CAR_Public/100701.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Thursday, July 1, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 128

                            Headlines

AARON BROTHERS: Faces Labor Class Action in California
AKEENA SOLAR: California Court Dismisses One Claim in Suit
ANTHEM BLUE CROSS: Class Suit Lawyers Obtained Secret Data
APPLE INC: Kershaw Mulls Suit for iPhone 4 Technical Problems
AZZ INC: Inks Memorandum of Understanding to Settle Suits

BAUXITE RESOURCES: IMF Mulls Suit Over October 2009 Shares Issue
BIG FIREWORKS: Recalls 2,000 Twin Trundle Beds
BP PLC: Employees Sue Over Losses Tied to Shares
BP PLC: Several Gulf Coast Seafood Restaurants Join Herman Suit
CHATTEM INC: Indiana Suit Alleges Deceptive Business Practices

CHARLIE CRIST: Class Suit Filed to Recover Campaign Donations
CKE RESTAURANTS: Agrees to Settle Amended Complaint in Delaware
CKE RESTAURANTS: Inks Pact to Settle Calif. Consolidated Suit
CLARCOR INC: Seeking to Overturn Dismissed Bid in Filters Suit
COMVERSE TECH: Court Grants Final Approval to Settlement

COUNTRYWIDE HOME: Judge Hylla Approves Settlement in Morgan Case
DUNNIE LAI: Accused of Mismanagement and Breach of Fiduciary Duty
GRUMA S.A.B.: Appeal of Plaintiffs on Awards Affirmation Pending
GRUMA S.A.B.: Plaintiffs in "Garza" Have Yet to File Appeal
GRUMA S.A.B.: No Discovery Yet in Ex-Employee's Suit

JANUS CAPITAL: U.S. Supreme Court to Review Appeal in October
JEWISH HOSPITAL: Class Action Status Sought on Data Theft Case
JPMORGAN CHASE: Involved in Price-Fixing Conspiracy, Suit Claims
LML PAYMENT: Appeal to Junked DPPA Violations Suit Still Pending
MASSEY ENERGY: Sued in Del. for Breach of Fiduciary Duties

MERCK SHARP: Tel Aviv Court Subpoenas 2 Scientists on Vioxx
MONEYGRAM INT'L: Settlement Agreement Gets Final Approval
MORGAN DREXEN: Montana Court Approves Motion to Transfer
MOTOR FUEL LITIGATION: Flying J Plan Improperly Releases Claims
MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Plaintiffs Could've Gotten $100MM More

PFIZER INC: Carella Byrne Files Suit Against Wyeth
POLAND: Sandomierz Residents File Class Suit Over Flooding
RADIO SYSTEMS: Recalls 20,000 Power Adapters
RETALIX LTD: Texas Court Dismisses "Tamar" Suit
SYMYX TECH: Enters MOU to Settle Complaint Over Accelrys Merger

THOR INDUSTRIES: Federman & Sherwood Files Securities Class Suit
VESTIN REALTY: Awaits Approval of Post-Judgment Settlement


                            *********

AARON BROTHERS: Faces Labor Class Action in California
------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Aaron Brothers faces a labor
class action in Orange County Court, Calif.


AKEENA SOLAR: California Court Dismisses One Claim in Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California,
on May 20, 2010, granted in part Akeena Solar, Inc.'s Motion to
Dismiss the federal class action, Hodges, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Akeena Solar, Inc., et
al. Case No. 09-cv-02147, according to the company's
June 25, 2010, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.

The court dismissed plaintiffs' claims relating to statements made
prior to the class period including statements relating to the
company's backlog, Andalay product, and supply agreement with
Suntech Power Holdings Co., Ltd.

Due to the stage of the case, the company states it has not yet
had the opportunity to present any defenses to the remaining
allegations relating to the Dec. 26, 2007, disclosure of the
Comerica line of credit and the Jan. 2, 2008, announcement of the
Suntech license agreement.  The company believes that the class
action has no merit and that it has strong defenses to the two
remaining claims.

Akeena Solar, Inc. -- http://www.akeena.com/-- is one of the
nation's leading installers of solar power systems.  Akeena
Solar's revolutionary Andalay AC solar panels produce safe
household AC power and have built-in racking, wiring, grounding
and inverters.  With 80% fewer parts and 5-25% better performance
than ordinary DC panels, Andalay panels are an ideal solution for
solar installers, trades workers and do-it-yourselfers.


ANTHEM BLUE CROSS: Class Suit Lawyers Obtained Secret Data
----------------------------------------------------------
According to Health Data Management Editorial Staff, Anthem Blue
Cross, the trade name for Blue Cross of California, notified about
230,000 members and applicants for insurance that a Web site used
to apply for individual health insurance policies was breached.
Anthem says attorneys working on a class action lawsuit were able
to access medical information and credit card and Social Security
numbers, among other information, because all security mechanisms
were not reinstated following an October 2009 upgrade.

An attorney representing affected individuals told the Associated
Press that the information was not secure for five months.

Anthem Blue Cross has issued a statement, saying it is committed
to protecting the privacy and security of its members' and
applicants' personal information, in accordance with all
applicable laws and regulations.

"We believe that this manipulation was conducted to support a
class action against Anthem Blue Cross and/or its parent company
-- over the very breach being committed," Anthem said.

"The ability to manipulate the web address (URL) was available for
a relatively short period of time following an upgrade to the
system. After the upgrade was completed, a third party vendor
validated that all security measures were in place, when in fact
they were not. As soon as the situation was discovered, we made
the necessary security changes to prevent it from happening again.

"We have requested both by letter and in court filings that the
attorneys return all information improperly obtained from the
individual application system and as a result, that information
has been delivered to a court approved custodian who will ensure
its security.

"Out of abundance of caution, all appropriate applicants will
receive a detailed notification from Anthem Blue Cross explaining
what happened, and will be offered identity protection services
for one year at no cost.

"We are currently weighing our legal options with respect to the
data, the impact -- if any -- on our members, and the remediation
costs incurred as a result of these actions."


APPLE INC: Kershaw Mulls Suit for iPhone 4 Technical Problems
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kershaw, Cutter & Ratinoff LLP is currently investigating
potential problems with the release of iPhone 4.

If you recently purchased the new iPhone and have experienced poor
reception quality, dropped calls and weak signals, we would like
to hear from you.  Please call us toll free at (888) 285-3333,
click "live chat" above to immediately speak with a KCR
representative, or email us for more details.

According to Gizmodo, Apple acknowledges the iPhone 4's reception
problems.  Their solution: Hold it differently or buy a case.
"But if this is an Apple design problem, they should fix it for
real or give out cases for free," Gizmodo says.


AZZ INC: Inks Memorandum of Understanding to Settle Suits
---------------------------------------------------------
AZZ incorporated has entered into a memorandum of understanding
with the plaintiffs to settle various stockholder complaints,
according to the company's June 25, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
May 31, 2010.

On April 1, 2010, the company entered into a definitive Agreement
and Plan of Merger with North American Galvanizing & Coatings,
Inc.

After the company announced the proposed acquisition of NGA,
several lawsuits challenging the transaction were filed seeking to
enjoin it or recover unspecified damages from the company in
respect thereof.

On April 13, 2010, Morris Akerman, a purported NGA stockholder,
filed a putative class action complaint in the Delaware Court of
Chancery on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated
stockholders, captioned Akerman v. North American Galvanizing &
Coatings, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 5407-CC.

On April 16, 2010, Gerald Beddow, a purported stockholder of NGA,
filed a putative class action complaint in the Delaware Court of
Chancery on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated
stockholders, captioned Beddow v. North American Galvanizing &
Coatings, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 5420-VCL.

On April 16, 2010, Barbara Gibbs, a purported stockholder of NGA,
filed a putative class action complaint in the County Court for
Rogers County, Oklahoma on behalf of herself and all other
similarly situated stockholders, captioned Gibbs v. North American
Galvanizing & Coatings, Inc., et al., Case No.
CJ-2010-308.

On April 20, 2010, Richard Devivo, a purported stockholder of NGA,
filed a putative class action complaint in the District Court for
Tulsa County, Oklahoma on behalf of himself and all other
similarly situated stockholders, captioned Devivo v. Morrow, et
al., Case No. 2010-02551.

On May 5, 2010, Carlos Dorta, a purported NGA stockholder, filed a
putative class action complaint in the Delaware Court of Chancery
on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated
stockholders, captioned Dorta v. Morrow, et al., C.A. No. 5461.

The Stockholder Complaints purport to assert claims against NGA,
the Board of Directors of NGA, AZZ and an indirect wholly owned
subsidiary of AZZ, Big Kettle Merger Sub, Inc., alleging breaches
of fiduciary duty and aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary
duty in connection with the tender offer for the shares of NGA's
common stock.  Among other things, the complaints allege that NGA
is being sold at an unfair price.  Among other relief, the
plaintiffs in each of the Stockholder Complaints is seeking an
order enjoining Defendants from proceeding with the Merger
Agreement, in addition to rescissionary damages, restitution, and
attorneys' fees.

On June 7, 2010, the Defendants entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding with the plaintiffs in the Stockholder Complaints to
settle all components of that litigation in all of the cases.

Subject to approval by the Rogers County District Court in the
Gibbs case, the settlement includes:

     (a) certification of a settlement class consisting of all
         record and beneficial holders of the Shares at any time
         from April 1, 2010 through and including the date of
         the closing of the merger of NGA with and into a
         subsidiary of AZZ;

     (b) certain supplemental disclosures contained in an
         Amendment No. 1 to the Schedule 14D-9 filed by NGA;

     (c) certain amendments to the Merger Agreement;

     (d) extension of the expiration date of the tender offer
         for the shares of NGA's common stock from June 7, 2010
         to June 14, 2010;

     (e) a release of all claims by class members against all
         Defendants arising from the tender offer and subsequent
         merger;

     (f) orders or judgments of dismissal with prejudice in all
         cases comprising the litigation;

     (g) an attorneys' fee, including expenses for plaintiffs'
         counsel, of $500,000; and

     (h) further terms, all as detailed in the Memorandum of
         Understanding.

The summary of the Memorandum of Understanding is qualified in its
entirety by reference to the Memorandum of Understanding, which
has been filed as Exhibit (a)(5)(A) of the Schedule TO filed by
AZZ with the SEC on April 1, 2010 in connection with the tender
offer (as amended) and is incorporated herein by reference.

The Memorandum of Understanding provides that the Defendants each
have denied, and continue to deny, that they have committed,
attempted to commit, or aided and abetted the commission of, any
violation of law or engaged in any of the wrongful acts alleged in
the Stockholder Complaints, and expressly maintain that they have
diligently and scrupulously complied with their fiduciary duties
and other legal duties and are entering into the Memorandum of
Understanding solely to eliminate the burden and expense of
continued litigation.  Notwithstanding their belief that the
allegations are without merit, in order to eliminate the
litigation burden and expense, the Defendants have concluded that
it is desirable that the Stockholder Complaints be settled on the
terms reflected in the Memorandum of Understanding, and NGA has
agreed to make certain additional disclosures set forth in an
Amendment No. 1 to the Schedule 14D-9 filed by NGA without
agreeing that any of such disclosures are material and despite
denying that the previous disclosures were inadequate.

AZZ incorporated -- http://www.azz.com/-- is a specialty
electrical equipment manufacturer serving the global markets of
power generation, transmission and distribution and industrial, as
well as a leading provider of hot dip galvanizing services to the
steel fabrication market nationwide.


BAUXITE RESOURCES: IMF Mulls Suit Over October 2009 Shares Issue
----------------------------------------------------------------
M. McNamara, writing for Australian Business News, reports that
Perth-based miner Bauxite Resources could be sued by IMF for
claims relating to the company's placement of 60 million shares at
95 cents in October 2010.  Litigation funder IMF said Friday that
it may launch a class action lawsuit, causing the mining company's
shares to slump 19.51% to 16.5 cents Friday afternoon.

IMF alleges Bauxite Resources should not have stated to the market
it would mine within the Shire of Chittering north of Perth, where
large-scale mining is not permitted, according to the Trading
Room.

"Shareholders who purchased shares in Bauxite Resources Limited
during the Placement may be eligible to participate in the claim
which IMF will fund subject to the specific factors set out in the
funding documentation, including a level of participation
acceptable to IMF," the statement said.

Bauxite Resources on Monday said, "BRL has not been issued with
any formal proceedings, and no threat of litigation has been made
directly by current or former shareholders.  Neither within nor
before the facsimile correspondence had IMF provided BRL with any
further detail of the proposal."

Bauxite said it had not obtained a copy of IMF's "Bauxite
Resources Limited Information Pack" until late Sunday evening and
will immediately study the information, comment further on any
proposed legal action, and keep shareholders informed of any
developments.

"In the meantime, the board of Bauxite Resources recommends
shareholders against joining this action until further advice is
given," the company said.

On Monday, Bauxite Resources shares rose to 17 cents.

IMF (Australia) Ltd. is a public listed company providing funding
of legal claims and other related services, in Australia and in
other jurisdictions, where the claim size is over AU$2million. IMF
has brought together the major participants in the litigation
funding market in Australia to become the largest litigation
funder in Australia and the first to be listed on the Australian
Stock Exchange.


BIG FIREWORKS: Recalls 2,000 Twin Trundle Beds
----------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Big Fireworks, of Lansing, Mich., announced a voluntary recall of
about 4,700 Super Lightning Rockets.  Consumers should stop using
recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed.

The rockets are overloaded with pyrotechnic composition, violating
the federal regulatory standard for this product.  This could
result in a greater than expected explosion, posing a risk of
burns and bodily harm to nearby consumers.

No injuries or incidents have been reported.

This recall involves stick-type rockets with 1-1/2 inch in
diameter engine that is mounted on 32-inch wood stick.  The engine
is wrapped in black paper with a background of solar system and
the writing "Super Rocket," in assorted colors.  The rockets were
sold in packs of four, and have item number GCR3150 printed on the
front of the package and on the rocket engine.  Pictures of the
recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10281.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold through
Fireworks stands and stores in Florida, Indiana, Pennsylvania and
Michigan from November 2009 through June 2010 for about $20.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled fireworks and
contact Big Fireworks for instructions on how to receive a full
refund.  For additional information, contact Big Fireworks toll-
free at (866) 514-6225 between 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Eastern
Time, Monday through Friday, or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.bigfireworks.com/


BP PLC: Employees Sue Over Losses Tied to Shares
------------------------------------------------
Melly Alazraki at AOL Money & Finance's DailyFinance reports that
members of BP's employee savings plan are suing the oil giant over
losses tied to the company's plunging stock price, Bloomberg
reports.  BP's stock price has lost about half its value since the
Deepwater Horizon rig exploded, killing 11 of its crew and
creating a massive oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

The lawsuit, which was filed in federal court in Chicago, seeks
class-action status.  Bloomberg reports the complaint states that
regulatory filings show the plan held $2.45 billion worth of
London-based BP's American depositary shares, or 29% its $8.27
billion of assets, at the end of the 2009.

Current BP employees aren't the only ones suing the company over
losses tied to its sinking share price.  Another suit, filed in
Manhattan, was brought by a former employee.  It asks for
unspecified damages and claims BP breached its fiduciary duty by
making unwise investments.  And New York State Common Retirement
Fund, the nation's third-largest public pension fund, is seeking
"lead plaintiff" status in the class action.  A fund spokesman
said "BP misled investors about its safety procedures and its
ability to respond to events like the ongoing oil spill, and we're
going to hold it accountable."

Similarly, BP's own employees say the "Defendants knew or should
have known that investment in BP Plc equity was -- and continues
to be -- an imprudent investment of the ESP's assets due to
serious mismanagement and improper business practices that
resulted in catastrophic incidents of international significance,
including, among others, the BP spill in the Gulf of Mexico."

The drop in BP's share price has also erased more than $1.4
billion in value from 42 state retirement funds that hold BP
stock.

It's not clear yet whether courts will decide that any of these
suits have merit. If they do, the next question would be: What's
the extent of BP's liability? The company said on June 28 that the
just the cost of cleaning up the oil spill has reached $2.65
billion.


BP PLC: Several Gulf Coast Seafood Restaurants Join Herman Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
It has been two months since the explosion and subsequent sinking
of the Deepwater Horizon oil rig caused massive amounts of crude
oil to begin leaking into the Gulf of Mexico, and in that time,
industry across the Gulf Coast has been affected, from the
commercial fishing industry to tourism to food distribution.

As a region known for its cuisine, the Gulf Coast restaurant
industry -- particularly the seafood industry -- has been the
focus of international attention, and in May, several restaurants
from Louisiana and Florida filed a class action suit against BP,
plc, BP Products North America, Inc., and BP America, Inc., whom
the U.S. Coast Guard identified as the "responsible party,"
according to the Oil Pollution Act.

The class action was originally filed on May 18 on behalf of
several plaintiffs who are restaurant owners and others in the
seafood service industry in Louisiana and Florida who have or will
suffer lost profits as a result of the subsequent oil spill
following the sinking of the Deepwater Horizon oil rig.  Over the
course of the past month, several more restaurants in Texas and
Arkansas have joined the action, proving just how vast this spill
has become.

The named plaintiffs include restaurants and seafood wholesalers
in Louisiana, Texas, Arkansas and Florida. Louisiana plaintiffs
include Franky and Johnny's; Tello's Bistro; Zeke's Restaurant;
Cafe Maspero; Pete's Restaurant; Red River Grill; Crazy Lobster
restaurant; Poppy's Seafood Factory restaurant; Roy Marris
Seafood; New Orleans Fish House, LLC; Eleven 79 Restaurant; and
wholesale distributor P.A. Menard, Inc.

In Florida, restaurants include Poppy's Crazy Lobster of Destin,
Poppy's Time Out Sports Bar & Grill of Orlando and Poppy's Dancin'
Iguana of Destin.  New to the Class Action are several Kelley's
Country Cookin' locations throughout Texas and Arkansas' Big Bayou
Market and Who Dat's, Inc.

New Orleans' signature restaurants K-Paul's, Brigtsen's and
Charlie's Seafood have also intervened.

As a Class Action, the claim has been filed on behalf of the named
plaintiffs as well as all individuals or businesses that own
and/or operate restaurants and/or wholesale seafood distributors
located in those states that touch and/or border on the Gulf of
Mexico.

The action states that, due to the dangerous environmental
contamination as a result of the oil leak, "fishing, shrimping,
oystering and other commercial activities have been suspended, and
will likely continue to be legally and/or effectively reduced,"
therefore causing a loss of revenue and earning capacity for these
restaurants.

Stephen Herman, Esq., of New Orleans-based law firm Herman,
Herman, Katz & Cotlar -- http://www.hhkc.com/-- is the attorney
for the Plaintiffs.  The firm's position is that restaurants and
others in the food service industry who suffer economic losses due
to the oil spill are covered by the 1990 Oil Pollution Act (OPA),
and therefore the firm is seeking a formal judgment from the Court
to set the standard for appropriate claims.

"While good fresh, local seafood is still available, and we are
hopeful that BP will cap the well and things will return to
normal," explains Herman, "prices have already begun to rise, and
there is a significant risk that loss of tourism and oil services
jobs will diminish the customer base.  Depending on the long-term
environmental effects, these restaurants also face the risk of
losing customers as a result of higher prices and limited
availability."

BP has recently hired Washington-based attorney Kenneth Feinberg
as their oil spill claims manager charged with the task of
speeding up payments to businesses and individuals who are losing
income as a direct result of the oil rig accident and subsequent
spill. He will focus on claims from individuals and businesses for
economic loss and will likely be using the standards set by OPA as
a guide. Feinberg is in the process of developing standards and
procedures for the submission of claims to the fund.

Stephen Herman and his firm are trying to work with Feinberg and
BP to shape the elements of the ICF program.

"The key," says Mr. Herman, "is making sure that this fund
provides commercial fisherman, oyster lease holders, restaurant
owners, hotel owners and others with the relief to which they are
entitled, without compromising or limiting the right to appeal or
other claims that they may have.  For example, some affected
property owners and fishermen may have claims for punitive or
other damages against parties other than BP -- Transocean, for
example, or Halliburton.  We will have to wait and see the
details, but we would likely have to advise our clients not to
participate in a process where they might not get the relief to
which they are entitled under the Oil Pollution Act, if, in order
to participate, they would have to waive or release such claims."

The class action suit alleges that BP "knew of the dangers
associated with deep water drilling and failed to take appropriate
measures to prevent damage to Plaintiffs, Louisiana's and the Gulf
of Mexico's marine and coastal environments and estuarine areas,
and the Coastal Zone."

     Stephen J. Herman, Esq.
     HERMAN, HERMAN, KATZ & COTLAR LLP
     820 O'Keefe Avenue
     New Orleans, LA 70113
     Telephone: (504) 581-4892
     Facsimile: (504) 561-6024
     E-mail: sherman@hhkc.com


CHATTEM INC: Indiana Suit Alleges Deceptive Business Practices
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Chattem Inc. sold $445
million of its Garlique diet supplement in 2008 by making
unsubstantiated claims that it lowers cholesterol, in a class
action in New Albany, Ind., Federal Court.

Jon Hood, writing for ConsumerAffairs.com, reports that the
complaint says the plaintiffs would not have bought Garlique --
or, at least, they wouldn't have paid as much -- were it not for
Chattem's misleading statements.  The suit says that Chattem is
liable to the class for millions of dollars in damages.

According to the complaint, Chattem is clinging to a report from
an October 2000 finding that "garlic slightly lowered cholesterol
levels when taken for one to three months," although that same
report "concluded that garlic had no effect on cholesterol when
taken for six months or more."  The suit also notes that "numerous
studies, including a study released by the Archives of Internal
Medicine on February 26, 2007, have concluded that garlic does not
provide the benefits of cholesterol reduction and maintenance"
that Chattem claims it does.

The suit points to several allegedly misleading quotes from
Chattem's Web site, including the company's assertions that "[o]ne
Garlique tablet each day, preferably with a meal, provides support
for cardiovascular health," and that "[g]arlic has long been used
for its healthful benefits as well as a flavorful ingredient in
recipes around the world."  Of this second statement, the
complaint says, "Apparently recognizing that this statement is
inaccurate, Defendant recently removed it from its website."

The suit also points out that the Better Business Bureau asked
Chattem to either discontinue or change ads in which Larry King
endorses Garlique.  That request was apparently because Mr. King's
claim that "garlic has been clinically shown to maintain healthy
cholesterol levels" was not based on research specifically
involving Garlique.

The 2000 report used to justify Chattem's claims was performed by
the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and was based on
37 randomized trials using garlic in three different forms --
fresh, cooked, and as a supplement.  The report noted that "most
[of the 37] trials had significant methodological flaws," drawing
the reliability of their findings into question.

A subsequent article, compiled by the Archives of Internal
Medicine, examined 45 randomized trials and 73 other studies and
found the data "compatible with the hypothesis that garlic
supplementation may produce mild short-term benefits on the levels
of total cholesterol," but ultimately pronounced the data
"inconclusive."  That article also pointed to potential flaws in
the trials it discussed.

The suit goes on to note that at least five studies "have
concluded that garlic preparations have no effect on cholesterol
levels, even in the short-term."  The suit seeks damages and a
permanent injunction barring Chattem from further misleading
advertisements.  The class also wants Chattem to issue "corrective
advertising" renouncing its allegedly misleading statements.  The
complaint charges Chattem with intentional misrepresentation and
unjust enrichment.

A copy of the Complaint in Grube v. Chattem, Inc., Case No.
10-cv-00057 (S.D. Ind.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/06/28/CCA.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William N. Riley, Esq.
          Joseph N. Williams, Esq.
          PRICE WAICUKAUSKI & RILEY, LLC
          The Hammond Block Bldg.
          301 Massachusetts AVe.
          Indianapolis, IN 46204
          Telephone: 317-633-8787

               - and -

          Joe R. Whatley, Jr., Esq.
          Patrick J. Sheehan, Esq.
          WHATLEY DRAKE & KALLAS, LLC
          1540 Broadway, 37th Floor
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: 212-447-7070

               - and -

          James H. McFerrin, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JAMES MCFERRIN
          2117 Magnolia Ave. So., Suite 100
          Birmingham, AL 35205
          Telephone: 205-870-5704

               - and -

          Robert S. Tellman, III, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF ROB TELLMAN
          2117 Magnolia Ave. So., Suite 100
          Birmingham, AL 35205
          Telephone: 205-370-1998


CHARLIE CRIST: Class Suit Filed to Recover Campaign Donations
-------------------------------------------------------------
Aisling Swift at Naples Daily News reports that Linda Morton of
East Naples donated $500 to Gov. Charlie Crist's campaign for the
U.S. Senate, while John Rood of Jacksonville, a retired U.S.
ambassador, contributed $4,800 to the Republican.  Now they want a
refund.

The two filed a class-action lawsuit on behalf of all
contributors, demanding a refund from the long-time Republican,
who announced in April he'd run as an Independent for Senate after
falling behind Republican Marco Rubio in the polls.

"Crist has made it clear that he believes a candidate should not
say one thing and do another," says the lawsuit, filed last week
in Collier Circuit Court against Crist and his campaign, Charlie
Crist for U.S. Senate. " . . . The parties agree with Crist."

The lawsuit quotes Gov. Crist telling Fox News political news
reporter Greta Van Susteren on March 9 that saying one thing and
doing another is "perpetrating a fraud on people. . . . That's not
right. That's not being honest and straightforward with the
voters."

The lawsuit then uses those words against Gov. Crist.

"Offering to receive, and accepting, the Republican contributions
to his campaign for Senate as a Republican candidate, and then
actually running against the Republican candidate without
refunding the Republican contributions is not right," the lawsuit
says. "It also violates the law and has caused damages to
thousands of donors . . ."

Ms. Morton, a Lely mother of four and school volunteer, and Mr.
Rood are represented by Rep. Tom Grady, R-Naples, who resigned as
regional chairman of Gov. Crist's Senate campaign and his
statewide finance team, citing their differing political views.
Mr. Grady, who said he still valued their friendship, acknowledged
it was Gov. Crist who had encouraged him to run for state House of
Representatives.

Gov. Crist's spokesman wasn't available for comment Monday, but a
campaign worker said no money had been returned.

By law, individual donors are limited to giving $2,400 for the
primary and $2,400 for the general election, as Mr. Rood did.  Ms.
Morton donated $500 to Gov. Crist's campaign for the primary.
Federal election law says Gov. Crist is not required to return the
money.

Mr. Grady said he's arguing the case under state laws: unjust
enrichment, breach of contract, and breach of covenants of good
faith and fair dealing.  "I believe you cannot do what he did
without some obligation for returning their money," Mr. Grady
said, noting politicians in similar situations historically have
returned contributions, including Sen. Arlen Specter of
Pennsylvania, who switched from Republican to Democrat last year.

"He actually did offer to give money back to people and no lawsuit
was filed," Mr. Grady said of Mr. Specter returning $850,000 to
900 people who requested refunds.

"I have waited for quite some time and it's clear that's not going
to happen," Mr. Grady said of Gov. Crist. "He was pretty blunt in
saying he was not going to refund the money, but as you know, the
governor changes his mind."

The lawsuit notes Gov. Crist has run or held office as a
Republican ever since a successful 1992 run for state Senate.  He
won the Republican nomination and election for governor in 2006.

"During his political career, Gov. Crist raised millions of
dollars in his various campaigns as a Republican candidate," the
lawsuit says.  "In addition, he has received significant financial
support from the Republican Party of Florida and other
organizations that support only Republican candidates for office
. . ."

The lawsuit outlines how polls showed support for Gov. Crist was
declining; that Mr. Rubio, former House Speaker, was ahead; and
that Gov. Crist made repeated public denials that he wouldn't run
as an Independent.

The lawsuit notes Gov. Crist made the switch days after issuing an
April 8 press release, saying: "This should completely and utterly
put to rest any of the unfounded rumors coming from the Rubio
campaign that Governor Crist would run as anything other than the
Republican that he is."

On April 29, Gov. Crist publicly announced he'd run without party
affiliation, opting not to face Rubio, a conservative Republican
from West Miami and rising star nationally, in the primaries.
Gov. Crist made it official May 12, when he filed a statement of
candidacy.

The switch means there will be a three-way race Nov. 4, with Mr.
Rubio and the winner of the Democratic nomination.

As of the June 18 qualifying deadline, records show Gov. Crist had
raised more than $10 million in Republican contributions and had
spent about $2.5 million to seek the Republican primary
nomination.

The lawsuit quotes a May 12 political column in the St. Petersburg
Times: "At a campaign event on May 12, 2010, Gov. Crist was asked,
'What about the guys who gave you money when you were a
Republican?'

'I'm going to keep it!' Gov. Crist cheerfully responded with a
wink."

Last month, news reports show, former state GOP chairman Al
Cardenas and 19 other prominent Republicans wrote a letter
demanding the return of their contributions, saying Gov. Crist
broke donors' trust.

The lawsuit contends the contributions should be returned,
alleging they'd be used to support a non-Republican in the
primaries and general election -- and to actively oppose the
election of a Republican.  The lawsuit is assigned to Circuit
Judge Cynthia Pivacek, who must rule whether there is a class.
The lawsuit seeks the return of unspent contributions as of the
qualifying deadline and all contributions to the general election
so class members can use them for a "true" Republican.  It also
seeks a temporary and permanent injunction to prohibit Gov. Crist
and his campaign from using the money for employees or others.


CKE RESTAURANTS: Agrees to Settle Amended Complaint in Delaware
---------------------------------------------------------------
CKE Restaurants, Inc., has entered into an agreement to settle an
amended consolidated complaint over its planned merger with
Western Acquisition Holdings, Inc., pending in the Delaware Court
of Chancery, according to the company's June 22, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended May 17, 2010.

On Feb. 26, 2010, the company entered into an Agreement and Plan
of Merger with Western Acquisition Holdings, Inc. (Parent), and
Western Acquisition Corp., a wholly owned subsidiary of Parent
(Merger Sub), providing for the merger of Merger Sub with and into
the company, with the company surviving the Merger as a wholly
owned subsidiary of Parent.  Parent and Merger Sub are affiliates
of Thomas H. Lee Partners, L.P.

Between March 1, 2010, and March 26, 2010, three putative
stockholder class actions were filed in the Delaware Court of
Chancery against the company, each of its directors, THL and its
affiliates alleging the directors breached their fiduciary duties
regarding the Prior Merger Agreement and that THL and its
affiliates aided and abetted those breaches.

On March 29, 2010, the Delaware Court of Chancery consolidated the
three cases filed in that court as In re CKE Restaurants, Inc.
Shareholder Litigation, Consolidated C.A. No. 5290-VCP.

On April 1, 2010, plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint.  On
April 12, 2010, the Delaware Court of Chancery granted the
plaintiffs' motion for expedited proceedings and request for a
hearing to consider preliminarily enjoining the Prior Merger, and
a hearing was scheduled for May 28, 2010.

On May 12, 2010, the plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated
complaint against the company, its directors, Apollo, Parent and
Merger Sub that drops the challenge to the Prior Merger Agreement
and instead alleges the directors breached their fiduciary duties
regarding the Merger, including that the directors had breached
their duty of disclosure in the preliminary proxy statement, and
that Apollo and its affiliates aided and abetted those breaches.
On May 12, 2010, the plaintiffs also filed a motion for expedited
discovery and the scheduling of a hearing to preliminarily enjoin
the Merger.

On or about May 25, 2010, the company entered into an agreement in
principle with the plaintiffs regarding the settlement of the
action.  On or about June 7, 2010, the parties informed that Court
that they had reached a memorandum of understanding regarding
settlement of the action.

CKE Restaurants, Inc. -- http://www.ckr.com/-- owns, operates,
franchises or licenses 3,116 quick-service restaurants, which are
referred to in the company's industry as QSRs, primarily under the
brand names Carl's Jr. and Hardee's. Carl's Jr. restaurants are
primarily located in the Western United States.  The Hardee's
restaurants are located in the Southeastern and Midwestern United
States.


CKE RESTAURANTS: Inks Pact to Settle Calif. Consolidated Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
CKE Restaurants, Inc., has entered into an agreement to settle a
consolidated complaint over its planned merger with Western
Acquisition Holdings, Inc., pending in the Superior Court of
California for the County of Santa Barbara, according to the
company's June 22, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended May 17, 2010.

On Feb. 26, 2010, the company entered into an Agreement and Plan
of Merger with Western Acquisition Holdings, Inc. (Parent), and
Western Acquisition Corp., a wholly owned subsidiary of Parent
(Merger Sub), providing for the merger of Merger Sub with and into
the company, with the company surviving the Merger as a wholly-
owned subsidiary of Parent.  Parent and Merger Sub are affiliates
of Thomas H. Lee Partners, L.P.

Between March 1, 2010 and March 26, 2010, four putative
stockholder class actions were filed in the Superior Court of
California for the County of Santa Barbara against the company,
each of its directors, THL and its affiliates alleging the
directors breached their fiduciary duties regarding the Prior
Merger Agreement and that THL and its affiliates aided and abetted
those breaches.

On March 26, 2010, the Superior Court of California for the County
of Santa Barbara consolidated the four cases filed in that court
as In re CKE Restaurants, Inc. Shareholder Litigation, Lead Case
No. 1342245.

On April 8, 2010, plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint.  On
April 16, 2010, the Superior Court of California for the County of
Santa Barbara granted the defendants' motion for a stay of the
California Action pending resolution of a lawsuit based on similar
allegations filed in Delaware Court of Chancery.

On or about June 8, 2010, the parties reached an agreement in
principle regarding settlement of the action.

CKE Restaurants, Inc. -- http://www.ckr.com/-- owns, operates,
franchises or licenses 3,116 quick-service restaurants, which are
referred to in the company's industry as QSRs, primarily under the
brand names Carl's Jr. and Hardee's. Carl's Jr. restaurants are
primarily located in the Western United States.  The Hardee's
restaurants are located in the Southeastern and Midwestern United
States.


CLARCOR INC: Seeking to Overturn Dismissed Bid in Filters Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
CLARCOR Inc. continues to seek to overturn the dismissal of its
motion to be dropped from the class actions filed by purchasers of
aftermarket filters.

On March 31, 2008, S&E Quick Lube, a filter distributor, filed
suit in U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut
alleging that virtually every major North American filter
manufacturer, including Baldwin Filters, Inc., engaged in a
conspiracy to fix prices, rig bids and allocate U.S. customers for
aftermarket filters.

This suit seeks various remedies, including injunctive relief and
monetary damages of an unspecified amount, and is a purported
class action on behalf of direct purchasers of filters from the
defendants.

Parallel purported class actions, including on behalf of indirect
purchasers of filters, have been filed by other plaintiffs in a
variety of jurisdictions in the United States and Canada.

The U.S cases have been consolidated into a single multi-district
litigation in the Northern District of Illinois.

The company filed a motion to be dismissed from these cases due to
the lack of any factual allegations against the company
specifically and the fact that the allegations center
predominantly on the automotive filtration market rather than on
the heavy duty filtration market.

On Nov. 9, 2009, the presiding court denied the Company's motion,
a decision that the Company is seeking to overturn.

The Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice is also
investigating the allegations raised in these suits.

No further updates were reported in the company's June 17, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended May 29, 2010.

CLARCOR Inc. -- http://www.clarcor.com/-- conducts business in
three segments: Engine/Mobile Filtration, Industrial/
Environmental Filtration and Packaging.


COMVERSE TECH: Court Grants Final Approval to Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York has
entered a final judgment approving the settlement agreement in a
consolidated shareholder class action captioned In re Comverse
Technology, Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 06-CV-1825, according to the
company's June 24, 2010, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission.

The suit was filed the company and certain of its former officers
and directors alleging that such defendants had violated federal
securities laws in connection with prior statements made by the
company with respect to, among other things, its accounting
treatment of stock options.

The company also entered into an agreement to settle consolidated
shareholder derivative actions: In re Comverse Technology, Inc.
Derivative Litigation, No. 601272/2006 and In re Comverse
Technology, Inc. Derivative Litigation, No. 06-CV-1849, which are
pending in the New York Supreme Court for New York County and the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York,
respectively. The suits were filed against certain of the
company's former officers and directors and, in the state court
action, the company's independent registered public accounting
firm, alleging that the defendants breached certain duties to the
company and that certain former officers and directors were
unjustly enriched (and, in the federal action, alleging violation
of federal securities laws).

In connection with such settlements, the company agreed to dismiss
its direct lawsuits under the captions Comverse
Technology, Inc. v. Alexander, No. 08/600142 and Comverse
Technology, Inc. v. Kreinberg, No. 09/600052 in the Supreme Court
of the State of New York against Jacob "Kobi" Alexander, the
company's former Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, David
Kreinberg, the company's former Chief Financial Officer, and
William Sorin, the company's former General Counsel, and Messrs.
Alexander, Sorin and Kreinberg agreed to dismiss their
counterclaims against the company.

As part of the settlement of the consolidated shareholder class
action, the company agreed to make payments to a class action
settlement fund in the aggregate amount of $165.0 million as
follows:

     -- $1.0 million paid upon signing of this settlement
        agreement;

     -- $51.5 million on or before Aug.15, 2010;

     -- $30.0 million on or before Feb. 15, 2011; and

     -- $82.5 million on or before Aug. 15, 2011.

The company intends to fund the $51.5 million due on or before
Aug. 15, 2010 with proceeds from the sale of certain auction rate
securities to UBS AG.  UBS AG has previously agreed to purchase
$51.5 million face amount of such securities for a purchase price
equal to such face amount at the Company's election between June
30, 2010 and July 2, 2012.

The $30.0 million due on or before Feb. 15, 2011 and the $82.5
million due on or before August 15, 2011 are payable in cash or,
at the company's election, in shares of the company's common stock
valued using the ten day average of the closing price of the
company's common stock prior to such election.

In addition, as part of the settlement of the consolidated
shareholder class action and the derivative actions, Mr.
Alexander agreed to pay $60.0 million to the company which will be
deposited into the derivative settlement fund and then
transferred into the class action settlement fund.

The other defendants in the derivative actions agreed to pay to
the company an aggregate of $1.35 million and certain former
directors agreed to relinquish certain unexercised stock options.

The company's settlement of claims against it in the class action
for aggregate consideration of $165.0 million is not contingent
upon Mr. Alexander satisfying his payment obligations.

The Court has also preliminarily approved the settlement.

On June 19, 2010, the company entered into an amendment to the
settlement.

Pursuant to the Amendment, the same aggregate amount of $164
million remains payable by the company (subject to a credit for
the Opt-Out Class Member), but the schedule of such payments has
been revised as follows:

  (A) $21.5 million payable upon the earlier to occur of

     (1) Aug. 15, 2010 and

     (2) 48 hours following the receipt of proceeds from the
         sale of certain auction rate securities to UBS AG,
         which is expected to occur in July 2010;

   (B) $30 million payable on or before May 15, 2011 and

   (C) $112.5 million payable on or before Nov. 15, 2011.

Under the Stipulation of Settlement (both prior to and after the
Amendment), payments due after August 15, 2010 are payable in cash
or, at the company's election, in shares of the company's common
stock if the shares are listed on a national securities exchange
at the time of issuance, except that $30 million of the final
payment of $112.5 million must be paid in cash.  Any payments in
shares will be valued using the ten day average of the closing
price of the company's common stock prior to such election.

In addition, as part of the settlement of the consolidated
shareholder class action and the derivative actions, Jacob "Kobi"
Alexander, the company's former Chairman and Chief Executive
Officer, agreed to pay $60.0 million to the company which will be
deposited into the derivative settlement fund and then transferred
into the class action settlement fund.  Pursuant to the Amendment,
Mr. Alexander revoked a notice of termination relating to the
election of the Opt-Out Class Member and will receive a credit for
a portion of the funds that would otherwise have been paid to such
class member.  The company's settlement of claims against it in
the shareholder class action is not contingent upon Mr. Alexander
satisfying his payment obligations.

On June 21, 2010, a previously scheduled hearing was held before
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York
regarding the approval of (i) the Stipulation of Settlement, as
amended by the Amendment; (ii) the Stipulation of Compromise and
Settlement to settle the shareholder derivative action under the
caption In re Comverse Technology, Inc. Derivative Litig., No. 06-
CV-1849(NGG) (RER) and (iii) the Stipulation of Settlement to
settle the shareholder derivative action under the caption Levy v.
Koren and John Does 1-20, No. 07-OV-0896 (NGG) (RER).

On June 23, 2010, the Court entered a final judgment approving the
settlements of all such actions.

Comverse Technology, Inc. -- http://www.cmvt.com/-- through its
subsidiary, Comverse, Inc., is a provider of software and systems
enabling network-based multimedia enhanced communication and
billing services.


COUNTRYWIDE HOME: Judge Hylla Approves Settlement in Morgan Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Amelia Flood at The Madison/St. Clair Record reports Madison
County Circuit Judge David Hylla gave the final go-ahead to the
settlement of a class action brought against Countrywide Home
Loans Inc. Monday morning.

The suit, one of at least two filed by lead plaintiff Todd Morgan,
secured class members about $30 in compensation.  The attorneys
for the class will receive $100,000 in fees and costs.  Morgan, as
class representative, will get $10,000.

Morgan has another class action against Countrywide pending in
Madison County Circuit Judge Barbara Crowder's courtroom.

Judge Hylla gave the Morgan suit before him the initial go ahead
on its settlement in February.  In both class actions, the lead
plaintiff and class contend that Countrywide charged improper
fees.

The suits were among a series of such cases filed beginning in
2003 by the then partnership of the Lakin Law Firm (now
LakinChapman LLC) and the Freed & Weiss firm of Chicago.  The
partnership has since broken up, although the suits it filed
remain.  The Morgan suit before Judge Hylla is a year older than
the one still pending before Judge Crowder.

Judge Hylla asked only for clarification of what fees the class
attorneys would receive before signing the approval order.

There has been little action in the 2004 case before Judge Crowder
since Freed & Weiss withdrew from it in April 2008.  That suit was
set for case management at 9 a.m. on June 30.

According to the attorneys present at Monday's hearing, there were
no opt-outs from the settlement or objections.

The settled 2003 Countrywide case is Madison case number 03-L-980.

The 2004 case still pending before Judge Crowder is case number
04-L-1432.

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

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

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

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

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

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


DUNNIE LAI: Accused of Mismanagement and Breach of Fiduciary Duty
-----------------------------------------------------------------
150 Property Holdings Inc., individually and as a Limited Partner
of 150 Lafayette Street Property Investments Co., suing on behalf
of itself and others similarly situated (for the benefit of 150
Lafayette Street Property Investments Co. and Generation
Properties Investment Co.), v. Dunnie Lai, et al., Case No.
650741/2010 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. June 25, 2010), asserts deceit, fraud
and breaches of fiduciary duty perpetrated by Ms. Lai and other
conspirators, both known and unknown, against Double Fortune
Property Investors Corp. (general partner of 150 Lafayette Street
Property Investments Co.) and plaintiffs, 150 Lafayette Street
Property Investments Co. and Generation Properties Investment Co.
("GPIC").  150 Property Holdings is a Delaware business
corporation and successor in interest to the partnership interests
of Liang Liang, Cheng Liang and Me Lun Liang in GPIC.

The Plaintiff alleges that Dunnie Lai and others, in or about
1987, engaged in various illicit activities to obtain improperly
money and property for themselves and their families from 150
Lafayette Street Property Investments Co. and GPIC.  The lawsuit
seeks compensation for the damages Ms. Lai has caused to 150
Lafayette Street Property Investments Co., GPIC and Double Fortune
Property Investors Corp.; and asks the Court to confirm the
dissolution of GPIC and to prohibit defendants Drabkin & Margulies
and Ralph Drabkin from acting as attorneys for GPIC.

The Plaintiff says that Ms. Lai, acting alone and with others,
engaged in more than two acts, which constituted a pattern of
racketeering activity, in violation of 18 USCA Sec. 1962.  In
addition to the pattern of racketeering activity, Plaintiff
relates that Ms. Lai engaged in a "pervasive pattern of breaching
her fiduciary duty to her partners and the partnerships", and that
Ms. Lai used numerous entities, which she owned or controlled to
hide and cover up her pattern of racketeering activity, misconduct
and breach of fiduciary responsibility to her partners and the
partnerships.

150 Lafayette Street Property Investments Co., which became, in or
about 2002, 150 Lafayette St. Property Investments Co., L.P. (the
"150 Partnership"), is a New York limited partnership formed in or
about November 1981.  GPIC is a New York partnership formed in or
about April 1985.  Ms. Dunnie Lai is a resident of the City and
State of New York, and has acted and held herself out to be the
managing partner of the 150 Partnership and GPIC.

In or about April 1982, the 150 Partnership became the fee owner
of land and the building on it located at 150 Lafayette Street,
County, City and State of New York.  In or about 1985 GPIC became
a limited partner in the 105 Partnership as a successor in
interest to Bi Luck Properties.  In or about 1998 Ms. Lai became a
partner in the 150 Partnership.  In or about 1987 Ms. Lai and her
husband, Tony Lai, became partners in GPIC.  One of the purposes
of the 150 Partnership was to manage the building.  Tony Lai
managed the building from 1991 to 1993.  From 1993 until in or
about August 2002, Ms. Lai held herself out to be and acted as the
managing and leasing agent for the buildings.

The Plaintiff narrates that throughout Ms. Lai's tenure as a
partner in the partnerships and as managing and leasing agent for
the building, she has ignored her duties and responsibilities, and
acted, alone and with others, in her own self-interest, in bad
faith, and in violation of the Federal and New York State laws, to
the detriment of the 150 Partnership and GPIC.  Plaintiff says Ms.
Lai's neglect, inaction, self-dealing, bad faith, illicit schemes
and misconduct have diminished the value of the partnerships and
put the partnerships and their partners in great jeopardy.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph Milano, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH MILANO, P.C.
          71 Vanderbilt Ave., Suite 460
          New York, NY 10169
          Telephone: (212) 922-0700


GRUMA S.A.B.: Appeal of Plaintiffs on Awards Affirmation Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
The appeal of the plaintiffs on the affirmation of awards of the
district court in the matter Dennis Johnson and Arnold Rosenfeld
et al v. Gruma Corporation, remains pending in the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, according to Gruma, S.A.B. de
C.V.'s  June 15, 2010, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

Gruma, S.A.B. conducts its U.S. and European operations
principally through its subsidiary, Gruma Corp.

In November 2001, one of GRUMA's distributors filed a putative
class action lawsuit against Gruma Corporation.  The case was
removed from California state court to federal court.  In April
2005, the U.S. District Court, based upon a recent U.S. Supreme
Court decision, ordered that the claims be referred to arbitration
in Los Angeles and that the arbitrator decide whether the matter
should proceed as a class action.  An additional distributor
subsequently joined the arbitration as a claimant.

The arbitrator has made a preliminary ruling that a class of
approximately 1,120 California distributors will be certified, but
a final certification order has not yet been entered.  The claims,
as amended, allege that:  (i) Gruma Corporation breached its
agreements with its distributors; (ii) Gruma Corporation's
distributors are actually employees; (iii) Gruma Corporation has
failed to make wage and other payments required for employees;
(iv) Gruma Corporation has violated California's labor, antitrust,
and unfair competition statutes; and (v) Gruma Corporation has
otherwise committed fraud and negligent misrepresentations.  The
arbitrator subsequently dismissed the antitrust claims.

The plaintiffs seek damages and equitable relief, but have not yet
specified the total amount of damages sought.  The arbitrator has
indicated that trial will be held in two phases.  The first phase
to determine the existence of any liability began on April 28,
2008 and finished on May 21, 2008.  On August 12, 2008, the
arbitrator issued his final award in writing finding that the
distributors are properly classified as independent contractors
and denying all relief.

In November 2008, the District Court affirmed the award on all
grounds and plaintiffs have appealed the confirmation to the Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  The Ninth Circuit heard oral
arguments on March 4, 2010 and the company is are awaiting the
Court's decision.

Headquartered in Monterrey, Mexico, Gruma, S.A.B. de C.V. --
http://www.gruma.com-- is a corn flour and tortilla producer and
distributor.  The company conducts its U.S. and European
operations principally through its subsidiary, Gruma Corporation,
which manufactures and distributes corn flour, packaged tortillas,
corn chips and related products.  As of Dec. 31, 2007, Gruma held
approximately 8.62 % of the capital stock of Grupo Financiero
Banorte, S.A.B. de C.V.


GRUMA S.A.B.: Plaintiffs in "Garza" Have Yet to File Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the matter Enrique Garza, et al. v. Gruma
Corporation doing business as Mission Foods, have not yet filed an
appeal to denial of class certification and granting of summary
judgment in favor of Gruma, S.A.B. de C.V.  The plaintiffs however
have requested an extension, according to the company's June 15,
2010, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

In April 2007, GRUMA was named in a class action suit, filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California,
San Jose Division.

The plaintiffs assert that they were induced to enter into
distributor agreements and to pay for routes by false statements
and that GRUMA breached the distributor agreements by arbitrarily
taking their routes, shuffling around the routes, reselling the
routes to others, and failing to adequately compensate the
plaintiffs.  The plaintiffs also asserted a Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Organizations violation under 18 U.S. Code Sections
1962 et seq.

Plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of damages and injunctive
relief.

On July 24, 2008, the Court dismissed the RICO claims with
prejudice.  In July 2009, the district court granted GRUMA's
motion for summary judgment and denied plaintiff's motion for
class certification.  Plaintiffs have not yet filed their appeal
and have requested an extension.

Headquartered in Monterrey, Mexico, Gruma, S.A.B. de C.V. --
http://www.gruma.com-- is a corn flour and tortilla producer and
distributor.  The company conducts its U.S. and European
operations principally through its subsidiary, Gruma Corporation,
which manufactures and distributes corn flour, packaged tortillas,
corn chips and related products.  As of Dec. 31, 2007, Gruma held
approximately 8.62 % of the capital stock of Grupo Financiero
Banorte, S.A.B. de C.V.


GRUMA S.A.B.: No Discovery Yet in Ex-Employee's Suit
----------------------------------------------------
Discovery phase in a class action complaint filed by a former
employee against Gruma, S.A.B. de C.V. has not yet begun,
according to the company's June 15, 2010, Form 20-F filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
Dec. 31, 2009.

On March 24, 2009, Guadalupe Arevalo, a former employee, filed a
class action complaint for damages and equitable relief for:

     (1) failure to pay minimum or contractual wages in
         violation of the California Labor Code Sections 1194
         and 1197, et seq.;

     (2) failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
         California Labor Code Sections 1194 and 510;

     (3) failure to provide accurate wage statements in
         violation of the California Labor Code Sections 226;

     (4) violation of the California Labor Code Sections 201 and
         202 resulting in Section 203 wages and penalties for
         failure to pay wages due former employees at the time
         of resignation and/or discharge; and

     (5) unfair competition violations in connection with the
         California Business and Professions Code Sections 17200
         et seq.

In August 2009, the case was removed to the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California.

The discovery phase of the trial has not yet begun.  Plaintiff has
not yet identified the amount of damages sought.

Headquartered in Monterrey, Mexico, Gruma, S.A.B. de C.V. --
http://www.gruma.com-- is a corn flour and tortilla producer and
distributor.  The company conducts its U.S. and European
operations principally through its subsidiary, Gruma Corporation,
which manufactures and distributes corn flour, packaged tortillas,
corn chips and related products.  As of Dec. 31, 2007, Gruma held
approximately 8.62 % of the capital stock of Grupo Financiero
Banorte, S.A.B. de C.V.


JANUS CAPITAL: U.S. Supreme Court to Review Appeal in October
-------------------------------------------------------------
Brent Kendall at Dow Jones Newswires reports that the U.S. Supreme
Court on Monday agreed to review a lower court ruling that revived
a securities class-action lawsuit against Janus Capital Group Inc.

Plaintiffs sued Janus in 2003 after the company's shares dropped
amid allegations that it and other mutual-fund companies allowed
sophisticated traders to rapidly trade in and out of their funds
at the expense of long-term shareholders.  Janus, which settled
with federal and state regulators in 2004, argued the securities
lawsuit had major legal shortcomings and should be dismissed.

James Vicini at Reuters relates that a federal judge initially
dismissed the lawsuit, but a U.S. appeals court ruled it could
proceed, holding the plaintiffs had adequately pleaded a claim of
liability against the company.  Janus appealed to the Supreme
Court, arguing the appeals court had erred.

Reuters also reports the Obama administration opposed the appeal.
Administration lawyers said the allegations in the complaint were
sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss, that the lawsuit
adequately alleged Janus made misrepresentations in the
prospectuses and that class members relied on the alleged false
statements to their detriment.

The Supreme Court will take up the case during its next term,
which begins in October.

The case is Janus Capital Group v. First Derivative Traders,
09-525.


JEWISH HOSPITAL: Class Action Status Sought on Data Theft Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Flack at WAVE News reports that Jewish Hospital was hauled
into court Tuesday.  It's the first step in what could turn out to
be a class action lawsuit against Jewish and Our Lady of Peace
hospitals over a massive data breach.

Medical files on more than 24,000 patients disappeared.  And now,
one of those patients is talking about the impact the data breach
is having on her life.

"The worst part?" said Tina Waltz.  "Wondering what somebody on
the outside might do."

Ms. Waltz was treated for depression at Our Lady of Peace.  The
counselling was supposed to ease her nerves.  Now, it has only
added to her stress.  She was one of 24,600 patients who's
information was on a flash drive that disappeared from the
psychiatric hospital and substance abuse center around April 1.
The hospital waited a month before writing a letter to patients
telling them what happened.

"When I saw the letter I thought oh no," Ms. Waltz said.  "What
can you say or what can you think?"

Ms. Waltz said Our Lady of Peace and Jewish Hospital should be
doing more.  "They have not even called and talked to me," she
said.  "They sent a letter. That's not enough."

Monday the attorney for a woman suing the hospital over what
happened, asked a judge to turn it into a class action law suit,
covering all 24,600 patients impacted.

"I think this case will be certified at some point," said
plaintiffs attorney Ken Henry, Esq.  "We tried to do it this early
just for the simple reason that we have some many identities that
are at stake."

The hospital says the threat of identity theft is extremely low.
The flash drive had names, length of stay and insurance
information. But not social security numbers, phone numbers and
addresses, or diagnosis.

Marjorie Farris, Esq., an attorney for the hospital, said
violation of privacy does not entitle patients to damages.  "Under
the law I don't think that is accurate," Ms. Farris said.  "But
that will be for the court to determine."

Turning this into a question of whether this is about stealing
someone's identity or protecting a patients dignity.

The judge will decide in August whether or not to turn this into a
class action suit.  If he does there isn't anything patients need
to do.  They will be contacted by the attorney filing suit.

Jewish Hospital said it has taken steps to make sure this doesn't
happen again including adding security on all hospital computer
drives with patient information.

The hospital's counsel may be reached at:

     Marjorie A. Farris, Esq.
     STITES & HARBISON, PLLC
     400 West Market Street, Suite 1800
     Louisville, Kentucky  40202
     Telephone: (502) 681-0496
     Facsimile: (502) 779-8258
     E-mail: mfarris@stites.com


JPMORGAN CHASE: Involved in Price-Fixing Conspiracy, Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Erin McAuley at Courthouse News Service reports that an antitrust
class action claims major lenders and credit raters conspire to
restrain the availability of consumer loans, fixing prices and
sharing information, refusing credit to consumers who are unable
or unwilling to pay monopolistic prices for loans.  The class
claims there is "no economically rational reason" that lenders
would share information about their customers.

Named as defendants in the federal complaint are JPMorgan Chase,
Bank of America, Discover, Experian, Transunion, Equifax, FICO and
Vantagescore Solutions.

Lead plaintiff Karin Black claims that JP Morgan, Bank of America
and Discover control 87.5% of U.S. consumer loans.  She claims
that Experian, Transunion and Equifax store and control the credit
data of more than 85% of all debtors, and FICO and VantageScore
dominate the credit scoring industry by providing more than 85% of
the credit scores to lenders.

Ms. Black claims that through price floors, accelerated defaults,
punitive fees, tying and lockstep pricing, and the creation and
sharing of credit scores, the defendants force consumers "to
either submit to higher monopolistic prices or default and thereby
be excluded from the credit market for at least seven years."

Ms. Black says that credit bureaus "act as information clearing
houses holding proprietary data on over 1 billion debtors
internationally" and "assist and promote parallel action among
competitors" by immediately notifying all lenders in real time to
raise rates and to adjust credit in unison when one single
competitor reports a negative event or a high balance.

According to the complaint, data shared through consumer credit
histories include information such as balances owed, interest
rates offered, credit lines offered, extent of credit debt,
product purchasing history and payment history for each of the
lender's customers.

The credit scoring system honors the "most profitable customers"
by giving them lower scores in order to rapidly identify them and
"fix rates accordingly," Ms. Black says.  Credit scores are
lowered when consumers pay off credit cards, even though such an
act reduces credit risk; this shows that the system is "not used
to asses risk but rather fix and manipulate pricing," Ms. Black
says.

Ms. Black says "these consumers represent the lowest default risk
of all and should be the most sought out customers."  Instead, she
says, the only the class can "avoid punishment [of a low credit
score] is to obtain and maintain credit that the consumer does not
need and, as a consequence, pay monopolistic prices simply to
preserve a good credit score."

The cartel pricing singles out classes to "pay the highest price
they can possibly afford," Ms. Black claims.  She says that the
lenders are "motivated to report negative events in order to
decrease the credit rating and increase the number of customers
paying at the 'high risk' rate."

Ms. Black claims that there is "no economically rational reason"
that lenders would share customer information.

She says that "in a competitive industry consumer data is
considered proprietary and closely guarded by trade secret law
because such data provides a competitive advantage."

The lenders "all share customer data in a quid pro quo arrangement
among themselves to set higher prices by reporting to and
utilizing credit bureaus to distribute information," and "have
used their near complete monopoly to increase prices for the low
risk debtors, and accelerate default of debtors in distress in
order to exclude them from seeking non-monopolistic loan terms,"
according to the complaint.

She claims that lenders boycott customers who cannot afford to pay
inflated, monopolistic prices by telling them to "take it or leave
it" or denying them credit.

Ms. Black seeks class damages for antitrust violations,
disgorgement of money illegally obtained as a result of unlawful
activities, restitution and an injunction preventing the putative
competitors from sharing consumer information.

A copy of the Complaint in Black v. JP Morgan Chase & Co., et al.,
Case No. 10-cv-00848 (W.D. Pa.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/06/28/Lending.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew L. Kurzweg, Esq.
          C. Allen Black, Jr., Esq.
          KURZWEG LAW OFFICES
          945 Liberty Ave.
          5th Floor Bruno Bldg.
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: 412-258-2223


LML PAYMENT: Appeal to Junked DPPA Violations Suit Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the dismissal of a purported class-action lawsuit
against a subsidiary of LML Payment Systems, Inc., alleging
violations of the Driver's Privacy Protection Act remains pending,
according to the company's June 23, 2010, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended March 31, 2010.

DPPA regulates the use of personal information such as driver's
license numbers and home addresses contained in motor vehicle
records held by motor vehicle departments, by not having a
permissible use in obtaining the State of Texas' entire database
of names, addresses and other personal information.

In the case, which was originally filed on Jan. 12, 2007, in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, the
plaintiffs are seeking, among other things, $2,500 for each
instance in which the defendants obtained, disclosed or used
personal information, and are claiming that because the Texas
database includes the information of approximately 20 million
persons, that the mere act of improperly obtaining that database
constitutes 20 million violations of the statute by each
defendant.

The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that a provider of
check verification services (such as LML) should not be allowed to
obtain and use Texas' entire driver's license database for the
purpose of enabling merchants to check driver's licenses or other
forms of identification at the point of sale, and that instead
providers of check verification services should only be allowed to
obtain the driver's license numbers of individuals at the time
that such individual presents his or her driver's license to a
merchant (in other words, plaintiffs allege that when a customer
gets to the cashier and presents a driver's license to the
merchant for the purpose of enabling the merchant to verify such
person's identity when such person is using a credit card or check
to purchase goods or services, that this is the first time at
which it would be appropriate for a provider of check verification
services to obtain such driver's license number from the state of
Texas).

On Sept. 8, 2008, the complaint was dismissed with prejudice and
on Oct. 8, 2008 the plaintiffs appealed this decision.

On Nov. 4, 2009 oral arguments were heard by the Fifth Circuit of
appeals.  The company states that it has not received a ruling.

LML Payment Systems Inc. -- http://www.lmlpayment.com/-- is a
financial payment processor that primarily provides consumer
financial payment processing solutions to retailers and other
clients in the U.S.


MASSEY ENERGY: Sued in Del. for Breach of Fiduciary Duties
----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that the International Union of
Operating Engineers Pension Fund of Eastern Pennsylvania and
Delaware sued Massey Coal and its directors in a fiduciary class
action involving the Upper Big Branch Mine disaster that killed 29
miners, in Delaware Chancery Court.

A copy of the Complaint in The International Union of Operating
Engineers Pension Fund of Eastern Pennsylvania and Delaware v.
Crawford, et al., Case No. 5598 (Del. Ch. Ct.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/06/28/CoalMine.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jay W. Eisenhofer, Esq.
          Stuart M. Grant, Esq.
          Cynthia A. Calder, Esq.
          James P. McEvilly, III, Esq.
          GRANT & EISENHOFER
          1201 N. Market St.
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: 302-622-7000


MERCK SHARP: Tel Aviv Court Subpoenas 2 Scientists on Vioxx
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dan Even, writing for Haaretz Newspaper in Israel, reports that
the Tel Aviv District Court saw evidence on June 28, 2010, in the
class action suit against Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., the
manufacturer of the arthritis drug Vioxx.  Two researchers
allegedly admitted in e-mail correspondence that the company had
known that long-term use of the drug increased the risk of heart
disease and had continued to market it.  District Court vice
president, Judge Drora Pilpel has asked the attorney general to
have the two scientists subpoenaed.

On September 30, 2004, Merck announced it was recalling the drug
in 50 countries, after a study it conducted showed that the risk
of heart attack and stroke doubled in people using Vioxx for at
least 18 months. Cases had been published prior to the study
indicating high risk of heart attack among Vioxx users, but the
manufacturers had rejected the information.

Later in 2004, six patients submitted a class action suit in the
Tel Aviv District Court in the name of Israeli Vioxx users,
calling for compensation for "those who used the drug over the
past four years and paid good money to ingest a drug which, in
retrospect, turned out to be defective and dangerous."

The drug began to be marketed in Israel in 1999, and until the
recall, the suit estimates that between 15,000 to 75,000 Israelis
took the drug each year.

The two American scientists who exchanged the allegedly damaging
e-mail are Dr. Edward Scolnick, former Merck research chief who
left the company in 2002, and Dr. Briggs Morrison, a former Merck
senior scientist, who left the company in 2007.  The request has
been made to subpoena the two scientists as part of a hearing on
whether to recognize the suit as a class-action.

The e-mails, starting in 1997, allegedly indicate that Merck was
aware of the risks of long-term Vioxx use, and allegedly slanted
scientific articles to conceal the fact.  Representatives of Merck
Sharpe & Dohme in Israel said the hearing on the request to
approve the suit as a class action is at a very early phase. Merck
also said it was certain that the court will realize that firm
acted responsibly from the research and development phase through
its approval for use by the Health Ministry and the ministry's
supervision while the drug was on the market, and ending with the
decision to take the drug off the shelves.


MONEYGRAM INT'L: Settlement Agreement Gets Final Approval
---------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Judge David S. Doty of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Minnesota gave his final approval to the settlement
agreement resolving a consolidated class action against MoneyGram
International Inc., according to the company's
June 23, 2010, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.

The company and certain of its present and former officers and
directors are defendants in a consolidated class action case
captioned In re MoneyGram International, Inc. Securities
Litigation, No. 08-833-DSD-JJG.

The Consolidated Complaint was filed on Oct. 3, 2008, and alleges
against each defendant violations of Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended and Rule 10b-5 under
the Exchange Act and alleges against company officers violations
of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.  The Consolidated Complaint
alleges failure to adequately disclose, in a timely manner, the
nature and risks of the company's investments, as well as
unrealized losses and other-than-temporary impairments related to
certain of the company's investments.

The consolidated complaint seeks recovery of losses incurred by
stockholder class members in connection with their purchases of
the company's securities.

On Feb. 24, 2010, the parties entered into a non-binding
Memorandum of Understanding pursuant to which the parties agreed,
subject to final approval of the parties and the court, to settle
this action for a cash payment of $80.0 million, all but $20.0
million of which would be paid by the company's insurance
carriers.

On March 9, 2010, the parties entered into a Settlement Agreement
to settle the case on terms consistent with the Memorandum of
Understanding.  On March 10, 2010, the Court issued an Order that
preliminarily approved the settlement.

On June 18, 2010, Judge Doty granted final approval to the
settlement.

MoneyGram International Inc. -- http://www.moneygram.com/--
offers more control and more choices for people separated by
distance or with limited bank relationships to meet their
financial needs. A leading global payment services company,
MoneyGram International helps consumers to pay bills quickly and
safely send money around the world in as little as 10 minutes. Its
global network is comprised of 190,000 agent locations in nearly
190 countries and territories. MoneyGram's convenient and reliable
network includes retailers, international post offices and
financial institutions.


MORGAN DREXEN: Montana Court Approves Motion to Transfer
--------------------------------------------------------
A Fromberg couple that claims Morgan Drexen, Inc., ripped them off
has suffered a blow in their attempt to obtain unjustified
damages.  John and Tamie Ward are trying to obtain compensation,
for an attorney-based assisted debt program they entered but never
completed.

The Wards filed a class action suit (Case No. CV-09-164-BLG-RFC)
against Morgan Drexen, Inc. alleging that the firm, whom they
hired to help solve their enormous debt problems, misled them.
Morgan Drexen is accused of violating racketeering laws and the
Credit Repair Organizations Act.

The Wards joined the attorney-based debt assisted program
supported by Morgan Drexen with several judgments in place and
almost a decade of debt and bad credit.

A Montana judge has thrown the case out of a Federal District
Court of the Montana Billings division and ruled in favor of
Morgan Drexen granting them a motion to transfer.  This is a blow
to the Wards who were persuaded to take action against Morgan
Drexen by John Heenan, Esq., an attorney who himself is associated
with the debt settlement industry.

Morgan Drexen is an evolving alternative to traditional debt
settlement services. They provide integrated legal support systems
to attorneys across the United States, who helps consumers facing
the scar of bankruptcy.

In 2010, Morgan Drexen has supported attorneys as they help
families across American rid themselves of $44.2 million in debt.
The Attorneys supported by Morgan Drexen have settled this debt
for $17.1 million.

Morgan Drexen CEO Walter Ledda says, "They were clearly in
financial difficulty when they entered the program with Montana
attorney Blaine Bradshaw. We support the Bradshaw Law Firm with
our integrated legal systems; even though the Wards had limited
resources they were able to access Blain Bradshaw for legal help.
However, the attorneys we support are familiar with representing
consumers facing bankruptcy. The wards missed several payments
after engaging with the attorney and therefore there were no funds
to pay their accrued debts."

Montana attorney John Heenan of The Heenan Law Firm represents the
plaintiffs.  The former forklift truck driver admits on his law
firm's Web site that hiring an attorney is an important step in
fighting debt.  Mr. Ledda says, "It seems his intentions were to
sling mud at the competition for his own gain."  The Federal Court
ruling substantially changes the stakes for the wards and their
attorney.

Defense attorney Mark Parker, Esq., says, " In my view this is a
good result for Morgan Drexen, this means the judge responded to
the facts and law and not hysteria."

Companies associated with the debt settlement industry have
received heavy criticism in the past.  Morgan Drexen works closely
with the Federal Trade Commission, as the agency aims to design
regulations to protect the consumer from acts of abusive debt
settlement companies.

The Wards are represented by:

     John Heenan, Esq.
     Mandi Gibbs, Esq.
     HEENAN LAW FIRM
     3970 Avenue D, Suite A
     Billings, MT
     Telephone: (406) 839-9091
     E-mail: john@heenanlawfirm.com
             mandi@heenanlawfirm.com


MOTOR FUEL LITIGATION: Flying J Plan Improperly Releases Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
James Graham objects to the Joint Plan of Reorganization of Flying
J Inc. and its debtor-affiliates.  Mr. Graham contends that the
Plan contains impermissible release of so-called Hot Fuel Claims
that originally was hidden in the court order approving the sale
of Flying J equity interests and other assets to Pilot Travel
Centers LLC.

Mr. Graham and other plaintiffs commenced 25 putative class
actions in 20 states against Flying J and other motor fuel
retailers.  The complaints allege that the defendants shortchanged
retail purchasers of gasoline and diesel products by selling them
motor fuels at temperatures higher than the industry-standard
temperatures of 60 degrees Fahrenheit.  The sale of hot fuel is
significant because motor fuel takes up more volume -- and has
correspondingly less energy -- at a higher temperature.  As a
result, a trucker or consumer purchasing fuel at a temperature
above the standard receives less fuel than had the fuel been sold
at 60 degrees.

The case is In re Motor Fuel Temperature Sales Practice Litigation
(MDL 1840; Case No. 07-MD-1840-KHV-JPO).  The Hot Fuel Litigation
has been consolidated for pretrial purposes in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Kansas.  The Hot Fuel Litigation seeks
damages and injunctive relief based on breach of contract, unjust
enrichment, civil conspiracy, breach of warranty, deceptive trade
practice statutes and consumer protection statutes of various
states.  The plaintiffs seek total damages estimated to be as much
as $300 million from Flying J.  The defendants, which include
Flying J, Pilot, COP, and BP Products North America, Inc., failed
in their bids to dismiss the complaints.  Litigation has been
stayed with respect to Flying J following its bankruptcy.

Mr. Graham also points out that under the parties' contribution
agreement, Pilot presumably agreed to assume liability for the Hot
Fuel Claims.  However the Plan proposes to take that away by
releasing Pilot from liability on the Hot Fuel Claims that it
purportedly assumed.  Mr. Graham also note the Plan's releases are
broad enough to apply not only to the Hot Fuel Claims but also to
any other hot fuel claims against Pilot and other defendants who
are included in the Plan releases.

"If the Debtors truly want to confirm a nonrepairment plan, then
the rights of the Hot Fuel Claims must ride through this
bankruptcy unaltered," Mr. Graham says.

Flying J's plan proposes to repay all creditors in full from the
proceeds of the sale of its 250 travel plazas to Pilot, for a
combination of cash and stock valued at $1.6 billion.  The Plan
provides that lenders and creditors will be paid in cash.  All
Equity interests are unaltered.

Judge Mary F. Walrath of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Wilmington,
Del., has scheduled a hearing to consider confirmation of the plan
for July 6.

Mr. Graham is represented in Flying J's bankruptcy cases by:

     Thomas G. Macauley, Esq.
     ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER LLP
     919 Market Street, Suite 990
     Wilmington, DE 19801
     Telephone: (302) 427-0400
     Facsimile: (302) 427-8242

          - and --

     Graeme W. Bush, Esq.
     ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER LLP
     1800 M. Street, NW, Suite 1000
     Washington, DC 20036
     Telephone: (202) 778-1800
     Facsimile: (202) 822-8106


MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Plaintiffs Could've Gotten $100MM More
---------------------------------------------------------
Dan Levine, writing for The Recorder, relates that with great
fanfare, plaintiffs sent out press releases last Thursday to
announce a $173 million settlement in a class action over computer
memory chips.  But they could have had more than $100 million more
if they had settled earlier.

Back in 2006, a collection of defendant chip companies were ready
to cut a check for $295 million, according to lawyers familiar
with the talks.  But a divided group of plaintiffs representing
indirect purchasers of DRAM computer memory rejected the offer,
thinking they could get more money down the road.  Some of the
hardliners who opposed the settlement included various state
attorneys general, but not California, these lawyers said.

"The doves couldn't move the hawks," said one attorney.

Unfortunately for the plaintiffs, continued litigation did not
improve their leverage, as U.S. District Judge Phyllis Hamilton
decimated their case in a series of pretrial rulings.  They
appealed to the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, but called
that off when the defendant companies -- including Infineon
Technologies, Hynix Semiconductor Inc. and Micron Technology Inc.
-- agreed to the lower figure.

The Class Action Reporter on June 29 reported about the
settlement.

A spokesman for California Attorney General Jerry Brown was not
immediately available to comment Friday.


PFIZER INC: Carella Byrne Files Suit Against Wyeth
--------------------------------------------------
Carella, Byrne, Cecchi, Olstein, Brody & Agnello P.C. announced
that a securities class action lawsuit was filed on June 18, 2010,
in the United States District Court for the District of New
Jersey, case number 2:10-cv-03105-SDW -MCA, on behalf of
purchasers of Wyeth, Inc., common stock during the period between
May 21, 2007 and July 29, 2008, inclusive.  If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than August
30, 2010.  You need not seek to become a lead plaintiff in order
to share in any possible recovery.

This action seeks damages for violations of Sections 10(b), 20(a),
and 20A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.  The defendants are Pfizer, Inc., as
successor-in-interest to Wyeth (now a wholly-owned operating
subsidiary of Pfizer), Robert Essner (former Chairman and CEO of
Wyeth), Bernard Poussot (former Chairman and CEO of Wyeth),
Kenneth J. Martin (former CFO and Vice Chairman of Wyeth), Greg
Norden (former CFO of Wyeth) and Robert R. Ruffolo, Jr. (former
President, Wyeth Research and Senior Vice President, Wyeth).
Prior to its acquisition by Pfizer, Wyeth was one of the world's
largest pharmaceutical manufacturers.  This action alleges that
Defendants concealed material information and made false and
misleading statements relating to one of its drugs under
development.

Any member of the alleged class may seek to be appointed as lead
plaintiff, even if that person has not filed a complaint, by
complying with the relevant provisions of the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (the "PSLRA").  See 15 U.S.C.
Section 78u-4(a)(2)(A)(i)-(iv).  The Plaintiff -- Security Police
and Fire Professionals of America Retirement Fund -- seeks to
recover damages on behalf of the class and is represented by
Carella Byrne, a firm with strong background and experience in
handling securities class actions and other complex commercial
litigation.  If you have any questions about this Notice, the
action, or your rights, please contact:

     James E. Cecchi, Esq.
     CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO P.C.
     5 Becker Farm Rd.
     Roseland, NJ 07068
     Telephone: (973) 994-1700
     Facsimile: (973) 994-1744
     E-mail: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com


POLAND: Sandomierz Residents File Class Suit Over Flooding
----------------------------------------------------------
Polskie Radio reports that a number of residents from Sandomierz,
south-eastern Poland, are filing a joint case against the State
Treasury over the alleged lack of measures taken to prevent the
town from flooding.

The town, which lies on the Vistula river and whose right bank
burst during floods there in May and June, was one of the most
affected urban areas in Poland, with hundreds of people being
forced to evacuate their homes.

The Sandomierz residents are referring to a document published in
December 2009 by the Supreme Chamber of Control, the country's
highest auditing authority, which shows that the town had backlogs
in the construction of its flood defenses.

The class action also accuses the government of not offering any
support since the floods took place.

The prosecution in Sandomierz is looking into the case, and is
also checking whether the residents' evacuations were executed
correctly.

The move comes after a number of bodies, between the ages of 50
and 88, were found floating in the flood water a number of days
after the dykes burst in Sandomierz on the night of May 19.
Sources suggest that some residents in Sandomierz were not
properly alerted to the flood by local authorities, and not
informed about any impending evacuations.


RADIO SYSTEMS: Recalls 20,000 Power Adapters
--------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Radio Systems Corporation of, Knoxville, Tenn., announced a
voluntary recall of about 20,000 Power Adapters for heated pet
beds.

When the metal connector is removed from the bed, it can cause
arcing between the coil spring and the connector, posing a fire
and burn hazard to consumers.

The firm has received three reports of connectors melting.  No
injuries or fires have been reported.

This recall involves the Class 2 Transformers that were sold with
PetSafe Heated Wellness Sleepers.  The power adapters are
identified by the markings "PLUG IN CLASS 2 TRANSFORMER," "MODEL
NO: K12-800" and have a spring coil covering the length of the
electrical wire that goes from the sleeper.  Power adapters
without spring coils are not affected by this recall.  Pictures of
the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10283.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold through
pet specialty stores, catalog and online retailers nationwide from
September 2006 through April 2010 for between $70 and $110.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled power adapter
and contact the firm to receive a free replacement adapter.  For
additional information, contact Radio Systems Corporation at (800)
732-2677 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday
through Friday and Saturday between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. or
visit the firm's Web site at http://www.petsafe.net/


RETALIX LTD: Texas Court Dismisses "Tamar" Suit
-----------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Sherman
Division, has ordered the dismissal of the matter Tamar v. Retalix
Ltd., et al., Case No. 09-cv-00511, according to the company's
June 15, 2010, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

On Oct. 13, 2009, a purported class action lawsuit was filed by a
shareholder named Sarit Tamar against the company, its directors
and a subsidiary of the company.  The complaint alleged, among
other things, that the company's directors breached their
fiduciary duties in connection with the private placement
transaction entered into by the company on Sept. 3, 2009, and
requested, among other things, that the court recognize the
lawsuit as a valid class action and enjoin the consummation of the
private placement transaction.

On Nov. 20, 2009, the Court ordered the dismissal of the case,
without prejudice, at the request of the parties.

Pursuant to a stipulation among the parties, the plaintiff agreed
not to file another lawsuit relating to the transaction in any
U.S. federal or state court and the company agreed not to seek the
recovery of costs, fees or sanctions from the plaintiff or her
attorneys in connection with the case.

The suit is Tamar v. Retalix Ltd., et al., Case No. 09-cv-00511
(E.D. Tex.) (Schell, J.).

Retalix is represented by:

          Yuval M. Rogson, Esq.
          Bruce Vanyo, Esq.
          Richard H. Zelichov, Esq.
          KATTEN MUCHIN ROSENMAN LLP
          2029 Century Park East, #2600
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 788-4613

               - and -

          James Bachman Greer, Esq.
          Kenneth Craig Johnston, Esq.
          KANE RUSSELL COLEMAN & LOGAN
          1601 Elm St., Suite 3700
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (214) 777-4252


SYMYX TECH: Enters MOU to Settle Complaint Over Accelrys Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
Symyx Technologies, Inc., has entered into a memorandum of
understanding to settle a complaint in connection with its merger
agreement with Accelrys, Inc., according to the company's June 23,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended May 17, 2010.

The company entered into a merger agreement with Accelrys on April
5, 2010.

On May 20, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a single consolidated
complaint, which serves as the only complaint in the combined
litigation going forward.  The Complaint, like the previously
filed complaints, alleges, among other things, that Symyx's
directors breached their fiduciary duties to the stockholders of
Symyx in connection with the proposed Merger, and seeks, among
other things, to enjoin the defendants from completing the Merger
pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement.

While Symyx, Accelrys and the other defendants believe that the
complaint is entirely without merit and that they have valid
defenses to all claims, in an effort to minimize the cost and
expense of any litigation relating to such Complaint, on
June 22, 2010, the defendants entered into a memorandum of
understanding with the plaintiffs, pursuant to which the
defendants and the plaintiffs agreed to settle the litigation,
which is pending before the Honorable Judge Joseph H. Huber in the
Superior Court in and for the County of Santa Clara.

Subject to Court approval and further definitive documentation,
the MOU resolves the allegations by the plaintiffs against the
defendants in connection with the Merger and the Merger Agreement,
and provides a release and settlement by the purported class of
Symyx stockholders with prejudice of all asserted claims against
the defendants and without costs to any defendant (other than as
expressly provided in the MOU) in connection with the Merger.
None of Symyx, Accelrys or any of the other defendants has
admitted wrongdoing of any kind, including but not limited to
inadequacies in any disclosure, the materiality of any disclosure
that the plaintiffs contend should have been made, any breach of
any fiduciary duty, or aiding or abetting any of the foregoing.
In exchange for such release and settlement, pursuant to the terms
of the MOU, the parties agreed, after arm's length discussions
between and among the defendants and the plaintiffs, that Symyx
would provide additional supplemental disclosures to the Joint
Proxy Statement/Prospectus (such disclosures, among others, being
set forth in this filing).

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


THOR INDUSTRIES: Federman & Sherwood Files Securities Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Ohio against Thor Industries,
Inc.  The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws,
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of issuing a series of
material misrepresentations to the market which had the effect of
artificially inflating the market price. The class period is from
November 30, 2009 through June 10, 2010.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of the Class. If you
are a member of the Class as described, you may move the Court no
later than Tuesday, August 24, 2010, to serve as a lead plaintiff
for the Class. However, in order to do so, you must meet certain
legal requirements pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995.

If you wish to discuss this action, participate in this or any
other lawsuit, or have any questions or concerns regarding this
notice, or preservation of your rights, please contact:

     William B. Federman, Esq.
     FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
     10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue
      Oklahoma City, OK 73120
     Telephone: (405) 235-1560
     E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com


VESTIN REALTY: Awaits Approval of Post-Judgment Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------
Vestin Realty Mortgage I, Inc., Vestin Realty Mortgage II, Inc.,
and other parties to a breach of contract class action lawsuit
awaits the approval of the San Diego Superior Court of their post-
judgment settlement by which the plaintiffs will not appeal the
pending judgment in consideration of a waiver by the defendants of
any claim to recover costs from the plaintiffs, according to
Vestin Realty Mortgage I, Inc.'s according to the company's June
25, 2010, Form 10-K/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

VRM I, VRM II and Vestin Mortgage, Inc., were defendants in a
breach of contract class action filed in San Diego Superior Court
by certain plaintiffs who alleged, among other things, that they
were wrongfully denied roll-up rights in connection with the
merger of Fund I into VRM I and VRM II.

The court certified a class of all former Fund I unit holders and
Fund II unit holders who voted against the mergers of Fund I into
VRM I and Fund II into VRM II.  The trial began in December 2009
and concluded in January 2010.

On February 11, 2010, the Defendants were notified of a Tentative
Statement of Decision, in their favor issued by the Superior Court
for the State of California in San Diego following a trial.  In
the Tentative Statement, the Court found that there was no roll-
up, and therefore, no breach of contract.  The Court entered
judgment for the Defendants on March 18, 2010.

Defendants and Plaintiffs have agreed to a post-judgment
settlement by which Plaintiffs will not appeal the pending
judgment in consideration of a waiver by the Defendants of any
claim to recover costs from the Plaintiffs.  The Court has
preliminary approved this settlement of post-judgment rights and
will decide on July 9, 2010, whether to finally approve it.

Vestin Group, Inc. -- http://www.vestingroup.com/-- is investing
in commercial real estate.  Through subsidiaries, the firm
originates, invests in, and services mortgages secured by
commercial properties such as apartment complexes, office
buildings, shopping centers, and assisted living facilities.  Its
Vestin Mortgage subsidiary manages two real estate investment
trusts and a real estate investment fund that focus on mortgages
and deeds of trust.

                            *********

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  * * *