CAR_Public/100630.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Wednesday, June 30, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 127

                            Headlines

8X8 INC: Files Answer to Unpaid Overtime Suit in California
ACCELRYS INC: Class Suits Over Symyx Merger Pending in Calif.
ACXIOM CORP: Still Seeking Approval of "Fresco" Suit Settlement
AIRGAS INC: Remains a Defendant in Delaware Stockholders' Suits
ALPINE FUNDS: Statman Conducts Probe After 50% Dividend Cut

ALUMINA LTD: Motion to Dismiss Appeal in St. Croix Suit Pending
AMC ENTERTAINMENT: "Bateman" Case Remains Stayed Pending Appeal
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Malpractice Suit v. Milberg, Heuer Barred
ARENA RESOURCES: Settles 6 of 9 Merger-Related Class Suits
ARKANSAS: Suit Says Interest on Tax Debt Violates Constitution

BASS PRODUCTIONS: Accused in Ill. Suit of Not Paying Overtime
BIOSPHERE MEDICAL: Faces Suit Over Planned Merit Systems Merger
BJ'S WHOLESALE: Court Approval of Overtime Suit Still Pending
BORDERS GROUP: Overtime Payment Suit Still Pending in Calif.
BOYD & ASSOCIATES: Security Guard Suit Merits Class Certification

BP PLC: Class Suit Filed on Behalf of Chefs
BP PLC: La. Suit Complains About Refinery Safety Violations
BURLINGTON COAT: Defends Amended FLSA-Violations Complaint
CHINA ORGANIC: Settles Shareholder Suit for $300,000
CHINA SUNERGY: Court Approval of Suit Settlement Still Pending

DAKTRONICS INC: South Dakota Court Dismisses Amended Complaint
DONEGAL GROUP: Faces Suit Over Proposed Union National Merger
DYCOM INDUSTRIES: Records $1.6 Million to Settle Class Suit
DYNCORP INT'L: Faces Delaware Suit Over Parent's Merger Plan
DYNCORP INT'L: Faces Virginia Suit Over Parent's Planned Merger

EXPRESS INC: Remains a Defendant in California Labor Suit
EXPRESS PRODUCTS: N.J. Sup. Ct. Affirms Dismissal of Coverage Suit
FLAG TELECOM: Settlement Fairness Hearing Set for October 29
FOREST LAB: Prescription Drugs Anti-Trust Suit Still Pending
FOREST LAB: Appeal in Derivative Suit Stayed in 2nd Cir. Court

FOREST LAB: Marketing & Sales Practice Litigation Still Pending
HAWAII: Accused of Illegally Privatizing He'eia State Park
IBM CORP: Accused in N.Y. Suit of Not Paying Overtime
INTERACTIVE DATA: Faces "Page" Suit Over Planned Sale to Hg
INTERACTIVE DATA: Faces Amended "Marques" Lawsuit in Delaware

KELLOGG CO: Recalls 28 Million Boxes of Cereal
KOHLBERG CAPITAL: 3 Class Actions Pending in New York
LEGG MASON: Securities Claims Action Concluded
MASARI INVESTMENTS: Ariz. Court Cuts Attorney Fees to $63,161
MARQUEE HOLDINGS: Appeal of Bateman Certification Ruling Pending

MELBOURNE GREYHOUND: Accused of Unlawful Employment Practices
MICHAELS STORES: Faces Unfair Business Practice Suit in Calif.
MF GLOBAL: Appeal of Class Suit Dismissal Still Pending in NY
MISSION ESSENTIAL: Advocacy Group Mulls Suit Over Abuses
ORION ENERGY: Reaches Agreement to Settle New York Suits

PETSMART INC: Appeals of N.J. Pet Food Settlement Still Pending
REMEC INC: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissed Calif. Securities Suit
SIGNET JEWELERS: Two Discrimination Suits Still Pending in NY
TENNESSEE: Appeals Court Reverses Class Certification
TENNESSEE: Dept. of Safety Sued for Civil Rights Violations

THOR INDUSTRIES: Saxena White Files Securities Fraud Class Action
UBS AG: Settlement in 1996 Nazi Restitution Case Delayed
UNION FINANCIAL: Faces Suit Over Planned Merger with DFSC
UNITED RETAIL: Calif. App. Ct. Affirms Ruling on Morgan Wage Case
UNITED STATES: $3.4-Bil. Indian Settlement Still Awaits Senate OK

UNIV. OF BRITISH COLUMBIA: Sperm Donors' Suit Gets Certification
YTB INTERNATIONAL: Montroy Files "Ponzi Scheme" Suit in Madison
ZUMIEZ CORP: Remains a Defendant in "Berg" Suit in California


                            *********

8X8 INC: Files Answer to Unpaid Overtime Suit in California
-----------------------------------------------------------
8x8, Inc., said in a May 27, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission that it has filed on May 26,
2010, its answer to the first amended complaint filed by filed by
three former employees in Santa Clara County Superior Court.

The lawsuit, originally filed on January 27, 2010, is a putative
class action seeking damages and various penalties under the
California Labor Code for alleged unpaid overtime, meal breaks,
rest breaks and alleged late wage payments and unreimbursed
business expenses.  The Plaintiffs' filed a First Amended
Complaint on April 29, 2010, and the company filed its Answer to
the First Amended Complaint on May 26, 2010.

8x8 said it has factual and legal defenses  to the claims and are
presenting a vigorous defense.  The Plaintiffs have not made a
specific monetary demand and 8x8 said it cannot estimate potential
liability in this case at this early stage of litigation.

Based in Santa Clara, Calif., 8X8 Inc. offers software, services,
and equipment that enable voice and video communication over
Internet Protocol networks.  Through its Packet8 software suite
and related services, it allows subscribers to make phone calls
and perform other broadband networking functions using VoIP
technology.


ACCELRYS INC: Class Suits Over Symyx Merger Pending in Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Several lawsuits have been filed against Symyx Technologies, Inc.,
members of the Symyx board of directors, certain executive
officers of Symyx, Accelrys Inc., and Alto Merger Sub Inc. in
purported class action lawsuits brought by individual Symyx
stockholders in connection with Symyx and Accelrys' proposed
merger, Accelrys said in a May 28, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The class actions challenge the proposed merger and seek, among
other things, to enjoin the defendants from completing the Merger
on the agreed-upon terms.  Accelrys said that if the plaintiffs
are successful in obtaining an injunction prohibiting the parties
from completing the Merger on the agreed-upon terms, an injunction
may prevent the completion of the Merger in the expected
timeframe.

The first of the lawsuits was a class action lawsuit filed in the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara,
purportedly on behalf of the stockholders of Symyx, against Symyx
and its directors and chief financial officer, as well as Accelrys
and Merger Sub, alleging, among other things, that Symyx's
directors breached their fiduciary duties to the stockholders of
Symyx in connection with the proposed Merger. Subsequent to the
filing of the lawsuit, several additional suits were filed, also
in Santa Clara County, each of which is substantially similar to
the first lawsuit.  The lawsuits were ultimately consolidated into
a single action.  It is expected that the plaintiffs will file a
single, consolidated complaint, which will serve as the only
complaint in the combined litigation going forward.  Accelrys
expects that the consolidated complaint, like the four filed
complaints, will seek, among other things, to enjoin the
defendants from completing the Merger as currently contemplated.

On June 24, 2010, Accelrys disclosed that that Institutional
Shareholder Services, an independent proxy advisory firm, has
recommended that stockholders of Accelrys vote "FOR" the proposed
agreement providing for the merger with Symyx Technologies, Inc.
Accelrys will hold a special shareholder meeting at its
headquarters in San Diego, California, on
June 30, 2010 to vote on the proposed merger.

Headquartered in San Diego, California, Accelrys --
http://www.accelrys.com/-- develops scientific informatics
software and solutions for the life sciences, energy, chemicals,
aerospace, and consumer products industries. Customers include
many Fortune 500 companies and other commercial entities, as well
as academic and government entities. Accelrys has a vast portfolio
of computer-aided design modelling and simulation offerings which
assist customers in conducting scientific experiments 'in silico'
in order to reduce the duration and cost of discovering and
developing new drugs and materials. Its scientific informatics
platform underlies the company's computer-aided design modelling
and simulation offerings. The Accelrys platform can be used with
both Accelrys and competitive products, as well as with customers'
proprietary predictive science products. Its flexibility, ease-of-
use and advanced chemical, text and image analysis and reporting
capabilities enable customers to mine, aggregate, analyze and
report scientific data from disparate sources, thereby better
utilizing scientific data within their organizations.


ACXIOM CORP: Still Seeking Approval of "Fresco" Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Acxiom Corporation said in a May 26, 2010, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, continues to seek
preliminary court approval of a settlement resolving a putative
class action captioned Richard Fresco, et al., v. R.L. Polk and
Company and Acxiom Corporation, (U.S. Dist. Court, S.D. Florida,
07-60695) formerly, Linda Brooks and Richard Fresco v. Auto Data
Direct, Inc., et al., (U.S. Dist. Court, S.D. Florida,
03-61063).

The putative class action lawsuit was removed to federal court in
May 2003, filed against Acxiom and several other information
providers.  The plaintiffs allege that the defendants obtained and
used drivers' license data in violation of the federal Drivers
Privacy Protection Act.  As of May 26, a class has not been
certified.  Among other things, the plaintiffs seek injunctive
relief, statutory damages, and attorneys' fees.  Acxiom has agreed
to settle the case and is seeking preliminary approval by the
court.  The process of obtaining final approval of the settlement
is expected to take several months.  Acxiom has accrued $5.0
million for the settlement and ancillary costs to obtain final
approval and has paid $2.5 million of this amount into an escrow
fund established for the settlement, leaving a remaining accrual
of $2.5 million.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Tod N. Aronovitz, Esq.
         ARONOVITZ TRIAL LAWYERS
         150 W Flagler Street, Suite 2700 Museum Tower
         Miami, FL 33130
         Telephone: 305-372-2772
         Facsimile: 305-375-0243
         E-mail: ta@aronovitzlaw.com

             - and -

         Mark S. Fistos, Esq.
         JAMES HOYER NEWCOMER & SMILJANICH
         3301 Thomasville Road, Suite A-200
         Tallahassee, FL 32308
         Telephone: 850-325-2680
         Facsimile: 850-325-2681

             - and -

         Lawrence Dean Goodman, Esq.
         DEVINE GOODMAN PALLOT & WELLS
         777 Brickell Avenue, Suite 850
         Miami, FL 33131
         Telephone: 305-374-8200
         Facsimile: 305-374-8208
         E-mail: lgoodman@devinegoodman.com

             - and -

        James Kellogg Green, Esq.
        222 Lakeview Avenue, Suite 1650 Esperante
        West Palm Beach, FL 33401
        Telephone: 561-659-2029
        Facsimile: 561-655-1357
        E-mail: jameskgreen@bellsouth.net

R.L. Polk & Co. is represented by:

        Christopher M. Mason, Esq.
        NIXON PEABODY, LLP
        437 Madison Avenue
        New York, NY 10022

             - and -

        Scott J. Frank, Esq.
        BUTLER PAPPAS WEIHMULLER KATZ CRAIG, LLP
        One South Harbour Island Boulevard
        Tampa, FL 33602

Acxiom is represented by:

        Juan C. Enjamio, Esq.
        HUNTON & WILLIAMS, LLP
        Mellon Financial Center
        1111 Brickell Ave., Suite 2500
        Miami, FL 33131

Acxiom Corporation, headquartered in Little Rock, Arkansas, is a
customer data integration, data content and information technology
outsourcing services provider.  The company
provides data-processing services, database management, and
solutions for product-marketing applications.


AIRGAS INC: Remains a Defendant in Delaware Stockholders' Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Airgas, Inc., in a May 27, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission, maintains that the claims
asserted by plaintiffs in a number of purported stockholder class
action lawsuits are without merit and that it intends to defend
against them vigorously.

The actions were commenced against the Company and/or the members
of the Airgas Board in the Delaware Court of Chancery.  These
suits, which have now been consolidated, allege, among other
things, that the members of the Airgas Board have failed to
fulfill their fiduciary duties by refusing to negotiate with Air
Products, failing to seek more valuable alternatives and failing
to redeem the Company's shareholder rights plan.  The plaintiffs
seek equitable relief, as well as an award of compensatory
damages, costs and attorneys' fees.

Airgas Inc., headquartered in Radnor, PA, is the largest
independent distributor of industrial, medical and specialty gases
and related equipment in North America.  Airgas reported
$3.9 billion in revenue for the LTM ending December 31, 2009.


ALPINE FUNDS: Statman Conducts Probe After 50% Dividend Cut
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action law firm of Statman, Harris & Eyrich, LLC is
investigating Alpine Total Dynamic Dividend Fund and Alpine Global
Dynamic Dividend Fund for potential violations of state and
federal law.  AOD and AGD are closed-end mutual funds which up
until recently have traded at a premium of 30% or more to their
net asset values.

The firm's investigation was triggered on June 24, 2010, when the
Board of Trustees for the Funds declared the monthly dividend
distributions for AOD for the months of July, August, and
September 2010 would be $0.055 per share, a decrease of more than
50% from its previous distribution rate of $0.12 per share. The
monthly dividend distributions for AGD for the same months were
similarly lowered nearly 50% from $0.11 per share to $0.06 per
share.  The firm is investigating allegations that AOD and AGD
paid yields known to be unsustainable and damaging to shareholders
despite stated growth and income objectives, resulting in reduced
distribution rates.

AOD and AGD shareholders may have a claim against the Funds and
are encouraged to contact:

     Melinda S. Nenning, Esq.
     STATMAN, HARRIS & EYRICH, LLC
     441 Vine Street, Suite 3700
     Cincinnati, Ohio 45202
     Telephone: (513) 658-8867
     Toll-Free: (888) 876-7881
     E-mail: mnenning@statmanharris.com

for further information without any obligation or cost to you.

Statman, Harris & Eyrich, LLC -- http://www.statmanharris.com/--
has offices in Chicago, Illinois; Cincinnati, Ohio; and Dayton,
Ohio.


ALUMINA LTD: Motion to Dismiss Appeal in St. Croix Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alcoa, Inc., and St. Croix Alumina, L.L.C.'s motion to dismiss an
appeal in a class action relating to alleged personal injuries and
property damages caused by materials at the SCA facility in the
island of St. Croix in the U.S. Virgin Islands during Hurricane
Georges remains pending, Alumina Ltd. said in a May 27, 2010, Form
20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

In September 1998, Hurricane Georges struck the U.S. Virgin
Islands, including the SCA facility on the island of St. Croix.
The wind and rain associated with the hurricane caused material at
the location to be blown into neighboring residential areas.
Various cleanup and remediation efforts were undertaken by or on
behalf of SCA.  A Notice of Violation was issued by the Division
of Environmental Protection (DEP), of the Department of Planning
and Natural Resources (DPNR) of the Virgin Islands Government, and
has been contested by the company.  A civil suit was commenced in
the Territorial Court of the Virgin Islands by certain residents
of St. Croix in February 1999 seeking compensatory and punitive
damages and injunctive relief for alleged personal injuries and
property damages associated with "bauxite or red dust" from the
SCA facility. The suit, which has been removed to the District
Court of the Virgin Islands, names SCA, Alcoa Inc., and Glencore
Ltd. as defendants, and, in August 2000, was accorded class action
treatment.  The class is defined to include persons in various
defined neighborhoods who "suffered damages and/or injuries as a
result of exposure during and after Hurricane Georges to red dust
and red mud blown during Hurricane Georges."

All of the defendants have denied liability, and discovery and
other pre-trial proceedings have been underway since 1999.  In
October 2003, the defendants received plaintiffs' expert reports.
These reports also claim that the material blown during Hurricane
Georges consisted of bauxite and red mud, and contained
crystalline silica, chromium, and other substances.  The reports
further claim, among other things, that the population of the six
subject neighborhoods as of the 2000 census (a total of 3,730
people) has been exposed to toxic substances through the fault of
the defendants, and hence will be able to show entitlement to
lifetime medical monitoring as well as other compensatory and
punitive relief.  These opinions have been contested by the
defendants' expert reports, that state, among other things, that
plaintiffs were not exposed to the substances alleged and that in
any event the level of alleged exposure does not justify lifetime
medical monitoring.

In August 2005, Alcoa Inc. and SCA moved to decertify the
plaintiff class, and in March 2006, the assigned magistrate judge
issued a recommendation that class certification be maintained for
liability issues only, and that the class be decertified after
liability issues have been resolved.  This recommendation has been
adopted by the assigned district judge.  Alcoa Inc. and SCA have
turned over this matter to their insurance carriers who are
providing a defense.  Glencore Ltd. is jointly defending the case
with Alcoa and SCA and has a pending motion to dismiss.

On June 3, 2008, the Court granted defendants' joint motion to
decertify the class of plaintiffs, and simultaneously granted in
part and denied in part plaintiffs' motion for certification of a
new class.  Under the new certification order, there is no class
as to the personal injury, property damage, or punitive damages
claims.  (The named plaintiffs had previously dropped their claims
for medical monitoring during the course of the briefing of the
certification motions.)  The Court did certify a new class as to
the claim of on-going nuisance, insofar as plaintiffs seek
cleanup, abatement, or removal of the red mud currently present at
the facility.  The Court expressly denied certification of a class
as to any claims for remediation or clean up of any area outside
the facility (including plaintiffs' property).  The new class may
seek only injunctive relief rather than monetary damages.  Named
plaintiffs, however, may continue to prosecute their claims for
personal injury, property damage, and punitive damages.

On May 15, 2009, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on
the class plaintiffs' sole remaining claim, which sought
injunctive relief.  On May 22, 2009, defendants filed a motion for
summary judgment on the named plaintiffs' claims for personal
injury, property damage, and punitive damages.  On August 28,
2009, the Court dismissed the named plaintiffs' claims for
personal injury and punitive damages, and denied the motion with
respect to their property damage claims.  On September 25, 2009,
the Court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment on the
plaintiffs claim for injunctive relief.  On October 29, 2009,
plaintiffs appealed the Court's summary judgment order dismissing
the claim for injunctive relief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Third Circuit.  On November 24, 2009, Alcoa Inc. and SCA filed
a motion to dismiss that appeal. The company is unable to
reasonably predict an outcome or to estimate a range of reasonably
possible loss.

Australia-based Alumina Limited (ASX:AWC) --
http://www.aluminalimited.com/-- is engaged in investing in
bauxite mining, alumina refining and selected aluminum smelting
operations through its 40% ownership of Alcoa World Alumina and
Chemicals (AWAC).  The wholly owned subsidiaries of the company
are Albion Downs Pty. Ltd., Alumina Holdings (USA) Inc., Alumina
International Holdings Pty. Ltd., Alumina Brazil Holdings Pty Ltd,
Alumina (U.S.A.) Inc., Butia Participacoes SA, Westminer
Acquisition (U.K.) Limited, Westminer International (U.K.) Limited
and Westminer (Investments) B.V.  The geographical segments of the
company are Australia, North America, Europe, and South America,
Caribbean and Africa.


AMC ENTERTAINMENT: "Bateman" Case Remains Stayed Pending Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bateman v. Regal Cinemas Inc. et al., Case No. 07-cv-00052 (C.D.
Calif.) (Feess, J.), which names AMC Entertainment, Inc., as a
defendant, remains stayed pending the plaintiff's appeal on the
denial of his renewed motion for class certification.

The suit was filed in January 2007, before the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California, alleging violations of the
Fair and Accurate Credit Transaction Act.

FACTA provides in part that neither expiration dates nor more than
the last five numbers of a credit or debit card may be
printed on electronic receipts given to customers.  It imposes
significant penalties upon violators where the violation is
deemed to have been willful.  Otherwise damages are limited to
actual losses incurred by the cardholder.

The plaintiff is seeking an order certifying the case as a class
action as well as statutory and punitive damages in an
unspecified amount.

On Oct. 31, 2007, the District Court denied the plaintiff's motion
for class certification without prejudice pending the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit's decision in an
appeal from a denial of certification in a similar FACTA case.

On June 3, 2008, the President of the United States of America
signed the FACTA reform bill.  The bill specifies that if a
company printed the expiration date on credit card receipts, but
otherwise complied with FACTA, it did not willfully violate the
law.  The legislation does not specifically address the situation
where more than five digits of the credit card are printed on a
receipt.

The Ninth Circuit appeal was subsequently dismissed after the
parties reached a settlement.

On Oct. 24, 2008, the District Court denied plaintiff's renewed
motion for class certification.  Plaintiff has appealed this
decision.

The case is stayed pending this appeal.

No further updates were reported in the company's June 15, 2010,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended April 1, 2010.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Gregory N. Karasik, Esq.
         Ira Spiro, Esq.
         SPIRO MOSS BARNESS
         11377 West Olympic Boulevard, 5th Floor
         Los Angeles, CA 90064
         Telephone: (310) 235-2468
         E-mail: greg@spirmoss.com
                 ira@spiromoss.com

Representing the defendants is:

          David E. Novitskim, Esq.
          THELEN REID BROWN RAYMANS AND STEINER
          333 South Hope Street, Suite 2900
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-3048
          Telephone: (213) 576-8097
          Facsimile: (213) 576-8080


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Malpractice Suit v. Milberg, Heuer Barred
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division
Eight, held in Roger M. Lindmark, v. Milberg Weiss LLP, et al.
Case No. B211388 (Calif. App. Ct.); and Roger M. Lindmark, v.
Henry T. Heuer, et al., Case No. B214044 (Calif. App. Ct.), that
Lindmark is barred by the statute of limitations from pursuing a
legal malpractice suit against Milberg LLP and Henry T. Heuer,
Esq.  Mr. Lindmark filed the suit in February 2008.  The Appellate
Court said the malpractice action should have been filed at the
latest May 2005, and possibly even by March 2005.

Mr. Lindmark is trying to collect on a $1.107 million referral fee
Milberg paid Mr. Heuer.  The referral fee was generated by the
settlement in October 2002 of federal class action Lindmark v.
American Express Company in the United States District Court for
the Central District of California.  Milberg represented the
plaintiff class in the federal class action.  Mr. Lindmark claims
that he had an agreement with Mr. Heuer under which Mr. Heuer was
required to pass on the referral fee to Mr. Lindmark.

A copy of the decision is available at:

     http://www.leagle.com/unsecure/page.htm?shortname=incaco20100623048

Mr. Lindmark is represented by:

     Steven C. Glickman, Esq.
     GLICKMAN & GLICKMAN
     9460 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 830
     Beverly Hills, CA 90212
     E-mail: scg@glickman-law.com
     Telephone: (310) 273-4040
                (800) 858-4040

Milberg is represented by:

     Edith R. Matthai, Esq.
     Steven S. Fleischman, Esq.
     ROBIE & MATTHAI, P.C.
     500 South Grand Avenue, Suite 1500
     Los Angeles, CA 90071
     Telephone: (213) 624-3062
     Facsimile: (213) 624-2563

Defendant Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP is
represented by:

     Zesara C. Chan, Esq.
     Felicia A. Draper, Esq.
     Simone M. Katz-O'Neill, Esq.
     SHARTSIS FRIESE LLP
     One Maritime Plaza, 18th Floor
     San Francisco, CA  94111
     Telephone: (415) 421-6500 x265
     Facsimile: (415) 421-2922
     E-mail: zchan@sflaw.com
             fdraper@sflaw.com
             skatz@sflaw.com

Defendant Dennis J. Stewart is represented by:

     Wayne T. Lamprey, Esq.
     Francine T. Radford, Esq.
     Anne Hayes Hartman, Esq.
     GOODIN MACBRIDE SQUERI DAY & LAMPREY, LLP
     505 Sansome Street, Suite 900
     San Francisco, CA 94111
     Telephone: (415) 392-7900
     Facsimile: (415) 398-4321

Mr. Heuer and Prince & Heuer are represented by:

     Henry T. Heuer, Esq.
     Sunnie H. Han, Esq.
     PRINCE & HEUER
     2029 Century Park E #2500
     Los Angeles, CA 90067-3011
     Los Angeles-Long Beach, CA
     Telephone: (310) 277-7442


ARENA RESOURCES: Settles 6 of 9 Merger-Related Class Suits
----------------------------------------------------------
Arena Resources, Inc., disclosed in a May 28, 2010, Form 8-K
Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that,
together with Sandridge Energy, Inc., it has settled six of nine
shareholder lawsuits.

The nine shareholder lawsuits styled as class actions have been
filed against Arena and its board of directors.  The three
lawsuits filed in Oklahoma County (Eberhardt v. Arena Resources,
Inc., Tiemchan Phillips v. Rochford, and Reinfried v. Arena
Resources) were stayed by the District Court of Oklahoma City at a
hearing on May 10, 2010.  The parties in the six remaining actions
have reached stipulations consolidating, staying, or coordinating
the actions and have reached a memorandum of understanding under
which the actions would be settled.

On April 30, 2010, the parties to three lawsuits filed in Nevada
(City of Pontiac General Employees Retirement System v. Arena
Resources, Inc. et al.; West Palm Beach Police Pension Fund v.
Rochford et al.; and Kolesnik v. Arena Resources et al.)
stipulated that the actions would be consolidated for all purposes
up through and including preliminary injunction proceedings.  In
the same stipulation, the parties to two lawsuits filed in Tulsa
County (Slater v. Arena Resources, Inc., and Erickson v. Arena
Resources, Inc.) agreed that both actions would be consolidated,
stayed, and coordinated for all pre-trial purposes with the Nevada
Consolidated Action.  The parties in the federal suit filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma
(Stevenson v. Rochford) thereafter reached a stipulation to
coordinate discovery with the Nevada Consolidated Action.

On May 17, 2010, the Plaintiffs in the Nevada Consolidated Action
filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint.  The Consolidated Amended
Complaint alleges generally that Arena's directors breached their
fiduciary duties in negotiating and approving the merger and by
allegedly favoring their own interests over those of shareholders,
administering a sale process that failed to maximize shareholder
value, failing to obtain certain protections in the Merger
Agreement that would apply in the event of a decline in
SandRidge's stock price, and agreeing to certain termination fees
and other terms in the Merger Agreement.  The Consolidated Amended
Complaint further alleges that Arena and SandRidge aided and
abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty by filing a
deficient and misleading proxy.  Arena and SandRidge believe the
Consolidated Amended Complaint and all other complaints filed in
the shareholder lawsuits arising out of the proposed merger are
without merit and that they have valid defenses to all claims.

Nevertheless, in order to avoid the cost, disruption and
uncertainty of litigation -- and without admitting any liability
or wrongdoing -- the Defendants have entered into a memorandum of
understanding agreeing, subject to certain terms and conditions,
to settle the Nevada Consolidated Action, the Tulsa Consolidated
Action, and the Federal Action, which asserts similar claims for
breach of fiduciary duty and aiding and abetting breach of
fiduciary duty as well as a federal claim against Arena and
SandRidge under Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended.  Pursuant to the memorandum of understanding,
Arena and SandRidge have agreed to make certain additional
disclosure related to a proposed merger.

The memorandum of understanding contemplates that the parties will
seek to enter into a stipulation of settlement which provides,
among other terms, for certification of a settlement class and the
release of certain claims held by the class.  The stipulation of
the settlement will be subject to customary conditions, including
court approval following notice to Arena's stockholders.  In the
event that the parties enter into a stipulation of settlement, a
hearing will be scheduled at which the court will consider the
fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of the settlement.  Arena
said there can be no assurance that the parties will ultimately
enter into a stipulation of settlement that receives court
approval.  In the event, the proposed settlement as contemplated
by the memorandum of understanding may be terminated.

Arena Resources, Inc., is an oil and gas exploration, development
and production company with current operations in Texas, Oklahoma,
Kansas and New Mexico.


ARKANSAS: Suit Says Interest on Tax Debt Violates Constitution
--------------------------------------------------------------
According to The Associated Press, a proposed class-action lawsuit
claims Arkansas is violating the state constitution with the
interest charged on tax debts.  The lawsuit, filed Friday in
Pulaski County Circuit Court by the law firms Deininger &
Wingfield and Hatfield & Sayer, says the maximum interest that can
currently be legally charged is 5.5%, and that the Arkansas
Department of Finance and Administration is charging 10% interest
on judgments against tax debtors.

DFA Director Richard Weiss could not be reached for comment.

The rate makes it more difficult for anyone who owes an income-tax
debt, sales-tax debt or withholding tax debt to catch up in a weak
economy, said Reba M. Wingfield, Esq., of Little Rock.  "To charge
usurious interest on top of the exorbitant penalties by the state
and the IRS, it's just not right," she said.

Ms. Wingfield said that under Arkansas law, the interest rate on a
judgment is to be either 10% or 5% over the prime rate, whichever
is less.  When interest rates were high, the law helped Arkansans
who owed tax debts by limiting the interest they were charged to
10% or less.  But when interest rates fell, the state didn't
correspondingly change the amount of interest it charged to tax
debtors, Ms. Wingfield said.

Now, according to her firm, "interest rates are at an all-time
low, and unemployment is soaring."  Yet while interest rates have
steadily been less than 10% since 2007, Ms. Wingfield said, the
state has held its interest rate at 10%.

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Gary Sanford of Hot Springs
Village, Linda Yeager of Summers, Wayne Lilley of Plumerville and
Lilley's business -- Lilley Paint Co.

Mr. Sanford owes back income taxes for tax years 2000, 2001, 2002
and 2003.  Ms. Yeager owes income taxes for the 2001 tax year.
Mr. Lilley owes income taxes for 2001, 2003 and 2006 and his
company is owes the finance department for payroll-withholding
taxes for five months in 2003 and 2004.

Ms. Wingfield said the plaintiffs are seeking an injunction to
stop the practice or at least to divert interest payments being
collected into a fund to be held until the court decides the
matter.

Plaintiffs' lawyers may be reached at:

     Reba W. Wingfield, Esq.
     DEININGER & WINGFIELD, P.A.
     920 W. 2nd Street
     Little Rock, Arkansas 72201
     Telephone: (501) 372-3843


BASS PRODUCTIONS: Accused in Ill. Suit of Not Paying Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that R. Kelly (Robert Kelly) and
Bass Productions failed to pay support workers overtime during his
tours and studio work, a class action claims in Chicago Federal
Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Navarro v. Bass Productions, Ltd., et
al., Case No. 10-cv-03941 (N.D. Ill.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/06/25/rkelly.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglas M. Werman, Esq.
          Maureen A. Bantz, Esq.
          David E. Stevens, Esq.
          WERMAN LAW OFFICE, P.C.
          77 W. Washington, Suite 1402
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: 312-419-1008


BIOSPHERE MEDICAL: Faces Suit Over Planned Merit Systems Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
BioSphere Medical, Inc., faces a purported class action in
connection with its proposed merger with Medical Systems, Inc.,
according to the company's June 16, 2010, Form 8-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

On June 15, 2010, members of the Board of Directors of the Company
were served with a complaint for a purported class action on
behalf of holders of the company's securities, filed in the Court
of Chancery in the State of Delaware (CA5553-VCL), alleging they
breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the proposed
merger with Merit.

BioSphere Medical, Inc., seeks to pioneer and commercialize
minimally invasive diagnostic and therapeutic applications based
on proprietary bioengineered microsphere technology.  The
company's core technologies, patented bioengineered polymers and
manufacturing methods, are used to produce microscopic spherical
materials with unique beneficial properties for a variety of
medical applications.  BioSphere Medical's principal focus is the
use of its products for the treatment of symptomatic uterine
fibroids using a procedure called uterine fibroid embolization, or
UFE.  The company's products continue to gain acceptance in this
rapidly emerging procedure, as well as in a number of other new
and established medical treatments.


BJ'S WHOLESALE: Court Approval of Overtime Suit Still Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
BJ's Wholesale Club, Inc., said in a May 28, 2010 Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that its
remaining reserve for related payments in the overtime class suit
pending in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts is $2.4 million as of May 1, 2010.

In November 2008, BJ's was sued in a purported class action
brought on behalf of "current and former department and other
assistant managers," in which plaintiffs principally alleged that
they had not been compensated for overtime work as required under
federal and Massachusetts law. (Caissie v. BJ's Wholesale Club.,
Case No. 3:08cv30220.)

In the third quarter of 2009, BJ's recorded a pretax charge in
selling, general and administrative expenses of $11.7 million in
connection with a proposed settlement of this claim and related
payments.  Under the settlement, which still must be finally
approved by the court, certain current and former mid-level
managers will be eligible to receive payments to compensate them
for particular hours worked in prior years.  The settlement of the
lawsuit is not an admission by the company of any wrongdoing.  In
2009's first quarter, BJ's paid $9.2 million into a settlement
fund and $0.1 million in legal fees and are awaiting a final
approval from the court before all claims and related payments are
made.

While the ultimate outcome of the claims paid could differ from
what the company has recorded, the difference is not expected to
have a material impact on the company's consolidated financial
position or liquidity, BJ's said.

BJ's Wholesale Club, Inc. -- http://www.bjs.com/-- is a warehouse
club operator in the eastern United States.  BJ's revenues are
derived from the sale of a range of food and general merchandise
items, the sale of gasoline and from membership fees.


BORDERS GROUP: Overtime Payment Suit Still Pending in Calif.
------------------------------------------------------------
Borders Group, Inc., remains a defendant in a class action filed
in California alleging violations of the Labor Code, the company
said in a May 27, 2010 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission

In February 2009, three former employees, individually and on
behalf of a purported class consisting of all current and former
employees who work or worked as General Managers in Borders stores
in the State of California at any time from February 19, 2005
through February 19, 2009, have filed an action against Borders
Group, Inc., in the Superior Court of California for the County of
Orange.

The Complaint alleges, among other things, that the individual
plaintiffs and the purported class members were improperly
classified as exempt employees and that the Company violated the
California Labor Code by failing to (i) pay required overtime and
(ii) provide meal periods and rest periods, and (iii) that those
practices also violate the California Business and Professions
Code.  The relief sought includes damages, restitution, penalties,
injunctive relief, interest, costs, and attorneys' fees and such
other relief as the court deems proper.

Headquartered in Ann Arbor, Mich., Borders Group, Inc. (NYSE: BGP)
is a leading specialty retailer of books as well as other
educational and entertainment items. The company employs
approximately 25,000 throughout the U.S., primarily in its
Borders(R) and Waldenbooks(R) stores. Online shopping is offered
through http://borders.com/


BOYD & ASSOCIATES: Security Guard Suit Merits Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth Ofgang, staff writer for Metropolitan News-Enterprise,
reports the Fourth District Court of Appeal ruled on Thursday that
the lawsuit Faulkinbury v. Boyd & Associates, Inc., Case No.
G041702, which charges a company that employs security guards
throughout Southern California with failing to pay correct amounts
of overtime, must be certified as a class action.

Div. Three partially reversed Orange Superior Court Judge Gail
Andler's order denying class certification in the action against
Boyd & Associates, Inc., which has offices in North Hollywood,
Palm Desert, Santa Ana and Oxnard.  The panel ordered that a class
be certified of employees whose overtime premium was allegedly
calculated on the basis of an amount that was less than their
actual rate of pay.

In an opinion written by Justice Richard Fybel, however, the court
upheld Judge Andler's conclusion that claims the company failed to
provide meal and rest breaks cannot not be litigated on a class-
wide basis because there are predominant individual issues.

The plaintiffs, Josie Faulkinbury and William Levene, brought
their action on behalf of about 4,000 past and present employees
of Boyd.  They claimed that while employed by the company several
years ago -- Mr. Faulkinbury for about 13 months and Mr. Levene
for a little over two years -- they were denied the right to take
meal and rest breaks.  They also claimed that a gasoline allowance
and a uniform maintenance allowance amounting to 70 cents per
hour, along with a nondiscretionary bonus paid annually to
employees who had been at the company for more than 12 months,
should have been treated as wages for overtime purposes.

In denying class certification, Judge Andler concluded that it was
"not clear . . . that the proposed classes are ascertainable" and
that "it appears that individual questions of fact predominate."

Justice Fybel, however, said there was substantial evidence that
the company's liability for failure to provide meal breaks depends
on employees' individual circumstances.  Under Industrial Welfare
Commission regulations, Justice Fybel explained, an employer is
not required to provide off-duty meal breaks "when the nature of
the work prevents an employee from being relieved of all duty and
when by written agreement between the parties an on-the-job paid
meal period is agreed to."

Boyd, Justice Fybel noted, requires all of its employees to sign
on-the-job meal period agreements, and presented evidence that it
provides different levels of security service at many different
types of locations, so employees' meal arrangements vary from
location to location.  Some employees must work alone and are
unable to leave their posts to eat, some work with another
employee and can take off-duty breaks, some are able to leave
their posts during periods of inactivity, some are relieved by
other Boyd's employees at mealtime, and yet others are able to eat
because they are relieved by employees of the client, Justice
Fybel explained.

Besides, Justice Fybel wrote, "[a] class-wide determination that
the nature of the work exception did not apply to security guards
employed by Boyd would not in itself result in liability against
Boyd," because the court would still have to determine which
individual employees actually took on-duty breaks instead of off-
duty breaks mandated by law.

Similarly, with respect to rest breaks, "evidence showed that Boyd
had no formal policy denying off-duty rest breaks or requiring
employees to waive them," and declarations submitted by both sides
showed that practices varied according to individual
circumstances, Justice Fybel wrote.  He distinguished a Court of
Appeal ruling allowing a claim for failure to provide rest breaks
to go forward, noting that the employer in that case had "a common
policy of denying rest breaks and failing to pay for them."

As to overtime, however, the denial of class certification was an
abuse of discretion, Justice Fybel said, because the issues of
whether the annual bonus and the gas and uniform allowance were
wages are amenable to determination on a class-wide basis.  The
company's arguments on overtime, he said, relate primarily to the
merits and not to whether a class should be certified.

Justice Fybel also noted that the trial judge, in her order
denying the motion, did not distinguish among the three proposed
classes and made no findings suggesting that the overtime issue
specifically could not be resolved in a class action.


BP PLC: Class Suit Filed on Behalf of Chefs
-------------------------------------------
Laurel Brubaker Calkins and Margaret Cronin Fisk at Bloomberg News
report that Chef Susan Spicer of Bayona restaurant, in New
Orleans's French Quarter, filed a proposed class action against BP
Plc on behalf of chefs "whose occupation was destroyed and/or
adversely and detrimentally affected" by the worst oil spill in
U.S. history, caused by the sinking of the Deepwater Horizon rig
off the Louisiana coast in April.

"Much of the plaintiff's business is based on the unique quality
of Louisiana seafood, as well as the chain of delivery of that
resource from the initial harvester," Serena Pollack, Esq., one of
Bayona's lawyers, said.  "Because this chain of delivery cannot be
maintained, plaintiff's business has been and continues to be
materially damaged."

The complaint says restaurants must pay higher prices for the
dwindling supply of Gulf seafood and must also ship seafood in
from other regions because of the closure of much of the Gulf to
commercial fishing.  The latest National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration bulletin says 32.5% of the Gulf fishery, the
nation's second largest, is closed due to concerns over
contamination from the BP oil spill.

Bayona's suit seeks unspecified actual and punitive damages from
BP, which has primary liability as owner of the offshore lease,
and from Transocean Ltd., which owned the drilling rig.
Halliburton Energy Services Inc. and Cameron International Corp.,
which supplied the rig's cementing services and blowout prevention
equipment, respectively, are also named in the proposed class
action.

BP spokesman Mark Salt declined to comment on the suit.

Ms. Spicer was a judge at a recent "Top Chef" competition on Bravo
TV and is an occasional panelist on the Food Network's "Iron Chef
America" cooking challenge.  She received the James Beard
Foundation Award as best chef in the southeastern U.S. in 1993,
and is a consultant for the HBO series "Treme," about life in
post-Katrina New Orleans.

The lawsuit is Bayona Corp. v. Transocean Ltd., et al.,
10-cv-01839 (E.D. La.).  Plaintiff's counsel may be reached at:

     Serena E. Pollack, Esq.
     LOWE, STEIN, HOFFMAN, ALLWEISS & HAUVER, L.L.P.
     One Shell Square
     701 Poydras St Ste 3600
     New Orleans, LA 70139-7735
     Telephone: (504) 581-2450
     Facsimile: (504) 581-2461
     E-mail: spollack@lshah.com


BP PLC: La. Suit Complains About Refinery Safety Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sabrina Canfield at Courthouse News Service reports that while
BP's top U.S. official said he stands by BP's "culture of safety"
and said BP's practices are the same as those "deployed by the
other companies out there," a federal class action claims that BP
refineries in Texas and Ohio have accounted for 97% of the
"egregious, willful" citations from the U.S. Occupational Safety
and Health Administration in the past 3 years.

BP was cited for 760 such violations, while Sunoco and Conoco-
Phillips had 8 apiece, Citgo had 2 and Exxon had 1 comparable
citation, according to the complaint.

Plaintiff Armand's Bistro cites sworn testimony from BP employees
and engineers and documents released through investigation to
buttress claims that BP has a long history of sacrificing safety
for profit.  In its 72-page filing, Armand's Bistro also cites a
shareholder derivative complaint filed against BP in May.

Employee accounts of the weeks leading up to the explosion
indicate that numerous safety issues aboard the Deepwater Horizon
were ignored by BP.  Survivors of the explosion said they had
recurring problems with pockets of flammable natural gas bubbling
up the drilling pipes.  So much gas rose to the surface in the
weeks before the spill that all "hot work" had to be stopped,
including welding, cooking and any other use of fire or igniters,
according to the complaint.

Meanwhile on Thursday, a local attorney who represents several
plaintiffs in claims against BP estimated the company's actual
damages from the spill at $39 billion to $50 billion -- and said
that BP has hired bankruptcy attorneys in New Orleans.

Daniel Becnel Jr. did not say BP is preparing to file for
bankruptcy, but said that for the past month BP has paid attorneys
$1,100 an hour to work for 10 to 12 hours a day.  Mr. Becnel, who
represents Armand's Bistro, declined to name the firm.

Also on Thursday, BP America's Chief Operating Officer Doug
Suttles says he stands by BP's "culture of safety" and that BP's
practices in the Gulf of Mexico are the same as those "deployed by
the other companies out there."

Mr. Suttles told the Times-Picayune he'd like to see the U.S.
moratorium on deepwater drilling lifted as soon as possible.

"I understand why people might wasn't to put a moratorium in
place, but my personal view on this is we need to look very
rapidly at what needs to be done that gives you confidence to
restart [drilling in deepwater] because the consequences of
stopping are also significant," Mr. Suttles said.

Louisiana officials have said more than 10,000 jobs may be at
stake if the moratorium remains in place for 6 months.  Royal
Dutch Shell, which was not involved in the spill, has said it will
await the appeals process before resuming operations.

"Whether it's the safety equipment that's used, how it's tested,
how well designs are examined and approved or how decisions are
taken through that process, I would hope that those things could
be examined very quickly with the right experts and at minimum you
could come up with interim conditions to restart while you study
it even further," Mr. Suttles said.

Mr. Suttles appears to be the first BP official to publicly
question the moratorium.  Last week in congressional testimony, BP
CEO Tony Hayward said the moratorium was "probably the right thing
to do until such time as we have greater clarity."

U.S. District Judge Martin Feldman blocked the moratorium on
Tuesday and rejected the Interior Secretary's request for a stay
on Thursday.  Judge Feldman ruled that the moratorium was it
overly broad and arbitrary.

The Minerals Management Service has been criticized repeatedly for
its cozy, de-facto deregulation of oil companies.  Norway, Brazil
and other nations require drilling rigs to be outfitted with a
remote device that works as a last ditch effort to prevent a spill
in the case the blowout preventer fails.  The device costs about
$500,000.  BP says it has spent more than $100 million already
compensating Gulf Coast residents for the oil spill.

A copy of the Complaint in Armand's Bistro, L.L.C. v. BP, plc, et
al., Case No. 10-cv-01007 (D. La.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/06/25/BistrovLP.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel E. Becnel Jr., Esq.
          Matthew B. Moreland, Esq.
          Salvadore Christina Jr., Esq.
          Kathryn Becnel, Esq.
          BECNEL LAW FIRM, LLC
          P.O. Drawer H
          Reserve, LA 70084
          Telephone: 985-536-1186
          E-mail: dbecnel@becnellaw.com
                  mmoreland@becnellaw.com
                  schristina@becnellaw.com

               - and -

          Robert Becnel, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT BECNEL
          425 W. Airline Hey, Suite B
          LaPlace, LA 70068
          Telephone: 985-359-6100
          E-mail: robbecnel@aol.com

               - and -

          Morris Bart, Esq.
          MORRIS BART LLC
          909 Poydras St., 20th Floor
          New Orleans, LA 70112
          Telephone: 504-525-8000
          E-mail: morrisbart@morrisbart.com

               - and -

          Camilo K. Salas III, Esq.
          SALAS & CO., L.C.
          650 Poydras St., Suite 1660
          New Orelands, LA 70130
          Telephone: 504-799-3080
          E-mail: csalas@salaslaw.com

               - and -

          Richard J. Arsenault, Esq.
          NEBLETT, BEARD & ARSENAULT
          P.O. Box 1190
          2220 Bonaventure Court
          Alexandria, LA 71309-1190
          Telephone: 318-487-9874
          E-mail: rarsenault@nbalawfirm.com

               - and -

          Stanley M. Chesley, Esq.
          W.B. Markovits, Esq.
          Christopher D. Stock, Esq.
          WAITE SCHNEIDER, BAYLESS & CHESLEY CO., L.P.A.
          1513 Fourth & Vine Tower
          One West Fourth St.
          Cincinnati, OH 45202
          Telephone: 513-621-0267
          E-mail: stanchesley@wsbclaw.com


BURLINGTON COAT: Defends Amended FLSA-Violations Complaint
----------------------------------------------------------
Burlington Coat Factory Investments Holdings, Inc., defends an
amended complaint alleging violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act, according to the company's June 15, 2010, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended May 1, 2010.

A putative class action lawsuit, entitled May Vang, and all others
similarly situated, v. Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse
Corporation, Case No. 09-CV-08061-CAS, was filed in the Superior
Court of the State of California on Sept. 17, 2009.

The named plaintiff purports to assert claims on behalf of all
current, former, and future employees in the United States and the
State of California for the relevant statutory time period.

Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on Nov. 16, 2009.

The amended complaint asserts claims for failure to pay all earned
hourly wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, failure
to pay all earned hourly wages in violation of the California
Labor Code, providing compensatory time off in lieu of overtime
pay, forfeiture of vacation pay, failure to provide meal and rest
periods, secret payment of lower wages than that required by
statute or contract, failure to provide accurate, written wage
statements, and unfair competition.

The complaint seeks certification as a class with respect to the
FLSA claims, certification of a class with respect to California
law claims, appointment of class counsel and class representative,
civil penalties, statutory penalties, declaratory relief,
injunctive relief, actual damages, liquidated damages,
restitution, pre-judgment interest, costs of suit and attorney's
fees.

Burlington Coat Factory Investments Holdings, Inc. --
http://www.burlingtoncoatfactory.com/-- is a nationally
recognized retailer of high-quality, branded apparel at everyday
low prices.  The company currently serves its customers through
its 449 stores in 44 states and Puerto Rico.


CHINA ORGANIC: Settles Shareholder Suit for $300,000
----------------------------------------------------
China Organic Agriculture, Inc. has agreed to a settlement in the
shareholder class action lawsuit commenced against it in December
2008, according to the company's June 14, 2010, Form
8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Counsel for the company and counsel for the Plaintiff Class
entered into a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement which has
been submitted for approval by the Court.  Under the terms of the
settlement, eligible class members would receive a total of
$300,000 in cash together with shares of China Organic
Agriculture's common stock having a value of $300,000 in exchange
for a release of all claims which class members have or may have
against the company, its directors, officers, affiliates,
shareholders and agents, except claims arising out of or related
to the settlement.

Qian Qi, the newly elected Chief Executive Officer of the Company
commented: "The decision to settle this action reflects
management's desire to focus on the Company's business and avoid
the distractions that would result from mounting a defense to this
lawsuit. Although we believe that the Company and its personnel
did nothing improper, it is well worth it to pay the amount of the
settlement and put this matter behind us and focus on growing our
Company."

China Organic Agriculture Inc. --
http://www.chinaorganicagriculture.com/-- is based in China and
is primarily engaged in the acquisition, trading and distribution
of agricultural products.


CHINA SUNERGY: Court Approval of Suit Settlement Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sunergy Co., Ltd., disclosed in a May 28, 2010 Form 20-F filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that court
approval of its proposed settlement agreement of a consolidated
class action lawsuit is still pending.

Sunegry and several of its directors and officers were named
defendants in three purported class actions currently pending in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York: Brown v. China Sunergy Co., Ltd. et al., Case No. 07-CV-
07895 (DAB); Sheshtawy v. China Sunergy Co., Ltd. et al., Case No.
07-CV-08656 (DAB); and Giombetti v. China Sunergy Co., Ltd. et
al., Case No. 07-CV-09689 (DAB).

On September 29, 2008, the District Court appointed a lead
plaintiff and consolidated the three cases.  The lead plaintiff
alleges that the Company made false and misleading statements in
its registration statement and prospectus in connection with its
initial public offering in May 2007 regarding, among other things,
the procurement of polysilicon, and seek unspecified damages.

In July 2009, the defendants agreed to settle the class action.
The proposed settlement agreement, filed with the court on October
16, 2009, is still pending and must be approved by the court
before becoming final.  SunEnergy has recorded an estimated amount
of $1.1 million for the final settlement in its consolidated
financial statements as of and during the year ended December 31,
2009.

China Sunergy Co., Ltd. -- http://www.chinasunergy.com/-- is
engaged in designing, developing, manufacturing and selling solar
cells.  It manufactures solar cells from silicon wafers utilizing
crystalline silicon solar cell technology to convert sunlight
directly into electricity through a process known as the
photovoltaic effect.  It sells its solar cell products to
Chinese and overseas module manufacturers and system integrators,
who assemble its solar cells into solar modules and solar power
systems for use in various markets.  During the year
ended December 31, 2007, it produced both monocrystalline and
multicrystalline silicon solar cells.  In addition to standard
P-type solar cells, it commenced commercial production of
selective emitter cells, an improved version of the P-type solar
cells in 2007.


DAKTRONICS INC: South Dakota Court Dismisses Amended Complaint
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of South Dakota has
granted Daktronics, Inc.'s motion to dismiss an amended
consolidated complaint, according to the company's June 16, 2010,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended May 1, 2010.

The company and two of its executive officers are named as
defendants in a consolidated class action filed in in November
2008 on behalf of a class of investors who purchased the company's
stock in the open market between Nov. 15, 2006 and April 5, 2007.

In an Amended Consolidated Complaint filed on April 13, 2009, the
plaintiffs allege that the defendants made false and misleading
statements of material facts about our business and expected
financial performance in the company's press releases, its filings
with the Securities and Exchange Commission, and conference calls,
thereby inflating the price of the company's common stock.

The Amended Complaint alleges claims under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

The Amended Complaint seeks compensatory damages on behalf of the
alleged class in an unspecified amount, reasonable fees and costs
of litigation, and such other and further relief as the Court may
deem just and proper.

On June 5, 2009, the company filed a motion to dismiss the Amended
Complaint.

In July 2009, the plaintiffs filed a memorandum of law in
opposition to the company's motion to dismiss.

In September 2009, the company filed a reply memorandum in support
of the motion to dismiss.

On June 8, 2010, the Court granted our motion to dismiss the
Complaint without prejudice to plaintiffs being able to file a
formal motion to further amend the complaint within 20 days of the
date of the order.

Daktronics, Inc. -- http://www.daktronics.com/-- is a supplier of
electronic scoreboards, large electronic display systems and
related marketing services, digital messaging solutions and
software and services for sports venues, commercial and
transportation applications.  The company operates through five
segments: Commercial, Live Events, Schools and Theatres,
Transportation and International.  The Ccmpany offers a line of
products, from small indoor and outdoor scoreboards and
electronic displays to video display systems, as well as related
control, timing, sound and hoist systems and related professional
services.  The company is engaged in designing, marketing,
manufacturing, installing and servicing integrated systems that
display real-time data, graphics, animation and video.  The
company is engaged in a range of activities, including marketing
and sales, engineering and design, manufacturing and professional
services.


DONEGAL GROUP: Faces Suit Over Proposed Union National Merger
-------------------------------------------------------------
Donegal Group Inc. faces a purported class action in relation to
the proposed merger between its affiliate Donegal Financial
Services Corporation (DFSC), and Union National Financial
Corporation (UNFF), according to the company's June 16, 2010, Form
8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

UNFF, DFSC, and Donegal Mutual Insurance Company, reported they
have become aware of the filing of a complaint on June 14, 2010,
in the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County, Pennsylvania
against UNNF, each of the directors of UNNF, DFSC and certain
affiliated entities of DFSC.

The complaint purports to be a class action filed on behalf of the
holders of UNNF common stock arising from certain alleged actions
by UNNF and its board of directors in connection with the
previously announced proposed merger of UNNF with and into DFSC.

Donegal Group Inc. -- http://www.donegalgroup.com/-- is an
insurance holding company whose insurance subsidiaries offer
personal and commercial property and casualty lines of insurance
in five Mid-Atlantic states (Delaware, Maryland, New Hampshire,
New York and Pennsylvania), seven Southeastern states (Alabama,
Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia and
West Virginia) and six Midwestern states (Iowa, Nebraska, Ohio,
Oklahoma, South Dakota and Wisconsin).


DYCOM INDUSTRIES: Records $1.6 Million to Settle Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dycom Industries, Inc., said in a May 28, 2010 Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it has
received final approval of a settlement resolving a class action
alleging wage and hour violations.

In May 2009, the Company and one of its subsidiaries were named as
defendants in a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington.  The plaintiffs, all former employees of
the subsidiary, alleged various wage and hour claims, including
that employees were not paid for all hours worked and were subject
to improper wage deductions.  Plaintiffs sought to certify as a
class current and former employees of the subsidiary who worked in
the State of Washington.

In November 2009, the plaintiffs' attorneys, the Company and the
subsidiary entered into a memorandum of understanding pursuant to
which the parties agreed to the terms of a proposed settlement
with respect to the lawsuit.  In January 2010, the Court granted
preliminary approval of the proposed settlement.  Notice of the
terms of the proposed settlement and claim forms were mailed to
members of the plaintiffs' class in February 2010.  The Court held
a hearing regarding the plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of
the Class Action Settlement in April 2010, at which time it
entered an Order approving the settlement and dismissed the action
with prejudice subject to final administration of the terms of the
settlement.

As of April 24, 2010, approximately $1.6 million was included in
other accrued liabilities with respect to claims approved for
payment under the terms of the settlement.

Dycom Industries, Inc. -- http://www.dycomind.com/-- is a
provider of specialty contracting services.  These services are
provided throughout the United States and include engineering,
construction, maintenance and installation services to
telecommunications providers; underground locating services to
various utilities, including telecommunications providers, and
other construction and maintenance services to electric utilities
and others.  The Company also provides services on a limited basis
in Canada.


DYNCORP INT'L: Faces Delaware Suit Over Parent's Merger Plan
------------------------------------------------------------
DynCorp International LLC faces an amended complaint over its
parent company, DynCorp International, Inc.'s agreement and plan
of merger with Delta Tucker Holdings, Inc., according to the
company's June 15, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended April 2, 2010.

On April 11, 2010, DynCorp International, Inc., entered into an
Agreement and Plan of Merger with Delta Tucker Holdings, and Delta
Tucker Sub, Inc., each of whom is an affiliate of the private
investment firm, Cerberus Capital Management, L.P.
On April 16, 2010, a putative class action complaint was commenced
against the company, its directors, Cerberus, and Cerberus'
acquisition entities in the Delaware Court.  In this action,
captioned Shawn K. Naito v. DynCorp International Inc. et al.,
C.A. No. 5419-VCS, the plaintiff purports to bring the action on
behalf of the public stockholders of DynCorp International Inc.,
and seeks, among other things, equitable relief, to enjoin the
consummation of the Merger, and fees and costs.

Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the company's directors
breached their fiduciary duties by, among other things, agreeing
to the proposed Merger in which the consideration is unfair and
inadequate, failing to take steps to maximize stockholder value,
and putting their own interests above those of DynCorp
International Inc.'s stockholders.  The complaint further alleges
that Cerberus, Merger Parent and Merger Sub aided and abetted the
directors' alleged breaches of their fiduciary duties.

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

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

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

Meanwhile, plaintiff filed a motion for a preliminary injunction
of the Merger on May 17, 2010, and the court scheduled a hearing
to adjudicate that motion on June 17, 2010.

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


DYNCORP INT'L: Faces Virginia Suit Over Parent's Planned Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
DynCorp International LLC faces an amended complaint pending in
the U.S. District Court in the Eastern District of Virginia over
its parent company, DynCorp International, Inc.'s agreement and
plan of merger with Delta Tucker Holdings, Inc., according to the
company's June 15, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended April 2, 2010.

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

On April 30, 2010, the company, its directors and Cerberus'
acquisition entities were named as defendants in a putative class
action complaint, captioned Kevin V. Meehan v. Robert McKeon et
al., C.A. No. 1:10CV 446, filed in the U.S. District Court in the
Eastern District of Virginia.

In the complaint, the plaintiff purports to represent a class of
DynCorp International, Inc.'s stockholders and seeks, among other
things, equitable relief, including to enjoin the company and
Cerberus' acquisition entities from consummating the Merger, in
addition to fees and costs.  Plaintiff alleges in the complaint
that the company's directors breached their fiduciary duties by,
among other things, failing to engage in an honest and fair sale
process.  The complaint further alleges that the company and
Cerberus' acquisition entities aided and abetted the directors'
purported breaches.

On May 17, 2010, plaintiff filed an amended complaint asserting
claims under Section 14a of the Exchange Act, challenging
disclosures and alleged omissions in the company's proxy
statement.  On May 19, 2010, plaintiff filed a motion to expedite
the case.  On May 21, 2010, defendants filed a motion to dismiss
the amended complaint and, on May 24, 2010, filed a motion for
abstention, asking the court to abstain from proceeding with the
case in favor of the substantively similar and earlier-filed
action in Delaware.

On May 27, 2010, the court denied plaintiff's motion to expedite
discovery.  The Federal Court set a hearing on the company's
motions to dismiss and for abstention for June 18, 2010.  In
addition, following denial of the plaintiff's motion to expedite
discovery in this action, plaintiff's counsel agreed to coordinate
his discovery efforts with the plaintiffs in the Delaware action.

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


EXPRESS INC: Remains a Defendant in California Labor Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Express, Inc., remains a defendant in a purported class action
lawsuit action alleging various California state labor law
violations, according to the company's June 16, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended May 1, 2010.

The complaint was originally filed on Feb. 18, 2009, and an
amended complaint was filed on March 18, 2009.

The amended complaint contains six counts:

     (1) failure to provide required meal breaks to the class
         members and failure to pay the class members for missed
         meal breaks, including premium payments required by
         California law;

     (2) failure to provide required rest breaks to the class
         members and failure to pay the class members for missed
         rest breaks, including premium payments required by
         California law;

     (3) failure to pay wages in a timely manner to employees
         who were terminated or quit;

     (4) failure to pay overtime or premium payments in a timely
         manner;

     (5) failure to provide accurate wage statements; and

     (6) violations of Section 17200 of the California Business
         and Professions Code.

Express, Inc. -- http://express.com/-- is the sixth largest
specialty retail brand of women's and men's apparel in the United
States.  The company has 30 years of experience offering a
distinct combination of fashion and quality for multiple lifestyle
occasions at an attractive value addressing fashion needs across
work, casual, jeanswear and going-out occasions.  The company
currently operates 576 retail stores, located primarily in high-
traffic shopping malls, lifestyle centers and street locations
across the United States and Puerto Rico, and also distributes its
products through the company's e-commerce Web site.


EXPRESS PRODUCTS: N.J. Sup. Ct. Affirms Dismissal of Coverage Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In Tunica Pharmacy, Inc., and Business Pro Communications, Inc.,
v. Cumberland Mutual Fire Insurance Company, and Express Products,
Inc., Case No. A-5496-08T3 (N.J. Sup. Ct. App.), Tunica Pharmacy,
Inc., a lead plaintiff in a class action lawsuit filed against
Express Products, appeals from the dismissal without prejudice of
an insurance coverage action instituted by it and Business Pro
Communications, Inc., against a liability insurer of Express
Products, Cumberland Mutual Fire Insurance Company, on the ground
of comity.  A three-man panel before the Superior Court of New
Jersey, Appellate Division, affirmed the dismissal, finding that
(1) an earlier-filed insurance coverage action was instituted by
Cumberland in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania and remains pending; (2) the parties to
the two actions are substantially the same as the result of the
undertaking of Tunica and the class it represents to defend the
interests of Express Products in the Pennsylvania coverage
dispute; (3) a substantial identity exists in the issues presented
in the two actions; and (4) special equities do not require
continuation of the New Jersey litigation.

A copy of the decision is available at:

     http://www.leagle.com/unsecure/page.htm?shortname=innjco20100623387

Tunica is represented by:

     David Oppenheim, Esq.
     ANDERSON + WANCA
     3701 Algonquin Rd., Suite 760
     Rolling Meadows, Illinois 60008
     Telephone: (847) 368-1500
     Facsimile: (847) 368-1501
     doppenheim@andersonwanca.com

          - and -

     Alan C. Milstein, Esq.
     SHERMAN, SILVERSTEIN, KOHL, ROSE & PODOLSKY, P.A.
     4300 Haddonfield Road
     Fairway Corporate Center
     Pennsauken, New Jersey 08109
     Telephone: (856) 661-2078
     Facsimile: (856) 488-4744
     E-mail: amilstein@shermansilverstein.com

Cumberland is represented by:

     Robert M. Runyon, III, Esq.
     Nelson, Levine de Luca & Horst, LLC
     518 Township Line Road, Suite 300
     Blue Bell, PA  19422
     Telephone: (866) 257-0114
                (866) 716-0354
     Facsimile: (215) 358-5101
     E-mail: rrunyon@nldhlaw.com


FLAG TELECOM: Settlement Fairness Hearing Set for October 29
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Colleen McMahon of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the
Southern District of New York preliminarily approved a Stipulation
and Agreement of Settlement on June 21, 2010, in the action
IN RE FLAG TELECOM HOLDINGS, LTD. SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No.
02-CV-3400 (S.D.N.Y.).

The Court entered a prior order certifying class action on behalf
of all persons or entities who purchased the common stock of FLAG
Telecom Holdings Limited between March 6, 2000 and February 13,
2002, as well as those who purchased FLAG common stock pursuant to
or traceable to FLAG's IPO between February 11, 2000 and May 10,
2000, inclusive, and who were damaged thereby, but excluding any
such purchasers who sold all of their FLAG shares prior to
February 13, 2002.

A Settlement Fairness Hearing will be held before the Court on
October 29, 2010, at 2:00 p.m.

A copy of the Preliminary Order For Notice And Hearing In
Connection With Settlement Proceedings is available at:

     http://www.leagle.com/unsecure/page.htm?shortname=infdco20100623b48

The Court certified Lead Plaintiffs Peter T. Loftin and Joseph
Coughlin as Class Representatives.  They are represented by:

     Brad N. Friedman, Esq.
     MILBERG LLP
     One Penn Plaza
     New York, New York 10119-0165

The Individual Defendants are represented by:

     Jerome S. Fortinsky, Esq.
     Shearman & Sterling LLP
     599 Lexington Avenue
     New York, New York 10022-6069

Citigroup Global Markets Inc., is represented by:

     Douglas W. Henkin, Esq.
     Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy LLP
     1 Chase Manhattan Plaza
     New York, New York 10005-1413


FOREST LAB: Prescription Drugs Anti-Trust Suit Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
An anti-trust lawsuit brought by various pharmacies is still
pending against many pharmaceutical manufacturers and suppliers,
including Forest Laboratories, Inc., according to the company's
May 26, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.

The litigation alleges certain violations of the federal anti-
trust laws in the marketing of pharmaceutical products,
specifically price discrimination and conspiracy to fix prices in
the sale of pharmaceutical products.

The Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation ordered the
actions coordinated and consolidated in the Federal District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) under the caption
"In re Brand Name Prescription Drugs Antitrust Litigation."

On November 30, 1998, the defendants remaining in the consolidated
federal class action, including Forest, were granted a directed
verdict by the trial court after the plaintiffs had concluded
their case.  In ruling in favor of the defendants, the trial judge
held that no reasonable jury could reach a verdict in favor of the
plaintiffs and stated "the evidence of conspiracy is meager, and
the evidence as to individual defendants paltry or non-existent."
The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit subsequently affirmed
the granting of the directed verdict in the federal class case in
Forest's favor.

Following the Seventh Circuit's affirmation of the directed
verdict in Forest's favor, the company has secured the voluntary
dismissal of the conspiracy allegations contained in all of the
federal cases brought by individual plaintiffs who elected to
"opt-out" of the federal class action, which cases were included
in the coordinated proceedings, as well as the dismissal of
similar conspiracy and price discrimination claims pending in
various state courts.  Forest remains a defendant, together with
other manufacturers, in many of the federal opt-out cases included
in the coordinated proceedings to the extent of claims alleging
price discrimination in violation of the Robinson-Patman Act.

While no discovery or other significant proceedings with respect
to Forest has been taken in respect of those claims, Forest said
there is no assurance that it will not be required to actively
defend those claims or to pay substantial amounts to dispose of
those claims.  However, by way of a decision dated January 25,
2007, the judge handling the Robinson-Patman Act cases for certain
of a smaller group of designated defendants whose claims are being
litigated on a test basis, granted summary judgment to those
designated defendants against a group of designated plaintiffs due
to those plaintiffs' failure to demonstrate any antitrust injury.
Subsequently, the Court also granted the designated defendants'
motion for summary judgment with respect to the designated
plaintiffs' effort to obtain injunctive relief.  Discovery is
ongoing in the litigation.

New York-based Forest Laboratories Inc. and its subsidiaries
develop, manufacture and sell both branded and generic forms of
ethical drug products, which require a physician's prescription,
as well as non-prescription pharmaceutical products sold over the
counter.


FOREST LAB: Appeal in Derivative Suit Stayed in 2nd Cir. Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit stayed
an appeal raised by holders of Forest Laboratories, Inc.'s common
stock from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois's decision approving the company's motion to dismiss two
derivative actions, according to the company's May 26, 2010, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The directors and certain officers of Forest were named as
defendants in two derivative actions purportedly brought on behalf
of the Company and consolidated under the caption "In re Forest
Laboratories, Inc. Derivative Litigation."

The consolidated complaint in the derivative actions alleged that
the defendants breached their fiduciary duties by, among other
things, causing Forest to misrepresent its financial results and
prospects, selling shares of its common stock while in possession
of proprietary non-public information concerning its financial
condition and future prospects, abusing its control and
mismanaging the Company and wasting corporate assets.  The
complaint sought damages in an unspecified amount and various
forms of equitable relief.  In September 2006, the District Court
granted the Company's motion to dismiss the case on the ground
that the plaintiffs failed to make a pre-suit demand on its Board
of Directors.

New York-based Forest Laboratories Inc. and its subsidiaries
develop, manufacture and sell both branded and generic forms of
ethical drug products, which require a physician's prescription,
as well as non-prescription pharmaceutical products sold over the
counter.


FOREST LAB: Marketing & Sales Practice Litigation Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Forest Laboratories, Inc., and Forest Pharmaceuticals, Inc., said
in a May 26, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission, that they intend to vigorously defend against
federal actions filed on behalf of entities or individuals who
purchased or reimbursed certain purchases of Celexa or Lexapro,
all of which have been consolidated for pretrial purposes in a
multidistrict litigation proceeding in the United States District
Court for the District of Massachusetts under the caption "In re
Celexa and Lexapro Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation."

These actions, three of which are purported nationwide class
actions, and one of which is a purported California-wide class
action, allege that FLI and FPI marketed Celexa and Lexapro for
off-label pediatric use and paid illegal kickbacks to physicians
to induce prescriptions of Celexa and Lexapro.  The complaints
assert various similar claims, including claims under a number of
state consumer protection statutes, state common laws, and the
federal RICO statute.  FLI and FPI have moved to dismiss the
complaints, and they intend to continue to vigorously defend
against these cases.

FLI or FPI are also named as defendants in two similar actions
pending in the Missouri Circuit Court, Twenty-Second Judicial
Circuit, arising from nearly identical allegations as those
contained in the federal actions.  The first action, filed on July
22, 2009 under the caption "Crawford v. Forest Pharmaceuticals,
Inc.," is a putative class action on behalf of a class of Missouri
citizens who purchased Celexa for pediatric use.  Only FPI, which
is headquartered in Missouri, is named as a defendant.  The
complaint asserts claims under the Missouri consumer protection
statute and Missouri common law, and seeks unspecified damages and
attorneys' fees.  On January 5, 2010, FPI filed an answer to the
complaint and moved to join FLI as a necessary party.  The same
day, FLI moved to intervene as a defendant.  On February 4, 2010,
plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification, which has been
held in abeyance pending rulings on other pending motions.  The
second action, filed on November 6, 2009 under the caption "St.
Louis Labor Healthcare Network et al. v. Forest Pharmaceuticals,
Inc. and Forest Laboratories, Inc.," is brought by two entities
that purchased or reimbursed certain purchases of Celexa or
Lexapro.  The complaint asserts claims under the Missouri consumer
protection statute and Missouri common law, and seeks unspecified
damages and attorneys' fees.

New York-based Forest Laboratories Inc. and its subsidiaries
develop, manufacture and sell both branded and generic forms of
ethical drug products, which require a physician's prescription,
as well as non-prescription pharmaceutical products sold over the
counter.


HAWAII: Accused of Illegally Privatizing He'eia State Park
----------------------------------------------------------
Tim Hull at Courthouse News Service reports that Hawaiian
officials illegally privatized a historic state park and limited
its public use by awarding a 25-year lease to a child care and
tourism company, according to a federal class action in Honolulu.
The class claims Hawaii's natural resources director did it
despite the Legislature's rejection of her proposals to raise more
money from state parks.

He'eia State Park, on Kaneohe Bay, is home to several endangered
species and has been used by native Hawaiians as a religious site
since ancient times.

For decades the defendant nonprofit Friends of He'eia State Park
held the lease to manage the park.  But in April Hawaii Department
of Land and Natural Resources Director Laura Thielen handed the
keys to Kama'aina Kids, a nonprofit that runs "preschool programs,
before and afterschool programs, day camps, environmental
education programs, enrichment programs, sports clinics and hotel
programs."

The class claims Ms. Thielen violated state and federal laws
because the land was bought with federal money and Kama'aina Kids
is a "private entity."

"The state is in the process of privatizing lands purchased with
federal dollars in transferring total use of the He'eia State Park
to a private entity," the complaint states.

"Thielen seeks to erase decades long efforts for protection of
this federally funded purchase of He'eia State Park to in one fell
swoop accomplish the quasi theft of public lands for privatized
use, ignore federal statute and protections for the next 25 years
in a de facto unauthorized predetermined transfer of complete
control of the public land through a scheme of a bid process in
which the winner was pre-selected and the competition was a
fraudulent act."

In announcing the lease on April 9, the state said in a statement
that "Kama'aina Kids has expressed an interest in collaboration
with the board members of the Friends of He'eia and many other
members of the community on new and future program development --
as they also strive to generate income to improve the aging and
unsightly conditions of this historical park."

But the class claims that Ms. Thielen skipped permitting
procedures to award the lease, and defied the Legislature after it
rejected her previous efforts to glean more income from Hawaii's
state parks.

"After failing in the State Legislature to use the State Parks as
an income source under legislation known as 'Recreational
Renaissance,' Thielen nonetheless, in clear violation of the
intent of the Hawaii State Legislature, issued the lease that in
exchange for dollars from the private income production grossly
limited public use of He'eia State Park," the lawsuit claims.

Ms. Thielen denied the allegations in an article posted on
Honolulu's ABC TV affiliate, saying, "This is a public park, it
will stay a public park but we've strengthened the contract of the
lease to make it very clear our state park rules apply.  It is
open to the public, all the existing programs will continue, the
community uses will continue."

The class alleges violations of the National Historical
Preservation Act, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the Clean
Water Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Civil Rights Act and
other federal and state laws.

It wants the lease enjoined and wants the Friends of He'eia State
Park to resume management of the park until "all required permits,
assessments and notifications required under the federal statutes
herein be complied with."

A copy of the Complaint in Seto, et al. v. Thielen, et al.,
Case No. 10-cv-00351 (D. Haw.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/06/25/HawaiiPark.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Anthony P. Locricchio, Esq.
          903 Maunawili Circle
          Kailua, HI 96734
          Telephone: 808-261-8372
          E-mail: tony96734@yahoo.com


IBM CORP: Accused in N.Y. Suit of Not Paying Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that IBM stiffed call-center
workers for overtime, according to a class action in Manhattan
Federal Court.

A copy of the Complaint was not available at press time from the
Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York.


INTERACTIVE DATA: Faces "Page" Suit Over Planned Sale to Hg
-----------------------------------------------------------
Interactive Data Corporation faces a suit in connection with its
planned sale to Hg Investors LLC, according to the company's June
17, 2010, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

On June 10, 2010, a lawsuit was filed in the Court of Chancery in
the State of Delaware by Kenneth M. Page against the company, each
member of the Board of Directors of the company, such members
being Rona A. Fairhead, Raymond L. D'Arcy, Philip J. Hoffman,
Donald C. Kilburn, Luke Swanson, Casper J.A. Hobbs, Donald P.
Greenberg, Myra R. Drucker, Robert C. Lamb, Jr. and Victor R.
Simone, Christine Sampson, Interim Chief Financial Officer of the
company, Warburg Pincus LLC, Silver Lake Technology Management
L.L.C., Hg Investors LLC, Igloo Merger Corporation and Pearson DBC
Holdings Inc., regarding the proposed sale of the company to Hg
Investors and Igloo, affiliates of Warburg Pincus and Silver Lake.

Mr. Page alleges in his complaint that he is a stockholder of the
company and asserts breach of fiduciary duty claims against the
above-named individuals and aiding and abetting breaches of
fiduciary duty claims against the company, Warburg Pincus, Silver
Lake, Hg Investors, Igloo and Pearson.  Mr. Page purports to sue
on his own behalf and on behalf of a class consisting of the
company's stockholders.

Among other forms of injunctive relief, Mr. Page purports to seek
to enjoin the Proposed Transaction and recission of the Agreement
and Plan of Merger, dated as of May 3, 2010, among Hg Investors,
Igloo and the company.  The defendants intend to defend the
lawsuit vigorously, including opposing any efforts to enjoin the
Proposed Transaction or rescind the Merger Agreement.

Mr. Page filed a similar lawsuit on May 4, 2010 in the Superior
Court of Middlesex County, Massachusetts.

Interactive Data Corporation -- http://www.interactivedata.com/--
is a trusted leader in financial information.  Thousands of
financial institutions and active traders, as well as hundreds of
software and service providers, subscribe to the company's fixed
income evaluations, reference data, real-time market data, trading
infrastructure services, fixed income analytics, desktop solutions
and web-based solutions. Interactive Data's offerings can help
clients around the world with mission-critical functions,
including portfolio valuation, regulatory compliance, risk
management, electronic trading and wealth management.  Interactive
Data is headquartered in Bedford, Massachusetts and has more than
2,400 employees in offices worldwide.  Pearson plc (NYSE: PSO;
LSE: PSON), an international media company, is Interactive Data's
majority stockholder.


INTERACTIVE DATA: Faces Amended "Marques" Lawsuit in Delaware
-------------------------------------------------------------
Brad Marques has amended his lawsuit against Interactive Data
Corporation, in connection with the planned sale of the company to
Hg Investors LLC, according to the company's June 17, 2010, Form
8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

On May 14, 2010, a complaint was filed in the Court of Chancery of
the State of Delaware by Brad Marques, naming as defendants each
member of the Board of Directors of the company, such members
being Rona Fairhead, Raymond D'Arcy, Donald Greenberg, Philip
Hoffman, Robert Lamb, Caspar Hobbs, Myra Drucker, Donald Kilburn,
Victor Simone and Luke Swanson, the Company, Pearson DBC Holdings,
Inc., Silver Lake Technology Management L.L.C., Warburg Pincus
LLC, Hg Investors LLC and Igloo Merger Corporation (along with Hg
Investors, as affiliates of Silver Lake and Warburg) regarding the
proposed acquisition of the company by Hg Investors.

Mr. Marques alleges in his complaint that he is a stockholder of
the company and asserts breach of fiduciary duty claims against
the individual members of the Board and Pearson, and aiding and
abetting claims against the company, Pearson, Silver Lake, Warburg
and the individual members of the Board. Mr. Marques purports to
sue on his own behalf and on behalf of a class consisting of the
company's stockholders and their successors in interest (other
than the defendants and their affiliates).  Mr. Marques purports
to seek to enjoin the Proposed Transaction or, in the event the
Proposed Transaction is consummated prior to the entry of a final
judgement, recission of the Proposed Transaction or an award of
rescissory damages. The defendants intend to defend the lawsuit
vigorously, including opposing any efforts to enjoin the Proposed
Transaction.

On June 7, 2010, Brad Marques amended his lawsuit.

Interactive Data Corporation -- http://www.interactivedata.com/--
is a trusted leader in financial information.  Thousands of
financial institutions and active traders, as well as hundreds of
software and service providers, subscribe to the company's fixed
income evaluations, reference data, real-time market data, trading
infrastructure services, fixed income analytics, desktop solutions
and web-based solutions. Interactive Data's offerings can help
clients around the world with mission-critical functions,
including portfolio valuation, regulatory compliance, risk
management, electronic trading and wealth management.  Interactive
Data is headquartered in Bedford, Massachusetts and has more than
2,400 employees in offices worldwide.  Pearson plc (NYSE: PSO;
LSE: PSON), an international media company, is Interactive Data's
majority stockholder.


KELLOGG CO: Recalls 28 Million Boxes of Cereal
----------------------------------------------
Ilan Brat and Nathan Becker at Dow Jones Newswires report that
Kellogg Co. recalled about 28 million boxes of cereal largely
marketed to children out of concern that unpleasant smells and
flavors emanating from the boxes' plastic packaging can cause
nausea and diarrhea.

According to a company press release, only products with the
letters "KN" following the Better If Used Before Date are included
in the recall.  Products with a "KM" designation are NOT included
in the recall. In addition, no products in Canada are affected.

Kellogg's(R) Apple Jacks(R)

    * UPC 3800039136 1: 17 ounce package with Better if Used
      Before Dates between APR 10 2011 and JUN 22 2011
    * UPC 3800039132 3: 8.7 ounce packages with Better if Used
      Before Dates between JUN 03 2011 and JUN 22 2011

Kellogg's(R) Corn Pops(R)

    * UPC 3800039109 5: 12.5 ounce packages with Better if Used
      Before Dates between MAR 26 2011 and JUN 22 2011
    * UPC 3800039111 8: 17.2 ounce packages with Better if Used
      Before Dates between MAR 26 2011 and JUN 22 2011
    * UPC 3800039116 3: 9.2 ounce packages with Better if Used
      Before Dates between APR 05 2011 and JUN 22 2011

Kellogg's(R) Froot Loops(R)

    * UPC 3800039118 7: 12.2 ounce packages with Better if Used
      Before Dates between MAR 26 2011 and JUN 22 2011
    * UPC 3800039120 0: 17 ounce packages with Better if Used
      Before Dates between MAR 26 2011 and JUN 22 2011
    * UPC 3800039125 5: 8.7 ounce packages with Better if Used
      Before Dates between MAR 26 2011 and JUN 22 2011

Kellogg's(R) Honey Smacks(R)

    * UPC 3800039103 3: 15.3 ounce packages with Better if Used
      Before Dates between MAR 26 2011 and JUN 22 2011

While the potential for serious health problems is low, some
consumers are sensitive to the uncharacteristic off-flavor and
smell and should not eat the recalled products because of possible
temporary symptoms, including nausea and diarrhea.  No other
Kellogg's products are part of this recall.  The recalled products
were distributed nationwide.

Dow Jones Newswires notes that Adaire Putnam, a spokeswoman for
Kellogg, said that complaints were received from about 20 people,
including five who reported nausea and vomiting.  The report
relates Ms. Putnam said the bags producing the unpleasant smells
and flavors in the cereals were first used in cereal boxes in late
March.  In the next several months consumers reported stale,
metallic and soap-like tastes and scents, Ms. Putnam added.

Dow Jones Newswires relates that the company first noticed a
pattern of complaints on June 23, 2010, and began working to
notify customers and consumers.  The report says that a spokesman
for the U.S. Food and Drug Administration said the company
initiated the recall and notified the agency.

Ms. Putnam, the report adds, said the company's chemists are
studying whether a wax-like compound in the packaging may be the
cause.


KOHLBERG CAPITAL: 3 Class Actions Pending in New York
-----------------------------------------------------
Kohlberg Capital Corporation disclosed in a May 28, 2010 Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that the
company and certain directors and officers continue to face three
putative class actions pending in the Southern District of New
York brought by shareholders of the Company and filed in December
2009 and January 2010.  The complaints in these three actions
allege violations of Sections 10 and 20 of the Exchange Act based
on the Company's disclosures of its year-end 2008 and first- and
second-quarter 2009 financial statements.

The Company said it believes that each of the suits is without
merit and will defend each vigorously.

Kohlberg Capital Corporation -- http://www.kohlbergcapital.com/
-- is a publicly traded, internally managed business development
company.  Its middle market investment business originates,
structures, finances and manages a portfolio of term loans,
mezzanine investments and selected equity securities in middle
market companies. Its wholly-owned portfolio company, Katonah Debt
Advisors, manages CLO Funds that invest in broadly syndicated
corporate term loans, high-yield bonds and other credit
instruments.


LEGG MASON: Securities Claims Action Concluded
----------------------------------------------
Legg Mason, Inc., said in a May 28, 2010 Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that the securities class
action filed in October 2006 is concluded.

Legg Mason and a current and former officer, together with an
underwriter in a public offering, were named as defendants in a
consolidated legal action that was initially filed in October
2006.  The action alleged that the defendants violated the
Securities Act of 1933 by omitting certain material facts with
respect to the acquisition of Citigroup's worldwide asset
management business in a prospectus used in a secondary stock
offering in order to artificially inflate the price of our common
stock.

On March 17, 2008, the action was dismissed with prejudice, and on
September 30, 2009, the dismissal was affirmed on appeal.  The
plaintiffs have no further avenue to appeal the dismissal, so this
proceeding is concluded.

Legg Mason, Inc. -- http://www.leggmason.com/-- is a global
asset management company.  Acting through its subsidiaries, the
company provides investment management and related services to
institutional and individual clients, Company-sponsored mutual
funds and retail separately managed account programs.  The
company offers these products and services directly and through
various financial intermediaries.  The company operates its
business as two divisions: Americas and International.


MASARI INVESTMENTS: Ariz. Court Cuts Attorney Fees to $63,161
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge David G. Campbell of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Arizona approved a class action settlement agreement
in Renia Bogner and Jeff Bogner, on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated, v. Masari Investments, LLC; Joseph F.
Musumeci, P.C.; and Joseph F. Musumeci (Case No. 08-cv-1511) (D.
Ariz.), as a fair, reasonable, and adequate resolution of the
class claims.  The Court also granted, in part, the Plaintiffs'
motion for attorney fees and costs, awarding $63,161 in attorneys
fees.  The Plaintiffs requested a fee award of $69,671, but the
Defendants asserted several objections to the fee request.

The Bogners filed the class action complaint against Masari and
Musumeci in August 2008, alleging the Defendants violated the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act.

A copy of the decision is available at:

     http://www.leagle.com/unsecure/page.htm?shortname=infdco20100624f01

The Plaintiffs were represented by:

     Richard Groves, Esq.
     4045 E. Union Hills Dr., Ste. 126
     Phoenix, Arizona

          - and -

     O. Randolph Bragg, Esq.
     Horwitz, Horwitz & Associates
     25 E. Washington Street, Suite 900
     Chicago, Illinois 60602
     Telephone: (312) 372-8822
     Facsimile: (312) 372-1673


MARQUEE HOLDINGS: Appeal of Bateman Certification Ruling Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiff's appeal of the denial of his renewed motion for
class certification in Bateman v. American Multi-Cinema, Inc.,
Case No. 07-cv-00171 (C.D. Calif.), which names Marquee Holdings,
Inc., as a defendant, is pending.

The lawsuit alleges violations of the Fair and Accurate Credit
Transactions Act.  FACTA provides in part that neither expiration
dates nor more than the last five numbers of a credit or debit
card may be printed on receipts given to customers.  It imposes
significant penalties upon violators where the violation is deemed
to have been willful.  Otherwise damages are limited to actual
losses incurred by the card holder.

The plaintiff is seeking an order certifying the case as a class
action as well as statutory and punitive damages in an
unspecified amount.

On Oct. 31, 2007, the District Court denied the plaintiff's motion
for class certification without prejudice pending the
Ninth Circuit's decision in an appeal from a denial of
certification in a similar FACTA case.

The District Court stayed all proceedings in the case pending the
outcome of the Ninth Circuit case.

On June 3, 2008, the President of the United States of America
signed the FACTA reform bill.  The bill specifies that if a
company printed the expiration date on credit card receipts, but
otherwise complied with FACTA, it did not willfully violate the
law.  The legislation does not specifically address the situation
where more than five digits of the credit card are printed on a
receipt.

The Ninth Circuit appeal was subsequently dismissed after the
parties reached a settlement.

On Oct. 24, 2008, the District Court denied plaintiff's renewed
motion for class certification.

Plaintiff has appealed this decision and the case is stayed
pending this appeal.

No further updates were reported in the company's June 15, 2010,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended April 1, 2010.

The suit is Michael Bateman v. Regal Cinemas Inc. et al., Case No.
07-cv-00052 (C.D. Calif.) (Feess, J.).

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Gregory N. Karasik, Esq.
         Ira Spiro, Esq.
         SPIRO MOSS BARNESS
         11377 West Olympic Boulevard, 5th Floor
         Los Angeles, CA 90064
         Telephone: (310) 235-2468

Representing the defendants is:

         David E. Novitski, Esq.
         THELEN REID BROWN RAYMANS AND STEINER
         333 South Hope Street, Suite 2900
         Los Angeles, CA 90071-3048
         Telephone: (213) 576-8097
         Facsimile: (213) 576-8080


MELBOURNE GREYHOUND: Accused of Unlawful Employment Practices
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Melbourne Greyhound Park paid
poker dealers less than minimum wage, 26 dealers claim in a class
action in Orlando Federal Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Cushing, et al. v. Melbourne Greyhound
Park, LLC, Case No. 10-cv-00957 (M.D. Fla.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/06/25/Employ.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Christopher J. Whitelock, Esq.
          WHITELOCK & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
          300 Southeast Thirteenth St.
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316
          Telephone: 954-463-2001
          E-mail: cjwhitelock@bellsouth.net

               - and -

          Chad E. Levy, Esq.
          LEVY & LEVY, P.A.
          300 Southeast Thirteenth St.
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316
          Telephone: 954-763-5722
          E-mail: chad@levylaw.com


MICHAELS STORES: Faces Unfair Business Practice Suit in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Michaels Stores, Inc., said in a May 28, 2010 Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that on
April 9, 2010, Ross Rattray, a consumer, filed a purported class
action proceeding against the company in the Superior Court of
California, County of San Diego, on behalf of himself and all
similarly-situated California consumers.

The Rattray suit alleges causes of action for unlawful and unfair
business practices and false advertising under the California
Business and Professions Code, and a violation of the Consumer
Legal Remedies Act, for misrepresentation that Michaels gift cards
are not redeemable for cash and for failure to disclose that the
plaintiff could redeem the unused cash balance on a gift card when
the value fell below $10.00.  The plaintiff seeks injunctive
relief, restitution, punitive damages, costs, interest, and
attorneys' fees.

The Company believes it has meritorious defenses and intends to
defend the lawsuit vigorously.

Irving, Texas-based Michaels Stores, Inc., is North America's
largest specialty retailer of arts, crafts, framing, floral, wall
decor and seasonal merchandise for the hobbyist and do-it-yourself
home decorator.  As of May 26, 2010, the Company owns and operates
1,029 Michaels stores in 49 states and Canada, and 146 Aaron
Brothers stores.


MF GLOBAL: Appeal of Class Suit Dismissal Still Pending in NY
-------------------------------------------------------------
MF Global Holdings, Ltd., disclosed in a May 28, 2010 Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that an
appeal from an order dismissing a consolidated class action
lawsuit brought on behalf of certain purchasers of MF Global stock
is still pending.

MF Global and its subsidiaries, certain of its current and former
officers and directors, and certain underwriters for the company's
initial public offering, which was completed on July 23, 2007,
have been named as defendants in five actions filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York.
These actions, which purport to be brought as class actions on
behalf of purchasers of MF Global stock between the date of the
IPO and February 28, 2008, seek to hold defendants liable under
Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 for alleged
misrepresentations and omissions related to the company's risk
management and monitoring practices and procedures.  The five
purported shareholder class actions have been consolidated for all
purposes into a single action.

MF Global made a motion to dismiss which has been granted, with
plaintiff having a right to replead and/or appeal the dismissal.
Plaintiffs made a motion to replead by filing an amended
complaint, which was denied.  Plaintiffs have appealed.  Because
the motion to dismiss was made before discovery, the litigation is
in its early stages, and in the event plaintiffs successfully
appeal MF Global believes it has meritorious defenses.

MF Global Holdings Ltd. (NYSE: MF) -- http://www.mfglobal.com/
-- is one of the world's leading cash and derivatives brokerage
firms, providing seamless execution, clearing, and settlement
services in exchange-traded and over-the-counter markets. A leader
by volume on multiple exchanges, the firm delivers insight and
access across a broad range of products. MF Global helps its
diverse client base meet their unique trading and hedging needs
through customized solutions, market expertise, and value-added
research.


MISSION ESSENTIAL: Advocacy Group Mulls Suit Over Abuses
--------------------------------------------------------
Advocacy group MEPWatch is gathering information from current and
past employees of Mission Essential Personnel, LLC, based in
Columbus, Ohio, as part of an ongoing investigation into MEP's
illegal behaviors and shady business tactics.

"If you are a current or past employee of MEP, and have been
abused, threatened or harassed by MEP in any way whatsoever,
please contact us immediately at
wg@missionessentialpersonnelwatch.com "

"Past employees have filed statements with us, complaining that
MEP repeatedly detained them unlawfully at Bagram Air Force Base,
Afghanistan.  This illegal detention has lasted for as long as
four weeks under harsh and inhumane conditions.  Employees were
subjected to repeated verbal abuse, threats of harm to them and
their families, their reputation, and their employment with MEP.

"In addition, hard-won security clearances of MEP contract
employees have been summarily revoked by MEP for no apparent
reason.  These employees also have been treated harshly by MEP
employees at Bagram, and kept under interrogation for many hours
at a time without a break or water or food.  They have been kept
in non-air-conditioned tents for weeks at a time, without access
to adequate toilet facilities nearby.

"In short, these people have been tortured by MEP personnel at
Bagram.

"Our aim is to gather as much information about MEP's illegal
behavior and shady business practices, and build a class-action
case against MEP. If you know of anyone who has been subjected to
MEP's illegal behavior and/or shady business practices, please
contact us at your earliest convenience:
wg@missionessentialpersonnelwatch.com

"When you contact us, please provide your full name, address,
telephone number and email address, plus a detailed history of
your work with MEP and how they abused you or someone you know.

"Please be as detailed and accurate as possible, and enclose
copies of any and all supporting documentation about your
complaint against MEP.  We will not respond to anonymous or bogus
claims.

"Thank you for taking the time to contact us about your case. We
look forward to working with you to help build a class-action case
against Mission Essential Personnel, LLC of Columbus, Ohio."


ORION ENERGY: Reaches Agreement to Settle New York Suits
--------------------------------------------------------
Orion Energy Systems, Inc., reached a preliminary agreement to
settle the class action lawsuits pending in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York, according to the
company's June 14, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2010.

In February and March 2008, three class action lawsuits were filed
against the company, several of its officers, all members of the
company's then existing board of directors, and certain
underwriters from the company's December 2007 IPO.

The plaintiffs claimed to represent certain persons who purchased
shares of the company's common stock from Dec. 18, 2007 through
Feb. 6, 2008.  The plaintiffs alleged, among other things, that
the defendants made misstatements and failed to disclose material
information in the company's IPO registration statement and
prospectus.

The complaints alleged various claims under the Securities Act of
1933, as amended. The complaints sought, among other relief, class
certification, unspecified damages, fees, and such other relief as
the court may deem just and proper.

On Aug. 1, 2008, the court-appointed lead plaintiff filed a
consolidated amended complaint.  On Sept. 15, 2008, the company
and the other director and officer defendants filed a motion to
dismiss the consolidated complaint and the underwriters filed a
separate motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint on Jan. 16,
2009.  After oral argument on Aug. 19, 2009, the court granted in
part and denied in part the motion to dismiss.

The plaintiff filed a second consolidated amended complaint on
Sept. 4, 2009, and the defendants filed an answer to the complaint
on Oct. 9, 2009.

In the fourth quarter of fiscal 2010, the company reached a
preliminary agreement to settle the class action lawsuits.

Orion Energy Systems, Inc. -- http://www.oriones.com- designs,
manufactures, markets and implements energy management systems
consisting primarily of energy efficient lighting systems,
controls and related services.  The Company's energy management
systems deliver energy savings and efficiency gains to its
commercial and industrial customers without compromising their
quantity or quality of light.  Orion has sold and installed its
HIF fixtures in over 3,655 facilities across North America,
representing over 587 million square feet of commercial and
industrial building space, including for 91 Fortune 500 companies,
such as Coca-Cola Enterprises Inc., General Electric Co., Kraft
Foods Inc., Newell Rubbermaid Inc., OfficeMax, Inc., and SYSCO
Corp.


PETSMART INC: Appeals of N.J. Pet Food Settlement Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Appeals with respect to the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Jersey's approval of the settlement of a consolidated pet
food class action litigation against PetSmart, Inc., are still
pending., according to the company's May 28, 2010 Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Beginning in March 2007, PetSmart was named as a party in these
lawsuits arising from pet food recalls announced by several
manufacturers:

   * Bruski v. Nutro Products, et al., USDC, N.D. IL (filed
     3/23/07)

   * Rozman v. Menu Foods, et al., USDC, MN (filed 4/9/07)

   * Ford v. Menu Foods, et al., USDC, S.D. CA (filed 4/23/07)

   * Wahl, et al. v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., et al., USDC, C.D. CA
     (filed 4/10/07)

   * Demith v. Nestle, et al., USDC, N.D. IL (filed 4/23/07)

   * Thompkins v. Menu Foods, et al., USDC, CO (filed 4/11/07)

   * McBain v. Menu Foods, et al., Judicial Centre of Regina,
     Canada (filed 7/11/07)

   * Dayman v. Hills Pet Nutrition Inc., et al., Ontario
     Superior Court of Justice (filed 8/8/07)

   * Esau v. Menu Foods, et al., Supreme Court of Newfoundland
     and Labrador (filed 9/5/07)

   * Ewasew v. Menu Foods, et al., Supreme Court of British
     Columbia (filed 3/23/07)

   * Silva v. Menu Foods, et al., Canada Province of Manitoba
     (filed 3/30/07)

   * Powell v. Menu Foods, et al., Ontario Superior Court of
     Justice (filed 3/28/07)

The plaintiffs sued the major pet food manufacturers and retailers
claiming that their pets suffered injury or death as a result of
consuming allegedly contaminated pet food and pet snack products.

By order dated June 28, 2007, the Bruski, Rozman, Ford, Wahl,
Demith and Thompkins cases were transferred to the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey and consolidated with other
pet food class actions under the federal rules for multi-district
litigation (In re: Pet Food Product Liability Litigation, Civil
No. 07-2867).  The Canadian cases were not consolidated.

On May 21, 2008, the parties to the U.S. lawsuits comprising the
In re: Pet Food Product Liability Litigation and the Canadian
cases jointly submitted a comprehensive settlement arrangement for
court approval.  Preliminary court approval was received from the
U.S. District Court on May 3, 2008, and from all of the Canadian
courts as of July 8, 2008.  On October 14, 2008, the U.S. District
Court approved the settlement, and the Canadian courts gave final
approval on November 3, 2008.

Two different groups of objectors filed notices of appeal with
respect to the U.S. District Court's approval of the U.S.
settlement.  Upon expiration of the prescribed appeal process
these cases should be resolved, and PetSmart continues to believe
it will not have a material adverse impact on its consolidated
financial statements.  There have been no appeals filed in Canada.

PetSmart, Inc. -- http://www.petsmart.com/-- is a specialty
provider of products, services and solutions for the lifetime
needs of pets.  The company offers a line of products for all the
life stages of pets, and offers various pet services, including
professional grooming, training, boarding and day camp.  It also
offers pet products through an e-commerce site, PetSmart.com, as
well operates a pet community site, pets.com.


REMEC INC: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissed Calif. Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a consolidated securities fraud lawsuit against
REMEC, Inc., has filed a Notice of Appeal to the U.S. Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeal on the dismissal of the suit by the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California, according
to the company's June 14, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 30,
2010.

On Sept. 29, 2004, three class actions were filed against the
company and certain former officers alleging violations of
federal securities laws between Sept. 8, 2003 and Sept. 8, 2004.

On Jan. 18, 2005, the law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad &
Schulman, LLP, was appointed lead counsel and its client was
appointed lead plaintiff.

After several consolidated and amended complaints were filed,
challenged by the company and dismissed by the court with leave to
amend, the court denied REMEC's motion to dismiss the fourth
amended complaint on Sept. 25, 2006.

REMEC filed its answer to the fourth amended complaint on
Nov. 6, 2006, denying all liability and asserting certain
affirmative defenses.  The court granted plaintiff's motion for
class-certification on Nov. 21, 2007.

The parties engaged in discovery, including production of
documents, between May 2007 and March 2009.  All discovery,
including expert discovery, is now closed.

There are currently four motions seeking summary judgment or
partial summary judgment pending before the Court, three made by
the defendants and one made by the plaintiffs.  The time period
for filing dispositive motions has closed.

A Pretrial Conference was for Jan. 25, 2010, and Trial was set for
Feb. 23, 2010.

On April 21, 2010 the Court issued an Order on the motions,
granting Defendants' motions for Summary Judgment based on
Scienter and Loss Causation.  The Court dismissed the case with
prejudice, and directed that judgment be entered for Defendants.

The Plaintiffs had 30 days from Notice of Entry of Judgment to
file a Notice of Appeal with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

On May 19, 2010, the Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal to the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal.

REMEC maintains directors' and officers' liability insurance, and
has tendered the defense of this lawsuit to its insurance
carriers. The primary insurance carrier has agreed to pay defense
costs and provide coverage of this action, subject to a
reservation of rights.

The suit is In re: REMEC Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 04-
CV-1948 (S.D. Calif.) (Miller, J.).

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Jeff S. Westerman, Esq.
         MILBERG WEISS BERSHAD & SCHULMAN, LLP
         355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 4170
         Los Angeles, CA 90071
         Telephone: (213) 617-1200
         Facsimile: (213) 617-1975

              - and -

         David W. Mitchell, Esq.
         LERACH COUGHLIN STOIA GELLER RUDMAN & ROBBINS, LLP
         655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
         San Diego, CA 92101-4297
         Telephone: (619) 231-1058
         Facsimile: (619) 231-7423

              - and -

         Blake Muir Harper, Esq.
         HULETT HARPER STEWART, LLP
         550 West C Street, Suite 1600
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Telephone: (619) 338-1133
         Facsimile: (619) 338-1139

Representing the defendants is:

         Robert W. Brownlie, Esq.
         DLA PIPER RUDNICK GRAY CARY, US, LLP
         401 "B" Street, Suite 1700
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Telephone: (619) 699-2700
         Facsimile: 858-677-1401


SIGNET JEWELERS: Two Discrimination Suits Still Pending in NY
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sterling Jewelers Inc., a subsidiary of Signet Jewelers Limited,
continues to deny the allegations asserted in two actions relating
to employment practice, Signet said in a May 27, 2010, Form 8-K
Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

In March 2008, private plaintiffs filed a class action lawsuit for
an unspecified amount against a subsidiary of Signet, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York alleging that
U.S. store-level employment practices are discriminatory as to
compensation and promotional activities.

On September 23, 2008, the US Equal Employment Opportunities
Commission filed a lawsuit against Sterling in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of New York.  The EEOC's lawsuit
alleges that Sterling engaged in a pattern or practice of gender
discrimination with respect to pay and promotions of female retail
store employees from January 1, 2003 to the present.  The EEOC
asserts claims for unspecified monetary relief and
non-monetary relief against the Company on behalf of a class of
female employees subjected to these alleged practices.

Signet Jewelers Limited -- http://www.signetjewelers.com/--
formerly Signet Group plc, is a specialty retail jeweler, with
stores in the United States, United Kingdom, Republic of Ireland
and Channel Islands.  In the United States, as of Jan. 31, 2009,
Signet operated 1,401 stores in 50 states.  Its stores trade
nationally in malls and off-mall locations as Kay Jewelers
(Kay), and regionally under a number of mall-based brands.
Destination superstores trade nationwide as Jared The Galleria
Of Jewelry (Jared). In the United Kingdom, the stores trade as
H.Samuel, Ernest Jones and Leslie Davis, and are situated in
High Street locations (main shopping thoroughfares with high
pedestrian traffic) or shopping malls.  The United Kingdom
division operated 558 stores, as of Jan. 31, 2009, including 14
stores in the Republic of Ireland.  The Company operates in two
geographical segments: the United States division (approximately
76% of sales) and the United Kingdom division (approximately 24%
of sales).


TENNESSEE: Appeals Court Reverses Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------
In Daniel C. Wicker, II, et al. v. Commissioner, Tennessee
Department  of Revenue, Case No. M2009-02305-COA-R9-CV (Tenn. App.
Ct.), Plaintiffs were assessed, and paid taxes under the Drug Tax,
which was later declared unconstitutional.  Plaintiffs sought
refunds individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated.  The trial court certified the class, and the Department
filed an interlocutory appeal challenging certification.  Because
the Taxpayer Remedies Statute, which must be strictly construed as
a derogation of sovereign immunity, does not contemplate the
maintenance of a class action, the Court of Appeals of Tennessee,
at Nashville, reversed the trial court's grant of class
certification.

Judge Alan E. Highers, P.J., W.S., delivered the opinion of the
Court, in which Judge David R. Farmer, J., and Judge J. Steven
Stafford, J., joined.  A copy of the decision is available at:

     http://www.leagle.com/unsecure/page.htm?shortname=intnco20100623592

The Revenue Commissioner is represented by:

     Robert E. Cooper, Jr., Esq.
     Attorney General and Reporter
     Michael E. Moore, Esq.
     Solicitor General
     Brad H. Buchanan, Esq.
     Assistant Attorney General
     Nashville, Tennessee

Plaintiffs Daniel C. Wicker, II and Joseph D. Williams are
represented by:

     John Shackelford Colley, III, Esq.
     COLLEY & COLLEY ATTORNEY
     710 N. Main St., Ste. 200
     Columbia, Tennessee (Maury Co.)
     Telephone: (931) 388-8564
     Facsimile: (931) 388-8569


TENNESSEE: Dept. of Safety Sued for Civil Rights Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a naturalized U.S. citizen is
suing the Tennessee Department of Safety after driver's license
station workers confiscated her proof of citizenship.  The suit
was filed in federal court Thursday by 21-year-old Diana Mata-
Cuellar (Kway-YAR') of Morristown.  It seeks class-action status,
claiming that driver's license clerks have seized at least 100
documents in the past five years.

Department of Safety spokeswoman Dalya Qualls told The Tennessean
that clerks who think a document looks suspicious must make
additional checks.  The lawsuit claims those checks were not made.

The suit accuses the department of civil rights violations and
seeks an injunction to keep employees from confiscating
identification documents from Hispanics.


THOR INDUSTRIES: Saxena White Files Securities Fraud Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In a class action filed Friday, Thor Industries, Inc., and several
of its executives were sued for violations of the federal
securities laws, including securities fraud.  Saxena White P.A.
commenced the class action on behalf of an institutional investor
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Ohio on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased shares of
Thor common stock between November 30, 2009, and June 10, 2010, at
12:13 PM Eastern Daylight Time, inclusive.

On June 10, 2010, at 12:13 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Thor issued a
press release in which it announced that it was delaying the
release of the Company's 10-Q due to their evaluation of certain
accounting positions previously taken in its audited financial
statements.  If the Company is required to change its accounting
for these items, there could be material adverse changes to Thor's
results of operations and financial condition for fiscal 2009 and
for the first three quarters of fiscal 2010. The price of Thor
common stock was trading at $28.39 per share prior to the release
of the news, and traded as low as $20.74 per share after the news
was revealed -- a precipitous decline of approximately 27%.

You may obtain a copy of the complaint and join the class action
at http://www.saxenawhite.com/ If you purchased Thor stock
between November 30, 2009 and June 10, 2010 at 12:13 PM Eastern
Daylight Time, inclusive, you may contact Joe White or Greg Stone
at Saxena White P.A. to discuss your rights and interests:

If you purchased Thor shares in the Class Period, and wish to
apply to be the lead plaintiff in this action, a motion on your
behalf must be filed with the Court no later than August 24, 2010.
You may contact Saxena White P.A. to discuss your rights regarding
the appointment of lead plaintiff and your interest in the class
action.  Please note that you may also retain counsel of your
choice and need not take any action at this time to be a class
member.

Saxena White P.A., which has offices in Boca Raton, Boston and
Helena, Montana, specializes in prosecuting securities fraud and
complex class actions on behalf of institutions and individuals.
Currently serving as lead counsel in numerous securities fraud
class actions nationwide, the firm has recovered hundreds of
millions of dollars on behalf of injured investors and is active
in major litigation pending in federal and state courts throughout
the United States.

     Joseph E. White, III, Esq.
     Greg Stone, Esq.
     SAXENA WHITE P.A.
     2424 North Federal Highway, Suite 257
     Boca Raton, FL 33431
     Telephone: (561) 394-3399
     Facsimile: (561) 394-3382
     E-mail: jwhite@saxenawhite.com
             gstone@saxenawhite.com


UBS AG: Settlement in 1996 Nazi Restitution Case Delayed
--------------------------------------------------------
Marilyn Henry, writing for The Jerusalem Post, reports that the
settlement of a U.S. class-action lawsuit filed in 1996 against
major Swiss banks during Nazi era is now under threat by Israel
and U.S. survivors' groups.

In the mid-1990s, Jewish organizations and a handful of lawyers
demanded the return of Naziera Jewish accounts in Swiss banks.
The accounts had become dormant because the Jewish depositors did
not survive the Holocaust, or because crucial documents did not
survive, leaving families unable to prove their rights to the
accounts.  The claims against the Swiss banks fostered an
environment in the U.S. that, decades after the Holocaust,
generated other Nazi-era claims, including for insurance policies
that European companies had failed to honor, as well as
compensation for slave and forced labor.  There also were claims
for artworks that had been looted or displaced in Europe between
1933 and 1945.  These were material claims with strong moral
underpinnings -- the idea that survivors and heirs should recover
what was taken from them, or be compensated for damages done to
them during the Nazi era.

A class-action lawsuit against the major Swiss banks was filed in
U.S. federal court in Brooklyn in 1996. A $1.25 billion settlement
was announced in 1998 under U.S. District Judge Edward R. Korman.

Under the terms of the settlement, the Swiss banks UBS and Credit
Suisse seemed to fall on their proverbial swords, accepting
virtually all liabilities for the wartime behavior of Switzerland,
its national bank, as well Swiss private banks.  The two banks
insisted on a "global settlement".  This compelled dividing the
$1.25 billion into five classes.

These classes were claimants for bank accounts (the depositors);
two classes of slave laborers (those who performed slave labor for
Swiss corporations, or those who were in German facilities that
were financed by the Swiss); a class of refugees who were excluded
or deported from Switzerland, or mistreated in Switzerland because
of their ethnic or religious origin.  Finally, there was the
"looted assets" class, which referred to Nazi victims whose looted
property was fenced through Swiss entities.

That UBS and Credit Suisse were willing to bear all the weight of
Switzerland's Nazi-era history was their prerogative.  It made for
an odd situation.  As Judge Korman noted, "The claims of those
other [non-bank] classes lacked any legal merit."

However, the fundamentals of the case did not change: the lawsuit
against the two banks was a restitution case to recover bank
accounts.

In a June 16 "Memorandum & Order Approving Adjustment of
Presumptive Values Used in the Claims Resolution Process and
Authorizing Additional Payments for Deposited Assets Class
Plausible Undocumented Awards," Judge Korman signaled that the
Swiss banks case is nearly at an end all these years later.  The
judge has managed to keep the settlement on track.  No easy task
for claims for accounts that are more than 60 years old, and that
originated in a foreign nation whose institutions' assets have
been absorbed and reabsorbed by changes in bank ownership and
organization.

According to court documents, some $581 million has been allocated
to nearly 18,000 owners of Holocaust-era Swiss bank accounts.  In
addition, compensation has been paid to nearly 200,000 slave
laborers and their heirs, and more than 4,100 survivors or heirs
received the so-called refugee funds from the settlement.

The court faced daunting forensic accounting problems in assessing
and adjusting the current value of bank accounts. But these
problems seemed to pale against efforts by some Jewish
organizations, lawyers and the State of Israel to ignore
depositors' property rights -- their claims to their family
accounts -- and to treat the Swiss case, even in advance of the
settlement announcement, as a Jewish slush fund.  Early on, many
survivors cruelly were led to believe that they would benefit from
the lawsuit, even if their families had no connection to
Switzerland or its banks.  In 1997, Switzerland itself created a
humanitarian fund, separate from the banks case, to aid needy
survivors. Many viewed that Swiss money as an entitlement, not a
generous gesture, feeding the notion that the Swiss banks lawsuit
was money-for-all.

The settlement's "looted assets" class, not well understood by
some and exploited by others, created additional problems. In
theory, it would have required a mechanism to determine whether
property, from among more than a million potential claimants, had
been looted and whether it passed through Switzerland. Such a
mechanism would have been prohibitively expensive and an
administrative nightmare.

Judge Korman's alternative remedy was to craft a system to benefit
the neediest survivors who, in this specific instance, wouldn't
have been eligible for payments under the Swiss banks settlement.
The humanitarian aspects were not negotiated under the settlement;
the original parties to the suit did not advocate for the
interests of needy survivors. Nonetheless, the judge was within
his judicial discretion when the settlement provided $205 million
to help some 231,000 needy survivors, primarily in the former
Soviet Union, obtain food, medical care, winter relief and
emergency grants.

Now, as Judge Korman seeks to wrap up the claims for the Swiss
banks lawsuit that began in 1996, there has been the continuing
threat from the State of Israel and survivors in the U.S. to delay
the process.  They seek more funds for a select group of the
needy.  They question the increases in the adjusted value of bank
account awards, as if a depositor should be compelled to
relinquish a percentage of his bank account to help Nazi victims
in Israel or Florida.  They also suggested that victims in the
former Soviet Union receive a disproportionate share of the funds
intended for the needy, as if humanitarian funds should be
allocated on the basis of geography rather than hunger.

"Judge Korman, whose decisions were upheld by a U.S. appellate
court, did a noble service to the needy," Ms. Henry wrote.

"But this compassionate aid should not distort the essential
purpose of the Swiss banks settlement. The lawsuit was a
restitution case about bank accounts, bank accounts, bank
accounts. It was a claim with legal and moral legitimacy. But when
the State of Israel and survivors' groups in the U.S. demanded
more cash for their own purposes, they did not simply stall the
conclusion of the Swiss banks settlement. Instead, they ran
roughshod over individual property rights and undermined the moral
basis of every Jewish claim: that victims are entitled to recover
the property stolen from them."


UNION FINANCIAL: Faces Suit Over Planned Merger with DFSC
---------------------------------------------------------
Union National Financial Corporation faces a purported class
action in relation to its planned merger with Donegal Financial
Services Corporation, according to the company's June 17, 2010,
Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Union National entered into an agreement and plan of merger on
April 19, 2010, with Donegal Financial Services Corporation
(DFSC), the parent company of Province Bank FSB, and certain
affiliated entities of DFSC, pursuant to which Union National will
merge with and into DFSC.  DFSC is wholly owned by Donegal Mutual
Insurance Company and Donegal Group Inc.

Union National, DFSC), and Donegal Mutual, jointly reported they
have become aware of the filing of a complaint on June 14, 2010 in
the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County, Pennsylvania
against UNNF, each of the directors of UNNF, DFSC and certain
affiliated entities of DFSC.

The complaint purports to be a class action filed on behalf of the
holders of UNNF common stock arising from certain alleged actions
by UNNF and its board of directors in connection with the
previously announced proposed merger of UNNF with and into DFSC.

Union National Financial Corporation, through its wholly owned
subsidiary Union National Community Bank, provides a full range of
financial services for both retail and business customers, and
offers insurance, retirement plan services and wealth management
services through Union National Advisors.  Union National
Community Bank has ten full-service offices in Lancaster County,
Pennsylvania.


UNITED RETAIL: Calif. App. Ct. Affirms Ruling on Morgan Wage Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Amber Morgan filed a class action lawsuit against her former
employer, United Retail Incorporated, for violation of Labor Code
section 226.  On behalf of a class of current and former non-
exempt employees, Ms. Morgan alleged that United Retail's wage
statements failed to comply with section 226, subdivision (a)
because they listed the total number of regular hours and the
total number of overtime hours worked by the employee, but did not
list the sum of the regular and overtime hours worked in a
separate line.  The trial court granted summary adjudication in
favor of United Retail on the section 226 claim.  The Court of
Appeals of California, Second District, Division Seven, concluded
that the trial court properly granted summary adjudication because
United Retail's wage statements complied with the statutory
requirements of section 226 by "showing . . . total hours worked."

A copy of the decision is available at:

     http://www.leagle.com/unsecure/page.htm?shortname=incaco20100623060

The case is Amber Morgan, v. United Retail Incorporated, Case No.
No. B216130 (Calif. App. Ct.), and representing the plaintiffs
are:

     Marc Primo, Esq.
     Matthew T. Theriault, Esq.
     Dina S. Livhits, Esq.
     Jennifer Grock, Esq.
     INITIATIVE LEGAL GROUP APC
     1800 Century Park East, 2nd Floor
     Los Angeles, CA 90067
     Telephone: (310) 556-5637
     Facsimile: (310) 861-9051

United Retail is represented by:

     Charles F. Barker, Esq.
     Ross A. Boughton, Esq.
     SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON, LLP
     333 South Hope Street
     Forty-Third Floor
     Los Angeles, CA  90071
     Telephone: (213) 617-4168
     Facsimile: (213) 620-1398
     E-mail: cbarker@sheppardmullin.com
             rboughton@sheppardmullin.com


UNITED STATES: $3.4-Bil. Indian Settlement Still Awaits Senate OK
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Volz, writing for The Associated Press, relates that caught
in the Senate filibuster of a bill to extend unemployment payments
is a $3.4 billion government settlement with hundreds of thousands
of American Indians over claims that the Interior Department
mismanaged their land trust accounts.

Congress must authorize the Obama administration to enter into the
class-action settlement 14 years in the making with between
300,000 and 500,000 Indians who have land held in trust by the
Bureau of Indian Affairs.

The House gave its approval in May.  But the settlement
authorization is tucked into the Democrats' jobs-agenda
legislation that fell three votes short of breaking a Republican
filibuster in the Senate on Thursday, and now the future of the
hard-fought agreement is in doubt.

The Senate's action -- or lack of it -- leaves the Indian
plaintiffs and the Obama administration with little choice but to
wait and see if the Democratic leadership can rally support for
another push for a vote on the bill after the July 4 holiday.

"The administration is very committed to passing this legislation
and will continue to work with congressional leadership to pass
it," Interior Department spokeswoman Kendra Barkoff said Friday.

Elouise Cobell, the Blackfeet Indian woman who filed the lawsuit
in 1996, said Friday to come this far only to be stymied by what
appears to be an unrelated partisan fight is frustrating.

The Interior Department leases out the land it holds in trust for
individual Indians and is supposed to pay them the revenue
generated into their Individual Indian Money trust accounts, or
IIMs.  Ms. Cobell and the other plaintiffs claim the Bureau of
Indian Affairs have mismanaged those IIM accounts for more than a
century, shortchanging the owners of the land several billion
dollars.  After more than 3,600 court filings and 80 court
decisions, the two sides finally reached a settlement in December.

Under the proposed agreement, $1.4 billion would go to individual
Indian account holders. Some $2 billion would be used by the
government to buy up fractionated Indian lands from individual
owners willing to sell, and then turn those lands over to tribes.
Another $60 million would be used for a scholarship fund for young
Indians.

Lawsuit participants would receive at least $1,500, and many would
receive considerably more.

The plaintiffs asked the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday to dismiss a
pending appeal on the lawsuit, believing that appeal was moot
because the Senate was about to authorize the settlement,
plaintiffs spokesman Bill McAllister said.

"We couldn't go via the Supreme Court and Congress at the same
time. We opted to go for Congress because we were told that our
provision was likely to be approved. It still offers the promise
of a quicker resolution of the lawsuit," Mr. McAllister said
Friday.  If Congress doesn't approve the settlement, the
plaintiffs can bring the issues back to the Supreme Court after a
final judgment is entered in the case, he said.

Even if the Senate approves the settlement, it must do so without
any changes or it may be considered void, both sides say, and that
includes an amendment by Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyo., who has
proposed a $50 million cap on lawyer's fees.  Mr. Barrasso also
has suggested limiting any incentive awards to the lawsuit's named
plaintiffs to unreimbursed expenses and setting aside $50 million
of the settlement money for certain lawsuit participants who
receive "insufficient or unfair" amounts under the settlement's
payment formula, among other changes.

On Friday, Mr. Barrasso said he would still like to see the Senate
accept his amendment and finalize the settlement, but suggested it
may have to be separated from the larger bill that failed
Thursday.  That bill would have provided $16 billion in new aid to
states and included dozens of tax breaks sought by business
lobbyists and tax increases on domestically produced oil and on
investment fund managers.


UNIV. OF BRITISH COLUMBIA: Sperm Donors' Suit Gets Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Vancouver Sun's Neal Hall reports that the British Columbia
Court of Appeal has overturned a lower court ruling and certified
a class action lawsuit against the University of British Columbia
by a sperm donor after a freezer failed, ruining his and other
donor samples.  Howard Lam stored a sperm sample in a
cryopreservation freezer unit at the UBC Andrology Lab but the
freezer experienced a power failure in 2002, which rendered the
sperm immotile and may have destroyed their genetic material.

Mr. Lam sued, seeking certification of a class action on his own
behalf and on behalf of all others who had sperm samples in the
freezer, alleging breach of contract and negligence by UBC.  The
legal action sought damages of between $20,000 to $100,000 for
each of the donors.

B.C. Supreme Court Justice Bruce Butler decided in 2009 to deny to
certify a class action, finding that the common issues would not
appreciably advance the proceedings and that a class action was
not the preferable procedure to determine the common issues.  Mr.
Lam appealed the ruling.

A decision on Friday, written by B.C. Chief Justice Lance Finch,
found the lower court judge erred.  Justice Finch and B.C. Court
of Appeal Justices John Hall and Elizabeth Bennett allowed Mr.
Lam's appeal and certified a class action proceeding against UBC.

"We're pleased with the decision," one of Lam's lawyers, Peter
Norell, Esq., said Friday.  He said there may be 160 potential
members of the class whose sperm was stored in the freezer.

"We don't know the identity of all the donors," the lawyer
explained.  "There might be some class members outside the
province or abroad."

The triggering event in the case was the freezer failure on
May 24, 2002, when the supply of electricity to a Forma Scientific
Inc. was interrupted when an inadequate circuit breaker tripped.
The freezer was used for storing cells at a temperature below -130
degrees Celsius.  The freezer contained sperm samples belonging to
Mr. Lam and other men who were undergoing chemotherapy or other
medical treatments that could adversely affect their reproductive
capacity.  The freezer's security alarm system failed to function
and it was without electrical power for some time, rendering the
sperm immotile and may have destroyed its genetic material.

The freezer was purchased by UBC in July 1987 and was initially
used for kidney research.  In 1993, it was transferred to the
Andrology Lab at the Koerner Pavilion at UBC Hospital. It remained
there until Feb. 22, 2001,when it was moved to the lab's new
location at Vancouver General Hospital.

UBC has denied it was negligent, maintaining it met the
appropriate standard of care for a sperm storage facility operator
and that sperm donors signed an agreement limiting liability.

No signed agreement, however, could be found for Mr. Lam and about
25 other sperm donors.

Still, UBC will argue that the terms of the agreement and the
conditions under which UBC promised to store the sperm were
brought to the attention of all individuals before they agreed to
store their sperm at the lab. It will also argue that those
individuals for whom no signature page exists agreed to those
terms and conditions.

UBC has joined a number of third parties in the legal action,
including the freezer's manufacturer and a security alarm company,
claiming if it was their fault if liability is found.


YTB INTERNATIONAL: Montroy Files "Ponzi Scheme" Suit in Madison
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sanford J. Schmidt at The Telegraph reports that another class
action lawsuit has been filed against Wood River-based YTB, but
the latest version is in state court and alleges a conspiracy on
the part of the company's owners to siphon off money to privately
owned corporations that they controlled.

The latest suit was filed in Madison County Circuit Court by East
St. Louis lawyer Christian Montroy, who makes allegations that the
company was involved in an illegal pyramid scheme.  Mr. Montroy
was among the lawyers who filed a class action case against YTB in
federal court.

The suit claims one of the schemes to siphon money was to spend an
estimated $8 million on a 50,000-pound replica of the Statue of
Liberty for YTB's five-day 2008 convention in St. Louis, with the
money going to an Indiana company, CCMP, operated by former YTB
president J. Kim Sorensen.  That firm also created marketing
materials for YTB and operated under the assumed name BerylMartin,
the suit claims.  YTB paid no less than $7 million for making the
materials, the suit claims.

That Indiana CCMP firm was named as a "conspiracy defendant."
Also named as "conspiracy defendants" are several firms and
individuals from The Telegraph area.  They include Winfield
Development, Meridian Land Co., Dr. Timothy Kaiser, who formerly
practiced in Alton, and Clay Winfield, an officer of Meridian and
former Edwardsville land developer.

Dr. Kaiser and Winfield also were officers of Meridian Bank in
Alton, which failed and was closed by the Federal Deposit
Insurance Agency.  The bank is not named as a defendant.  Other
"conspiracy defendants" had ties to YTB in the form of individuals
with interests in YTB operating companies that also did business
with YTB.

Some of the activities allegedly involved in the conspiracy to
siphon off money were rental agreements between Meridian Land Co.
and YTB.  The suit claims rent on two Edwardsville properties at 1
Country Club View and 600 Country Club View was $15,000 per month.

Also cited were purchase contracts between Meridian and YTB
amounting to millions of dollars. The suit cites a loan between
Meridian bank and YTB in connection with its acquisition of the
land and building that houses its corporate headquarters in Wood
River.

Dr. Kaiser and Winfield also were officers of Meridian Land Co.

Current YTB President Robert Van Patten said the suit filed in
circuit court in Edwardsville is the same as the two filed in U.S.
District Court in East St. Louis.

"They were dismissed three times, the last time with prejudice,
which means they can't file again," Mr. Van Patten said.  He said
they were dismissed for reasons YTB has given in the past -- that
the business plan is not an illegal pyramid scheme.  Mr. Van
Patten said he expects the same fate awaits the suit filed in
state court.

The latest class action alleges, as have previous suits, that most
of the people known as Referring Travel Agents (RTAs) who signed
up to attract travel customers and refer them to YTB did not make
any money from that activity.  They made most of their money by
attracting others to become RTAs. People who recruited others were
called Independent Marketing Representatives, also known as IMRs.
People who signed up to be RTAs paid a one-time fee of $450 to
$500 and a monthly fee of about $50. The IMRs received a
commission for each person they recruited.

Named as defendants in the suit are various YTB companies and
sister companies, and J. Lloyd Tomer, J. Scott Tomer, J. Kim
Sorensen, Andrew Cauthen and Michael Brent. All have held major
executive positions with YTB.  They are referred to as "YTB
defendants."

The most recent suit claims that YTB defendants "have perpetrated
an illegal pyramid scheme that represents one of the largest
frauds in the history of the state of Illinois."  The suit claims
the firm violated the consumer protection laws in several states,
including Illinois. The suit offers alternative legal theories
under the laws of Illinois, Georgia, Utah and Missouri. Named
defendants are from those states.  The suit alleges that the
company made false statements that RTAs could earn a lot of money.

"In fact, 80 percent earned absolutely nothing, and the median
annual travel commission earned was zero," the suit claims.


ZUMIEZ CORP: Remains a Defendant in "Berg" Suit in California
-------------------------------------------------------------
Zumiez, Inc., continues to defend itself in a class action lawsuit
filed in California alleging failure to pay overtime wages, among
others, to present and former store managers.

Chandra Berg, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, filed a first amended complaint on April 2, 2010, in the
putative class action, Chandra Berg v. Zumiez Inc., the company
said in a May 27, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission.

The action was filed against the Company in the Los Angeles
Superior Court under case number BC408410 on February 25, 2009.
The Complaint alleges causes of action for failure to pay overtime
wages to present and former store managers in California, failure
to provide meal periods and rest breaks to store managers, failure
to reimburse retail employees for clothing required by the
Company's dress code, failure to reimburse retail employees for
business expenses, failure to provide store managers with accurate
itemized wage statements, failure to pay terminated store managers
all wages due at the time of termination, unfair business
practices and declaratory relief. Plaintiff filed a First Amended
Complaint on April 2, 2010 which added an additional
plaintiff/class representative and a new cause of action for
penalties for alleged Labor Code violations under the Private
Attorneys General Act.

Zumiez has filed an answer to the First Amended Complaint and
discovery is being conducted.  On February 8, 2010, the company
attended a mediation wherein no settlement was reached.

Plaintiffs have filed their motion for class certification, and
the company's opposition to the motion was due June 17, 2010.  A
status conference was held May 28, 2010. Zumiez continues to
believe that this lawsuit is without merit and will continue to
oppose it vigorously if necessary.

Zumiez Inc. -- http://www.zumiez.com/-- is a mall-based specialty
retailer of action sports related apparel, footwear, equipment and
accessories operating under the Zumiez brand name.  As of Jan. 31,
2009, the company operated 343 stores primarily located in
shopping malls, giving it a presence in 31 states.

                            *********

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  * * *