- would go to people
with the most severe illnesses, including lung cancer and
emphysema.  About 25% of the total pot will go to cover legal
fees.  The exact amount each person receives will be based on the
severity of their illness, time spent at ground zero, age,
previous health history and other factors, including the
likelihood a person's sickness could be linked to the dust.  A
person with asthma, for example, could get anywhere from $12,000
to $781,000, depending on the circumstances.

Lawyers on both sides of the deal already have been trying to
build support among the plaintiffs. Under the settlement terms,
95% of all eligible plaintiffs must accept the money offer for it
to take effect.  That means that if as few as 600 people say no,
the deal dies.

Fairness hearings are commonly required in large class-action
lawsuits to ensure that a settlement doesn't shortchange anyone or
give great benefits to a few plaintiffs at the expense of others.

Wednesday's hearing was unusual because the litigation was not
classified as class-action, meaning there was no legal necessity
for the hearing to take place.  In fact, lawyers for the city and
its contractors filed an objection to the proceeding, saying Judge
Hellerstein was exceeding his authority by getting involved.

In another unusual move, the judge this month appointed a legal
ethics expert, Hofstra University law professor Roy Simon, to
monitor communications between the 10,000 plaintiffs covered by
the settlement and their lawyers.  The step was taken to ensure
that lawyers participating in the case don't bend any ethical
rules as they try to sell the case to their clients.  The
monitoring would, ostensibly, reduce the possibility that some
clients could be bullied or frightened into accepting the deal, or
misled about how much money they might stand to receive.


NORTH YORK HOSPITAL: Plans for Class Action Suit Dropped
--------------------------------------------------------
Canada's The Star reports that plans have been dropped for a
class-action lawsuit against North York General Hospital in
connection with a doctor alleged to have sexually assaulted
patients.  Dr. George Doodnaught, an anesthetist, was charged in
March with sexual assault after three women reported they had been
attacked while under anesthetic.  Police have said they feared
there are more victims.  None of the allegations have been proved
in court.

The hospital reached agreement with a lawyer representing alleged
victims to negotiate individual claims through an alternative
dispute resolution process, keeping the civil cases out of court.


NOVA SCOTIA: Sup. Ct. Will Certify Class Suit, Subject to Changes
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Nancy King, writing for The Cape Breton Post, says the effort to
certify a class-action lawsuit covering people who suffered from
contamination associated with the operation of the Sydney steel
plant and the coke ovens site earned a partial victory Thursday.
Nova Scotia Supreme Court Justice John Murphy concluded the matter
will be certified as a class action on some causes of action
sought by the plaintiff against the province and Ottawa, but only
for people who owned property or resided within a much smaller
geographic boundary than the one proposed by the plaintiff.  There
would also have to be a longer residency requirement.

"There is potential for a class action here, but not the way it's
been advanced so far," he said.

Judge Murphy said he is now willing to continue to work with both
sides in the case management process to move the matter forward
and come up with a class definition that is less broad and more
manageable.

"There are procedural issues to be addressed with council to
determine whether there will be certification within terms
different from those proposed and whether the parties want to
pursue that alternative, or whether they want to adopt some other
course of action," he said.

The class proposed by the plaintiffs -- anyone with at least three
years of exposure within a 5.6-kilometre radius of Victoria Road
and Laurier Street -- could have been as large as 50,000 people.
Mr. Murphy called that unworkable.

A class action could be certified on several causes of action --
for both residents and property owners on the basis of breach of
fiduciary duty, strict liability and nuisance, and for property
owners for negligence.  Mr. Murphy hasn't yet determined whether
an action can proceed with new class boundaries for negligent and
intentional battery or trespass for both groups or for negligence
for residents.

The four representative plaintiffs -- Neila MacQueen, Joe
Petitpas, Ann Marie Ross and Iris Crawford -- are suitable, Judge
Murphy said.

The plaintiff's litigation plan can be approved, but would have to
be modified to replace the amended statement of claim and to
reflect Judge Murphy's conclusions.  Statutes of limitations do
not stand in the way of certification at this stage of the
proceedings, Judge Murphy said.  He said it remains to be
determined what common issues, such as risk of harm, would be part
of a class-action proceeding, and said it's still a work-in-
progress.  He reserved the right to give reasons for his
conclusions.

Earlier on Thursday, Ray Wagner, Esq., lawyer for the plaintiff,
raised the often-repeated metaphor, "No smoke, no baloney,"
speaking of the reliance the area's economy had on the steel
plant.  Mr. Wagner noted the people who breathed in that smoke had
no idea what contaminants were in it.  But he argued that the
federal and provincial government did know the dangers of the
emissions from the sites while they operated them, but misinformed
the community and refused to clean up their messes.

"We seem to have forgotten that there are real people with a real
problem in the city of Sydney," Mr. Wagner told the court. "We're
here as a result of the contamination of a community, the dumping
of hazardous and dangerous chemicals onto the community and their
lands."

Mr. Wagner referred to reports dating back to the 1960s about
environmental conditions and the presence of pollutants in Sydney.
He noted a 1970 study indicated new pollution controls could
substantially reduce dust emissions.

In a prior report, Ms. King says a lawyer for the province of Nova
Scotia used a chart to attempt to link causes of action, defenses,
potential remedies and other components in her effort to show that
common issues in a possible class-action lawsuit are overwhelmed
by individual questions.  The argument came on the third day of a
hearing seeking to certify the action brought by Sydney residents
and property owners against Ottawa and the province relating to
contamination associated with the operation of the Sydney steel
plant and coke ovens.

Using an easel, Agnes MacNeil, Esq., went through three sheets of
paper to outline how the different elements of the case connect,
whether they would apply to the property owner or the residential
sub-group, and how statutes of limitations come into play.  She
noted the plaintiff would likely accuse her of trying to make it
more complicated than necessary.

"The way you put them all together, it's probably more of an art
than a science," Ms. MacNeil said.

The issues common among the class -- the proposed boundaries would
include anyone with at least three years of exposure within a 5.6-
kilometre radius of Victoria Road and Laurier Street and could be
as many as 50,000 people -- have to advance the case
substantially, she said. If not, the case could get bogged down in
the individual issues.

As for determining the extent of ground contamination, Ms. MacNeil
said it's not as simple as a soil test, as suggested by the
plaintiff.  Instead, it would require a historical analysis of
each property to find out what had been done on it over the years
-- for example, if lead paint was used on a house, if there was a
coal-burning stove or if ash was dumped on the property.

"The single soil test doesn't work well," Ms. MacNeil said.

While the plaintiff indicated they're looking for only modest
damages, Ms. MacNeil said it's unclear whether they were including
the potential cost of remediating up to a foot of topsoil
throughout Sydney, which she estimated could cost tens of
millions, if not in excess of C$100 million.

Ms. MacNeil also ran through some data collected throughout the
years in discussing the geographic boundaries of the potential
class, noting it would include areas as far away as Edwardsville
and Westmount, saying there is a lot of variability within it in
terms of exposure to contaminants.

Plaintiffs with legitimate claims could pursue individual actions
which would likely be less expensive, she suggested.

Ms. MacNeil argued Ottawa and the province have already done a
great deal to deal with the issues, ranging from health-risk
assessments, bio-monitoring, remediation offers to individual
homeowners and the current C$400-millon remediation project.

The hearing is being held in Nova Scotia Supreme Court in Halifax
but is being broadcast over the Internet.


PROCTER & GAMBLE: 35,000 Bottles Scope(R) Original Mint Mouthwash
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
The Procter & Gamble Co., of Cincinnati, Ohio, announced a
voluntary recall of about 35,000 bottles Scope(R) Original Mint
Mouthwash, 1 Liter Size.  Consumers should stop using recalled
products immediately unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal
to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The mouthwash contains ethyl alcohol and certain bottles have
malfunctioning child-resistant caps and lack the statement, "This
Package for Households Without Young children," as required by the
Poison Prevention Packaging Act.  Ethyl alcohol is toxic and can
cause serious injury or death if ingested by children.

No injuries or incidents have been reported.

This recall involves some bottles of Scope(R) Original Mint
Mouthwash in 1 liter sizes.  The recalled bottles have the number
4 on the bottom of the bottle.  The bottles with the 4 on the
bottom may not be child-resistant.  Consumers can also attempt to
twist the cap open.  If the cap can be twisted off without
squeezing the tabs on the cap, the package is not child-resistant.
Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10280.html

The recalled products were manufactured in the United States and
sold through drug stores, grocery stores and other retailers
between January 2010 and June 2010 for about $4.

Consumers should keep this product out of the reach of children.
Consumers who purchased the product with the expectation that it
would be in child-resistant packaging can contact Procter & Gamble
for a full refund or a replacement coupon.  Adult consumers can
continue to use the product as directed.  For additional
information, contact Procter & Gamble toll-free at (877) 340-8825
between 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through
Friday or log on to their Web site at:
http://www.scopemouthwash.com/


QUIZNO'S CANADA: Ontario Appeals Court Upholds Class Certification
------------------------------------------------------------------
Julius Melnitzer at Financial Post reports that the Ontario Court
of Appeal has upheld certification of a national class action
brought by Canadian franchisees of the Quizno's restaurant chain.
The plaintiffs allege that Quizno's violated its franchise
agreement by improperly conspiring with co-defendant Gordon Food
Service to inflate prices paid by franchisees for their supplies.
The Court noted that the lawsuit was "exactly the kind of case for
a class proceeding."

"This is a very satisfying end to a long and bitterly fought
process to obtain class action certification," said David Sterns,
Esq., who with colleagues Allan Dick, Esq., and Sam Hall, Esq., at
Sotos LLP represented the franchisee plaintiffs.  "Quiznos spared
no effort to prevent the franchisees from bringing this case
forward as a group.  Franchisees are powerful when they band
together and are easily crushed when they are forced to act alone.
We now have a fair fight on our hands."

A copy of the Appellate Court's decision is available at no
charge:

                        http://is.gd/d4Vhl

Quizno's Canada Restaurant Corporation, Quiz-Can LLC and The
Quizno's Master LLC, are represented by:

     J.D. Timothy Pinos, Esq.
     Geoffrey B. Shaw, Esq.
     Eunice Machado, Esq.
     CASSELS, BROCK & BLACKWELL LLP
     2100 Scotia Plaza
     40 King Street West
     Toronto, ON M5H 3C2
     E-mail: tpinos@casselsbrock.com
             gshaw@casselsbrock.com
             emachado@casselsbrock.com
     Telephone: (416) 869-5784
     Facsimile: (416) 350-6903

Gordon Food Service, Inc. and GFS Canada Company Inc. is
represented by:

     Katherine L. Kay, Esq.
     Mark E. Walli, Esq.
     STIKEMAN ELLIOTT LLP
     5300 Commerce Court West, 199 Bay Street
     Toronto, ON  M5L 1B9
     Telephone: (416) 869-5507
     Facsimile: (416) 947-0866
     E-mail: kkay@stikeman.com
             mwalli@stikeman.com

Franchisee plaintiffs 2038724 Ontario Ltd. and 2036250 Ontario
Inc. are represented by:

     David Sterns, Esq.
     Allan D. J. Dick, Esq.
     Sam O. Hall, Esq.
     SOTOS LLP
     180 Dundas Street West, Suite 1250
     Toronto, Ontario
     CANADA M5G 1Z8
     Telephone: (416) 977-5333 x 313
     Facsimile: (416) 977-0717
     E-mail: dsterns@sotosllp.com
             adjdick@sotosllp.com
             shall@sotosllp.com


RAJGOPAL MENON: Loses Bid to Block Class Suit by Former Patients
----------------------------------------------------------------
CBC News reports that a New Brunswick Court of Appeal judge has
rejected a legal challenge by disgraced pathologist Dr. Rajgopal
Menon to block a class-action suit brought against him by former
patients.  Dr. Menon had asked the province's top court to hear
arguments over the certification process of the class-action
lawsuit against him.  That would have delayed the suit while Mr.
Menon's challenge was heard.

Court of Appeal Justice J.C. Marc Richard wrote in his decision
that the certification process should continue and not be bogged
down by expensive appeals to the top court.

"The best way to secure the just, least expensive and most
expeditious determination of the certification process on its
merits is to allow it to proceed, and for the parties to be
allowed to apply for leave to appeal and then raise, at the same
time, any alleged errors, once the decision has been made,"
Justice Richard wrote in the ruling.

The top court heard arguments in Dr. Menon's appeal on May 17 and
the decision was handed down June 22.

Approximately 100 former patients of Dr. Menon have signed up for
the class-action lawsuit.

Dr. Menon worked as a pathologist at the Miramichi Regional Health
Authority from 1995 until February 2007, when he was suspended
after complaints about incomplete diagnoses and delayed lab
results.  Former health minister Michael Murphy called a formal
public inquiry into the pathology work at the Miramichi hospital
after an independent audit of 227 cases of breast and prostate
cancer biopsies from 2004-05 found 18% had incomplete results and
three per cent had been misdiagnosed.

Justice Paul Creaghan found that Dr. Menon should have been fired
two years before he was suspended.  Justice Creaghan's final
report offered 52 recommendations to improve pathology services in
the province.


RHODE ISLAND: More Complaints Filed Against Truancy Court Program
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lynn Arditi, staff writer for The Providence Journal, relates the
Rhode Island affiliate of the American Civil Liberties Union has
received 38 additional complaints about the state Family Court's
Truancy Court program since filing its class-action lawsuit in
March, according to a Superior Court affidavit filed last week.

The complaints included one from the parent of a Newport student
who was ordered held at the state Training School for violating
the terms of a Truancy Court agreement, the affidavit states.  The
student "was deprived of his liberty without being afforded the
opportunity to meet with an attorney," the affidavit states.

The lawsuit says that magistrates have, in some instances,
illegally removed children from the custody of their parents.

Another parent of a Portsmouth student witnessed students who were
"led away from Truancy Court in handcuffs," the affidavit states.

The complaints received by the ACLU came from parents whose
children had truancy petitions filed against them or were
threatened with truancy petitions by school officials.

Last March, the ACLU in New York and its Rhode Island affiliate
filed suit against six school districts -- Woonsocket, Providence,
North Providence, Coventry, Cumberland and Westerly -- along with
the magistrates who run the Truancy Courts and the state Family
Court Chief Judge Jeremiah S. Jeremiah Jr.

Created by Judge Jeremiah in 1999, the Truancy Court program is
supposed to help at-risk students stay in school.  The courts,
which are overseen by the Family Court, operate in satellite
hearing rooms set up in school offices or school libraries in more
than 150 schools throughout the state.  Lawyers appointed as court
magistrates by Jeremiah administer the hearings. (Jeremiah
announced in April that he is retiring.)

The ACLU alleges in its class-action lawsuit that Truancy Court
magistrates threatened and punished students who, in some cases,
were unable to attend school regularly due to medical conditions,
emotional problems, learning disabilities or family
responsibilities.

In addition to excessive tardiness and absences, students have
been placed in the Truancy Court system for infractions such as
failing to do their homework or misbehaving in school, according
to the lawsuit.

The defendants in May filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit on
grounds that the Superior Court did not have jurisdiction over the
matter.

Since the lawsuit was filed, school officials in Woonsocket and
North Providence have signed consent agreements with the ACLU's
Rhode Island affiliate to dismantle their Truancy Court programs.
In return, the ACLU has agreed to drop Woonsocket and North
Providence from their class-action lawsuit.


SIMMONS JUVENILE: Recalls 50,000 Simmons Drop-Side Cribs
--------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Simmons Juvenile Products, of New London, Wis., announced a
voluntary recall of about 50,000 Simmons drop-side cribs.
Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless
otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to
resell a recalled consumer product.

The cribs' drop sides can malfunction, detach or otherwise fail,
causing part of the drop side to fall out of position, creating a
space into which an infant or toddler can roll and become wedged
or entrapped, which can lead to strangulation or suffocation.  A
child can also fall out of the crib. Drop-side incidents can also
occur due to incorrect assembly and with age-related wear and
tear.

CPSC has received 30 reports of drop sides that have malfunctioned
or detached.  Two children became entrapped between the drop side
and the crib mattress but were freed without injury.  Two other
children fell out of their cribs when the drop side malfunctioned
and one child sustained scratches due to the fall.

This recall includes Simmons Easy Side Drop-side cribs.  Specific
model and style numbers included in the recall are listed on the
firm's Web site at http://www.cribrecallcenter.com/ Style numbers
are printed on a permanent label on the headboard.

Model numbers: 011641; 011671; 011941; 015341; 016061; 016771;
016821; 016831; 017201 ; 017211; 017351; 018500; 018501; 018502;
018510 ; 018511; 018512; 026261; 028061; 028081; 028180; 029061;
29062; 029071; 029180; 029561; 029562; 029571; 034060; 034560;
039180; 044091; 053091; 065071; 068261; 068271; 068561; 201060;
202060; 202080; 202180; 202181; 203060; 204060; 204180; 205060;
206060; 207060; 209560; 211060; 211080; 212060; 214060; 214080;
215060; 216060; 216070; 216080; 216180; 216180; 216570; 218060;
219560; 220180; 220181; 221060; 221070; 221070; 221077; 222060;
222070; 224060; 225060; 225070; 225080; 227560; 228060; 229060;
230060; 231070; 236180; 236187; 236188; 236189; 238060; 238069;
239180; 239187; 239189; 240060; 248069; 251060; 251069; 257060;
261060; 053091A; 251060M.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10278.html

The recalled products were manufactured in United States,
Indonesia, Croatia, Canada and China and sold through children's
product stores and other retailers nationwide and on-line from
January 2002 through February 2007 for between $100 and $500.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled cribs and
contact Simmons to request a free repair kit that will immobilize
the drop side.  Repair kits will be available in the next few
weeks.  In the meantime, find an alternate, safe sleep environment
for the child, such as a bassinet, play yard or toddler bed
depending on the child's age.  Please visit the website,
http://www.cribrecallcenter.com,which has pictures and
instructions to help you easily identify and order the correct
kit, or call (877) 342-3439 between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Monday
through Friday.


STEWARDSHIP CREDIT: Sued for Investment in Petters Group
--------------------------------------------------------
Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLP, filed a lawsuit seeking
class action status in the United States District Court for the
District of Connecticut (docket no. 3:10-cv-00967 (MRK)) on behalf
of all persons or entities that purchased or otherwise acquired
Class P or Class A interests in the Stewardship Credit Arbitrage
Fund, LLC between period February 7, 2006 and October 7, 2008.  A
copy of the Complaint may be obtained from the Court, or you can
call our offices toll free at (866)540-5505 to speak with an
attorney regarding this matter and we will send you a copy of the
Complaint.

Among other claims, the Complaint alleges that Stewardship
Investment Advisors, LLC, and Marlon Quan violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, by misrepresenting that the Fund would
follow certain investment objectives, strategies and methods,
when, in fact, contrary to those representations, the Fund
invested the bulk of its assets in a "Ponzi" scheme operated by
Thomas Petters, now serving a federal prison term for fraud, as
well as loans secured by vastly overvalued jewelry and other
dubious investments.  The Complaint further alleges that
Stewardship Advisors and Quan knew or should have known that
assets underlying these and other of the Fund's investments were
unsupportable.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Class P or Class A
interests in Stewardship between February 7, 2006 and October 7,
2008, you may qualify to serve as lead plaintiff on behalf of the
Class. All motions for appointment as lead plaintiff must be filed
with the Court by no later than sixty days from today. Any member
of the proposed Class may move the Court to serve as lead
plaintiff in this action through counsel of his or her choice, or
may remain an absent class member. There are certain legal
requirements to serve as lead plaintiff, which we would be pleased
to discuss with you.  Please contact:

     Patrick A. Klingman, Esq.
     SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP
     65 Main Street
     Chester, CT 06412
     Telephone: (860) 526-1100
                (866) 540-5505 Toll Free
     Facsimile: (860) 526-1120
     E-mail: pklingman@sfmslaw.com

if you would like to discuss this action or have any questions
regarding this notice or your rights.

Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLP -- http://www.sfmslaw.com/
-- is a law firm that represents investors, including institutions
and individuals, as well as consumers, in class action and other
complex litigation, and maintains offices in Connecticut,
Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Wisconsin, California and Florida. The
firm's attorneys have appeared in matters on behalf of our clients
throughout the United States and have been appointed lead counsel
in a number of class actions and corporate governance matters.


SYNGENTA CROP: Initial Deal on Discovery Reached in Atrazine Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Amelia Flood at The Madison/St. Clair Record reports that Madison
County Circuit Judge Barbara Crowder is scheduled to preside over
another discovery dispute in one of a series of proposed class
actions stemming from alleged water contamination by a popular
weed killer.

Defendant Syngenta Crop Protection Inc. and the potential class,
led by lead plaintiff Holiday Shores Sanitary District, have
dueling motions to compel up for argument.  Holiday Shores and the
potential class of Illinois water providers have sued Syngenta and
a number of other atrazine makers and distributors.  They claim
that atrazine, an herbicide commonly used by farmers, runs off
farm fields into their water supplies.  They claim the chemicals
contaminate the water.

Although the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has ruled that
atrazine is safe in drinking water up to three parts per billion,
the plaintiffs claim that smaller amounts may cause medical
problems in human beings.

The defendants deny the claims.

The defense has sought to stay or dismiss the Madison County case
until a federal suit over nearly identical claims is resolved.
That request remains pending.

While the atrazine suits were filed in Madison County six years
ago, the plaintiffs' counsel, Stephen Tillery, Esq., recently
filed a federal class action over nearly identical claims in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois.  Those
claims are brought by water providers in states including
Illinois, Missouri, Ohio, Kansas and others.

The defendants contended in arguments June 10 that the federal
suit should either end or stop the Madison County suit from
proceeding.  Syngenta argued that the federal suit provided a more
comprehensive forum for resolving the dispute.

The plaintiffs countered that the Madison County plaintiffs would
not necessarily fit the federal class and could potentially lose
out on relief.

Mr. Tillery said a stay of the action would turn the long-running
suit "into a circus."

Judge Crowder took the motion to dismiss or stay under advisement,
pushing off arguments on the motions to compel until July 1 at 10
a.m.

The setting may not be needed as Mr. Tillery and Syngenta's lead
counsel Kurtis Reeg, Esq., reached some tentative agreements on
the discovery matters that incited the motions to compel at the
last hearing.

The Syngenta case is Madison case number 04-L-710.

The atrazine suits are case numbers 04-L-708- 04-L-713.

The federal case, filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Illinois, is 3:10-cv-00188-JPG-PMF


TOYOTA MOTOR: Rival's Workers Can't Take Stand as Expert Witness
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press' Gillian Flaccus reports that a federal judge
overseeing sprawling litigation against Toyota Motor Corp.
indicated Wednesday he will not allow plaintiffs' attorneys to
call expert witnesses who work for the carmaker's competitors.

In tentative opinions, U.S. District Court Judge James v. Selna
also indicated he believes Toyota has the ability to compel
dealerships to preserve evidence from defective cars they inspect,
even though the carmaker's attorneys argued the dealerships fall
outside their authority.

Judge Selna also appeared to reject Toyota's bid to freeze
discovery on the merits of non-class action claims until the class
action cases could be certified -- a process plaintiffs attorneys
said outside court could take a year or more.  He also indicated
he would allow federal attorneys in the Toyota cases to share
confidential and propriety information about Toyota vehicles with
plaintiffs' attorneys handling cases in state courts in Texas, New
York and California -- but only with strict controls, careful
scrutiny and prior notification to Toyota attorneys.

The judge is expected to issue a final written order on all of
those issues within the next few days.

Resolution on the questions raised at the two-hour hearing should
clear the way for attorneys on both sides to start exchanging
information and taking depositions in the massive litigation,
which touches on more than 320 lawsuits in state and federal
court.  Judge Selna appeared to agree to a limited first phase of
discovery spread over anywhere between 75 and 120 days, while
plaintiffs' attorneys handling personal injury and wrongful death
claims said they would provide fact sheets on their clients to
Toyota for review.

Hundreds of lawsuits have been filed in federal and state court
against the Japanese automaker after it began its recall because
of acceleration problems in several models and brake glitches with
the Prius hybrid.  Toyota blamed faulty floor mats and sticky
accelerator pedals for the unintended acceleration.  Some
plaintiffs also claim that there is a defect with Toyota's
electronic throttle control system, but Toyota denies that.

The court will also take great pains to make sure as much of the
proceedings as possible are open the public while balancing it
with Toyota's concerns about the exposure of its proprietary
information, Judge Selna said.  "The material ought to be
available to be shared . . . and I think Toyota acknowledges
that," Judge Selna said.

Plaintiffs' attorneys have already provided Toyota with requests
to take testimony from witnesses in 23 categories, said Mark
Robinson Jr., Esq., an attorney overseeing the personal injury
cases against Toyota.

The complex case is structured so that depositions and evidence
turned over by Toyota in the consolidated federal case will be
shared with attorneys, judges and plaintiffs suing the automaker
in state courts nationwide.  Such a system means that witnesses
won't have to be questioned multiple times, thereby speeding up
litigation.

One issue that provoked debate at the hearing involved how much
highly confidential information plaintiffs' attorneys working on
the federal case could share with their counterparts in state
cases in other locations.  Plaintiffs' attorney bridled at
Toyota's suggestion that access to the most confidential
information -- such as computer source codes -- be restricted to a
small number of people in the federal case.  Such a rule would
result in a "two-tier system" that would cut out a large number of
plaintiffs, said Wylie Aitken, Esq., a plaintiff attorney.

"They have to feel that they're part of what's going on in this
courtroom and the judges that we're going to be working with,
whether it be Texas or Florida, they want to feel that their
litigants are getting the same type of treatment," Mr. Aitken
said.

But Toyota attorney Lisa Gilford, Esq., said some of the
information that will be placed in evidence at trial is extremely
sensitive and any leaks could severely damage Toyota's
competitiveness.

"We want to have a further line of control for that trade secret
and information that could be damaging should it get out into the
wrong hands," she told the judge. "We think the access to that
should be controlled by the court."

The next hearing, to discuss the details of the first phase of
discovery, is scheduled for July 20.

The plaintiffs are represented by:

     Mark P. Robinson, Jr., Esq.
     620 Newport Center Drive, 7th Floor
     Newport Beach, CA 92660
     Telephone: (949) 720-1288
     Facsimile: (949) 720-1292


TOYOTA MOTOR: Recalls 17,000 2010 Lexus HS 250h Vehicles
--------------------------------------------------------
Toyota Motor Sales (TMS), U.S.A., Inc., on Friday filed a
Noncompliance Information Report with the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, informing the agency of the company's
intent to conduct a voluntary safety recall of potentially 17,000
2010 model year Lexus HS 250h vehicles to address a compliance
issue with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 301.

As part of its annual compliance testing program, the NHTSA
recently conducted a test of the 2010 model year HS 250h.  The
test involved striking the vehicle with a deformable barrier from
the rear at approximately 50 mph.  The vehicle is struck by a
moving deformable barrier with a 70% overlap.  As part of the
test, the vehicle was then rotated on its longitudinal axis
incrementally to each successive increment of 90 degrees.  During
the rotation, the vehicle exhibited fuel spillage that exceeded
the requirement in the standard.

During vehicle development, Lexus tested the HS 250h using the
same protocol and found the vehicles to comply fully with the
FMVSS 301.  Lexus is currently working to identify the reason for
the different test results and the cause of this noncompliance.

"Even though our own testing of the Lexus HS 250h shows full
compliance with federal fuel system integrity standards, we are
working intensely to duplicate the noncompliance issue that the
NHTSA identified and to determine the reason behind the different
test results," said Steve St. Angelo, Toyota chief quality officer
for North America.

At the present time, Lexus has not identified a remedy to address
this issue, but it is working hard to do so promptly and will
notify owners as soon as one is developed.  Until then, as
required by federal law, dealers will not deliver any new vehicles
in their inventory that are covered by this NCIR until remedied.

In a separate statement, Mark Templin, Lexus Group Vice President
and General Manager, said, "We want to assure our customers that
their safety and satisfaction are our top priorities. We take the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) test
results very seriously and appreciate the NHTSA bringing its
concerns to our attention.  Our engineers conducted similar
testing during the development of the new HS 250h and the vehicle
performed safely.  While we are investigating and vigorously
working to understand the different test results, we have stopped
delivery of the involved vehicles.  As soon as the issue is better
understood and/or a remedy is developed, we will contact every
owner.

"Customers who have any questions or concerns should contact their
local Lexus dealer or Lexus Customer Satisfaction at 1-800-25LEXUS
or 1-800-255-3987."

Detailed information about this recall is available through Lexus
Customer Satisfaction at 1-800-25 LEXUS or 1-800-255-3987 or at
http://www.lexus.com/recall


WAL-MART: Sex Discrimination Lawsuit Allowed as Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
The world's largest retailer, Wal-Mart, is squarely in the
crosshairs of a sex discrimination class action lawsuit that may
have far reaching implications on sex-based bias in the workplace,
according to an article by Miller Cohen PLC.  On April 26, 2010, a
federal appeals court in San Francisco ruled that the lawsuit
against the retail giant may proceed as a class action. Originally
filed in 2001 by six female employees, the suit alleges that Wal-
Mart systematically discriminated against female employees by
denying promotions, paying women less than men and giving women
smaller raises.

Prior Sex Discrimination Suits

Wal-Mart has settled scores of sex-discrimination lawsuits in
recent years. It recently settled a lawsuit filed by the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission where the Commission alleged
that Wal-Mart denied jobs to female applicants at its London,
Kentucky distribution center from 1998 to 2005.  However, in the
present case, Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., the Plaintiffs
sought to certify a much larger class of potential plaintiffs:
women who may have worked at any Wal-Mart store in the United
States after December 26, 1998.  This prospective class would
include hourly and salaried workers in 3,400 locations who may
have been subject to Wal-Mart's allegedly discriminatory policies
regarding equal pay and promotions.

Wal-Mart's Appeal

In June 2004, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California issued an 84-page order granting class certification
for Plaintiffs' equal pay claim and all relief requested
(including back pay, punitive damages, injunctive and declaratory
relief). It also certified Plaintiffs' promotion claim, but did
not allow the proposed class to seek damages for back pay. Wal-
Mart contended that the trial court incorrectly certified the
class based on the evidence presented. The Plaintiffs also asked
the Court of Appeals to reconsider the trial court's ruling on
back pay pertaining to its promotion claim.

In February 2007, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
ruled 2-1 in favor of the Plaintiffs. Wal-Mart requested a
rehearing before the full Ninth Circuit. After rehearing the
appeal in March, an en banc panel held that the trial court
properly certified the class under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure. It reasoned that the court followed the precedent
set forth in General Telephone Company of the Southwest v. Falcon,
and that it correctly considered the evidence supporting each part
of the Rule 23 test.

Now certified as a class action, the suit may include as many as
one million women and potentially cost Wal-Mart billions in money
damages.  Wal-Mart may still petition the United States Supreme
Court to challenge the Ninth Circuit's decision and halt the class
action.

If you or someone you love has experienced discrimination in the
workplace, contact an experienced employment attorney. A lawyer
experienced in employment law can help you both understand your
options and receive the compensation you deserve.


WASTE MANAGEMENT: Mass. State Court Approves $7-Mil. Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
A Massachusetts State Court approved a $7 million settlement of a
class action lawsuit filed against Waste Management of
Massachusetts, Inc. by the company's garbage truck drivers over
prevailing wage violations and unpaid overtime.

In the case of Michael Mullally, et al. v. Waste Management of
Massachusetts, Inc., 452 Mass. 526 (2008), Waste Management's
Massachusetts drivers alleged that the company manipulated its
prevailing wage payroll records in order to deny them their
correct overtime pay. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
ruled in 2008 that the company used an illegal payroll formula to
determine the hourly rate it used to calculate overtime pay and
ordered the company to pay for an independent audit of its payroll
records.  After an extensive audit review, the parties held a
mediation session in late 2009, which resulted in the $7 Million
agreement that was finally approved today. Under the agreement,
more than 1,200 of Waste Management's Massachusetts drivers will
receive on average more than 200% of what they were lawfully owed
in overtime pay dating back to May 2003.

The drivers' attorney, F. Henry Ellis, III, Esq., at F. H. Ellis &
Associates. P.C. in Dedham, Massachusetts, stated that "this
settlement is a significant victory for the drivers. After being
told for years that their pay was correct, they'd had enough. It
took almost 5 years, but justice has prevailed. Most drivers will
receive checks for more than double what they should have been
paid in the first place. Some drivers will receive as much as
$60,000.00 in back pay. I couldn't be happier for all the hard
working men and women who are finally going to get paid. This is
not a bonanza; this is long overdue payment for hard work."

The plaintiffs' counsel may be reached at:

     F. Henry Ellis, Esq.
     F. H. ELLIS & ASSOCIATES
     4 Pearl Street
     Dedham, MA 02026
     Telephone: (781) 329-1157
     E-mail: fhe@bostonemploymentlaw.net

Mr. Ellis was assisted by:

     Thomas V. Urmy, Esq.
     Todd S. Heyman, Esq.
     SHAPIRO, HABER & URMY, LLP
     53 State St.
     Boston, MA  02109
     Telephone: (617) 439-3939
     Facsimile: (617) 439-0134
     E-mail: turmy@shulaw.com
             theyman@shulaw.com

Waste Management was represented by:

     David C. Casey, Esq.
     LITTLER MENDELSON
     One International Place, Suite 2700
     Boston, MA 02110
     Telephone: (617) 378-6000
     Facsimile: (617) 737-0052
     E-mail: dcasey@littler.com


WILTON INDUSTRIES: Recalls 7,300 Children's Tiara
-------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Wilton Industries Inc. of Woodridge, Ill., announced a voluntary
recall of about 7,300 Children's Tiara.  Consumers should stop
using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed.
It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The tiara contains high levels of lead.  Lead is toxic if ingested
by young children and can cause adverse health effects.

No injuries or incidents have been reported.

This recall involves the Wilton(R) Youth Tiara with a SKU number
of 120-228.  The SKU number is located on the back of the package
in the lower right corner.  The tiara is silver-colored with clear
crystals.  Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10279.html

The recalled products were manufactured China and sold through
Party City, Jo-Ann Fabrics, Ben Franklin Stores, Amazon.com, and
other retailers nationwide from June 2009 through April 2010 for
about $13.


* Parker McCay Atty. Speaks on Class Suits at N.J. Counties Confab
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Marlton Telegram in New Jersey relates Parker McCay
shareholder John C. Gillespie was a featured speaker at the 60th
Annual New Jersey Association of Counties Conference where he
delivered a presentation entitled, "The State of Current Class
Action Litigation Against Counties in the State of New Jersey."
Mr. Gillespie provided a comprehensive review of the class action
certification process, as well as recent class action litigation
concerning New Jersey county governments.

The conference was held on June 15 to 18, 2010.

Mr. Gillespie is co-chair of Parker McCay's Administrative, State
and Local Government Department, and is experienced in all areas
of municipal law, including governmental defense litigation, land
use and development.  He is a trustee of the New Jersey Institute
of Local Government Attorneys and serves as associate counsel to
the New Jersey State League of Municipalities.

Parker McCay -- http://www.parkermccay.com/-- provides
comprehensive legal services to a wide array of clients in such
specialties as litigation, public finance, corporate, governmental
and regulatory affairs.  The firm also provides counsel to clients
in the fields of banking, real estate, land use, health care,
creditors' rights, and employment law.  Parker McCay is
headquartered in Marlton, with offices in Lawrenceville and
Atlantic City.


* Schwartz Says Oil Spill Suits May Drain Funds From Legit Victims
------------------------------------------------------------------
Victor Schwartz, a partner at Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P., has
authored a June 21, 2010, commentary appearing in The Washington
Times.  Titled "Drain Gulf litigation gusher," the article
discusses the Gulf oil spill and the potential of plaintiff's
lawyers and class-action suits draining money away from legitimate
victims.

According to Schwartz, "The $20 billion victims fund, recently
announced by the president and paid for by BP, has the potential
to provide a solution to this developing problem, but only if the
fund is set up to draw clear liability lines and reduce litigation
costs."

A copy of the article is available at http://is.gd/d5IZO

                            *********

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  * * *