CAR_Public/100705.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, July 5, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 130

                            Headlines

APPLE INC: Sued in Tex. Over Defective iPhone 4 Cellular Devices
AQUA LUNG: Recalls 1910 Power Inflator
BOB EVANS: Court Gives Final Approval to Settlement in "Flores"
BOB EVANS: Unit Defends "Diaz and Gray" Complaint in California
BOEING CO: District Court Rejects Age Discrimination Suit

BP PLC: Alabama Suit Complains About Claims Process
BP PLC: Barroway Topaz Files Shareholder Class Action
CASEY'S GENERAL: Parties in Two Suits Ordered to Show Cause
CASEY'S GENERAL: Faces "Mercier" Suit Over Couche-Tard Offer
CHRISTY: Recalls 8,600 Women's Bathrobes

ELI LILLY: Canadian Courts OK $17.6MM Settlement in Zyprexa Case
EXPEDIA INC: Monroe County Commission OKs $6.18MM Settlement
FELT BICYCLES: Recalls 2,100 Bicycles
FOSAMAX MDL: NY Jury Gives $8MM Verdict for Boles; Merck to Appeal
GENERAL NUTRITION: Accused in Pa. Suit of Not Paying Overtime

H&R BLOCK: Appeal of Decertification in "Basile" Remains Pending
H&R BLOCK: Class Certification Motion in "Marshall" Pending
H&R BLOCK: No Class Certified in Texas "Soliz" Lawsuit
H&R BLOCK: Appellate Court Affirms Dismissal of Securities Suit
H&R BLOCK: Trial Date in Do Right's Suit Set for January 2011

H&R BLOCK: Motion to Consolidate Wage and Hour Suits Pending
INTEGRATED HEALTHCARE: Status Conference in Suit Set for July 14
INTEGRATED HEALTHCARE: Faces "Ross" Labor Violations Suit
LINCOLN NATIONAL: 7th Cir. Won't Review Bezich Remand Order
MACY'S INC: Dismissal of One-Day Sale Lawsuit Affirmed

MEDTRONIC INC: Minnesota Court Denies Motion to Dismiss Suit
MEDTRONIC INC: Defends Consolidated Product Liability Suit
MERCK & CO: Louisiana Loses Bid to Recoup Payments for Vioxx
MERRILL LYNCH: Tex. Sup. Ct. Directs Stay of MetroPCS Case
MOTT'S LLP: Accused in N.Y. of Deceptive Consumer Sales Practice

NATIONAL CITY: Del. Sup. Ct. Affirms PNC Merger Class Settlement
NEW YORK: No Escrow of Recovery in Ferry Mishap Case
RYDEX SERIES: Loses Bid to Transfer Rafton Suit to Maryland
SALOMON USA: Recalls Ski Boot Sole Pads and All-Terrain Ski Boots
SECURITIES AMERICA: Klayman & Toskes Files Securities Class Suit

SMILEMAKERS INC: Recalls 66,200 Charm Bracelets and 2,200 Rings
SONY CORP: Court Won't Postpone Evidence Gathering in ODD Suit
SONY ELECTRONICS: Recalls 233,000 Notebook Computers
SOUTHERN TECHNOLOGIES: Recalls 500 Powertec Drill Presses
SUN PACIFIC: Owner Faces Class Suit for Breach of Workplace Laws

TC GLOBAL: Continues to Defend Calif. Hourly Employees' Suit
THOR INDUSTRIES: Accused in Ohio Suit of Misleading Shareholders
VERIZON WIRELESS: Calif. Appeals Ct. Upholds $21-Mil. Refund
VERIZON WIRELESS: Sued in N.J. Over Defective Droid Smart Phones
WASHINGTON D.C.: Settlement of "2000 Protest" Suit Gets Final OK

* Congress Allows Oil Spill Workers to Sue Non-Economic Damages



                            *********

APPLE INC: Sued in Tex. Over Defective iPhone 4 Cellular Devices
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cameron Langford at Courthouse News Service reports that Apple
knows its new iPhone 4 is defective, and that normal use causes it
to lose connectivity, but rather than recall it, "Apple has chosen
to blame its customers for holding the phone incorrectly," a class
action claims in Federal Court.

"Apple's solution to the design problem inherent in the iPhone4 is
to tell consumers to hold the phone in a manner inconsistent with
normal cell phone use, or alternatively purchase a rubber 'bumper'
type case that is so far not widely available to the general
public," says lead plaintiff Hung Nguyen.

The proposed class includes everyone in the United States who
bought an Apple iPhone 4 since June 24.

The class seeks damages for negligence, breach of warranty,
defective design, intentional misrepresentation, negligent
misrepresentation, fraud and deceptive trade.

A copy of the Complaint in Nguyen v. Apple, Inc., Case No.
10-cv-00252 (S.D. Tex.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/06/30/AppleG4.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Danny M. Sheena, Esq.
          Jason P. Scofield, Esq.
          THE SHEENA LAW FIRM
          1001 Texas, Suite 240
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: 713-224 6508
          E-mail: danny@sheenalawfirm.com
                  jason@sheenalawfirm.com

Karen Sloan at The National Law Journal reports that less than a
week after it came on the market, the iPhone 4 has sparked at
least five class actions against Apple over the reception problem,
which is dubbed the iPhone "death grip" by Internet commentators.

As of Thursday afternoon, three class actions were pending against
Apple in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California.  Additional suits were filed in federal court in Texas
and Maryland.

     Tuesday   -- Houston attorney Danny Sheena filed in U.S.
                  District Court for the Southern District of
                  Texas on behalf of iPhone owner Hung Michael
                  Nguyen and others who had purchased the device.

                  Sacramento, Calif., firm Kershaw, Cutter &
                  Ratinoff filed in California against both Apple
                  and AT&T on behalf of 10 iPhone 4 owners.

     Wednesday -- Two federal class actions followed in
                  California.  Washington attorney Gary Mason
                  filed on behalf of Christopher Dydyk, while New
                  Jersey firm Gardy & Notis filed on behalf of
                  Alan Benvenisty and others.

                  Yet another suit followed on Wednesday in U.S.
                  District Court for the District of Maryland by
                  Washington, D.C., attorney Daniel Sage Ward and
                  Maryland attorney Charles Gillman on behalf of
                  two Maryland residents, Kevin McCaffrey and
                  Linda Wrinn.  That class action names both Apple
                  and AT&T as plaintiffs.

"I think we'll see more of these suits," said Mr. Mason. "Once
people see that there are four or five, other will jump in. We
think we have a very strong claim."

Apple did not respond to calls for comment, but said more than
$1.7 million iPhone 4s had been sold.

Although they varied slightly, the claims include negligence,
intentional, and negligent misrepresentation, defective design,
fraud by concealment, and breach of warranty.

"Defendants have failed to provide consumer support to assist
iPhone 4 customers regarding this defect," reads the California
suit filed by Kershaw, Cutter & Ratinoff.  "Customers are left
with three options: hold their phones in an awkward and unnatural
manner, return their phones and pay a 10 percent 'restocking fee,'
or purchase Apple's own 'bumper' cases for their phones, costing
$29.99 in addition to the premium they have already paid for the
phones themselves, which may somewhat ameliorate the iPhone 4's
defects."

The Texas lawsuit alleges that the named plaintiff began
experiencing dropped calls the same day he purchased his iPhone 4.


AQUA LUNG: Recalls 1910 Power Inflator
--------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Aqua Lung America of Vista, Calif., announced a voluntary recall
of about 1,380 power inflator in the U.S. and 530 in Canada.
Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless
otherwise instructed.

The oral inflator button is not properly bonded to the oral stem
and can fall off during use, posing a leak of the buoyancy
compensator contents.  This poses a drowning hazard.

Aqua Lung America has received one report of a consumer's oral
inflate button falling off during use. No injuries have been
reported.

This recall involves the power inflator, the black mouthpiece with
the two brass buttons at the end of the corrugated hose.  The
recall involves all models of the Apeks WTX power inflators.  Some
of the recalled components were included on complete air cells.
Those model numbers are: 388032, 388060, 388080, 388145, 388260,
and 42775.  The model number of the air cell can be found on the
tag sewn on the center of the air cell or bladder.  Pictures of
the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10286.html

The recalled products were manufactured in California and sold
through diving stores in the U.S. and Canada from November 2006
through March 2010 for between $53 and $70 for the component and
between $280 and $520 for the air cells.

Consumers should stop diving with their recalled power inflator
and bring it or send it to an authorized Apeks dealer.  The dealer
will apply a free fix.  Consumers may also ask for and receive a
free replacement product.  For additional information contact the
firm toll-free at (877) 253-3483 or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.aqualung.com/


BOB EVANS: Court Gives Final Approval to Settlement in "Flores"
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Orange County California Superior Court gave its final
approval to a settlement agreement entered into by Bob Evans
Farms, Inc. resolving the class action complaint entitled Leonard
Flores, et al. v. SWH Corporation d/b/a Mimi's Cafe, according to
the company's June 29, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended April
30, 2010.

SWH was acquired by Bob Evans Farms.

The complaint was filed on Oct. 28, 2008.

Mr. Flores was employed as an assistant manager of Mimi's Cafe
until September 2006 and purports to represent a class of
assistant managers who are allegedly similarly situated.

Mimi's Cafe classified its assistant managers as exempt employees
until October 2009.

The case involves claims that current and former assistant
managers working in California from October 2004 to October 2009
were misclassified by Mimi's Cafe as exempt employees.

As a result, the complaint alleges that these assistant managers
were deprived of overtime pay, rest breaks and meal periods as
required for nonexempt employees under California wage and hour
laws.

The complaint seeks injunctive relief, equitable relief, unpaid
benefits, penalties, interest and attorneys' fees and costs.

Although the company believes Mimi's Cafe properly classified its
assistant managers as exempt employees under California law, the
company elected to resolve the Flores lawsuit through voluntary
mediation.

The Orange County California Superior Court granted preliminary
approval of a settlement in the amount of $1,030,000 in January
2010.

The company recently completed the administration of claims, and
the Orange County Superior Court granted final approval of the
settlement on June 10, 2010.

Bob Evans Farms, Inc. -- http://www.bobevans.com/-- is a full-
service restaurant company that operates two restaurant concepts:
Bob Evans Restaurants and Mimi's Cafes.  The company is also a
producer and distributor of pork sausage and complementary
homestyle convenience food items.  As of April 24, 2009, Bob Evans
Restaurants (including Bob Evans Restaurants & General Stores)
were located in 18 states, primarily in the Midwest, mid-Atlantic
and Southeast, and Mimi's Cafes were located in 24 states,
primarily in California and other western states.  Bob Evans
offers a variety of quality, homestyle food products to retail and
foodservice customers.  It sells its retail food products under
the Bob Evans and Owens brand names.  The company's food products
include approximately 45 varieties of fresh, smoked and fully
cooked pork sausage and hickory-smoked bacon products.  It also
offers approximately 65 complementary, convenience food items in
the refrigerated and frozen areas of grocery stores.


BOB EVANS: Unit Defends "Diaz and Gray" Complaint in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
SWH Corporation defends a class action complaint entitled Edder
Diaz and Rosolyn Gray, et al. vs. SWH Corporation d/b/a Mimi's
Cafe.

SWH was acquired by Bob Evans Farms, Inc.

The complaint was filed on Oct. 13, 2009, in Alameda County
California Superior Court.

Mr. Diaz and Ms. Gray purport to represent a class of various
nonexempt employees, including bartenders, hosts and servers, who
are allegedly similarly situated.

The case involves claims that current and former nonexempt
employees working in these positions in California from October
2005 to the present:

     (1) were not reimbursed for certain expenses incurred in
         connection with the discharge of their duties and

     (2) were denied rest breaks and meal periods as required
         for nonexempt employees under California wage and hour
         laws.

The complaint seeks unspecified damages, penalties, interest and
attorneys' fees and costs.

No further updates were reported in the company's June 29, 2010,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended April 30, 2010.

Bob Evans Farms, Inc. -- http://www.bobevans.com/-- is a full-
service restaurant company that operates two restaurant concepts:
Bob Evans Restaurants and Mimi's Cafes.  The company is also a
producer and distributor of pork sausage and complementary
homestyle convenience food items.  As of April 24, 2009, Bob Evans
Restaurants (including Bob Evans Restaurants & General Stores)
were located in 18 states, primarily in the Midwest, mid-Atlantic
and Southeast, and Mimi's Cafes were located in 24 states,
primarily in California and other western states.  Bob Evans
offers a variety of quality, homestyle food products to retail and
foodservice customers.  It sells its retail food products under
the Bob Evans and Owens brand names.  The company's food products
include approximately 45 varieties of fresh, smoked and fully
cooked pork sausage and hickory-smoked bacon products.  It also
offers approximately 65 complementary, convenience food items in
the refrigerated and frozen areas of grocery stores.


BOEING CO: District Court Rejects Age Discrimination Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Molly McMillin at The Wichita Eagle reports that U.S. District
Judge Eric Melgren threw out a class action age discrimination
case filed against The Boeing Co. and Spirit AeroSystems saying
there's a lack of evidence in the case.

"Noticeably lacking from plaintiff's proof is evidence showing
that defendants had an age bias corporate culture or that a
corporate policy of discrimination had been adopted.  The absence
of such evidence in this case proves to be fatal," Judge Melgren
wrote in a 44-page order.

The lawsuit was filed in the wake of Boeing's 2005 sale of
commercial airplane division in Kansas and Oklahoma to Onex Corp.,
which formed Spirit.

According to Roxana Hegeman at The Associated Press, 90 former
Boeing workers had sued in December 2005 claiming they lost their
jobs because of their age.  Their lawsuit was granted conditional
class-action status a year later under the Age Discrimination in
Employment Act.

The AP relates Spirit AeroSystems said it hopes to now put the
issue behind it.

"The court validated what we have said all along -- Spirit did not
discriminate in its hiring process when the company was created 5
years ago.  Spirit is an equal opportunity employer and we take it
very seriously," the company said in statement e-mailed to The
Associated Press.

Messages left with Boeing and the workers' attorney, Lawrence
Williamson, were not immediately returned.

Boeing and Spirit had contended in seeking the lawsuit's dismissal
that the workers could not prove any intent to prevent older
workers from attaining pension benefits.  They also argued there
were legitimate reasons for Spirit to not hire all the former
Boeing workers.

According to the AP, their lawsuit cited statements by Jeff
Turner, a former Boeing manager and current CEO of Spirit
acknowledging the aerospace giant had concerns about the age of
its work force when it was trying to sell those facilities.

Mr. Turner told a manager within a year of the divestiture that
"Boeing's work force was getting older and that the managers
needed to find ways to do something about it."

But Judge Melgren wrote that when Mr. Turner's comment is viewed
"in the correct context, it is clear that it is benign."

The judge said it is clear that Mr. Turner and other upper-level
managers were concerned about workers' ages because they were
afraid that a large percentage of their employees would retire
within a few years of each other and leave Boeing with an
inexperienced work force.

Workers also cited e-mails sent between Spirit and its consultants
during negotiations with the machinists union discussing how much
the average age of its work force would have to drop in order for
Spirit to avoid having to pay a higher rate into the pension fund.

The lawsuit also alleged the two companies tracked the age of
employees during a selective rehiring process, saying this
supported a claim of discrimination.  They cited a 2004 investment
memorandum prepared by Onex Corp., which bought Boeing's
commercial aircraft operations in Wichita and Tulsa and McAlester,
Okla., listing the average age of employees belonging to the eight
unions that operated at Boeing.  Another listed prepared by Boeing
stated how many people over age 55 had been recommended for hire,
and notes taken by someone during the Tulsa selection process also
listed the ages of employees.

Judge Melgren ruled that evidence did not prove discrimination
because it did not show the decision makers had this information
when making hiring decisions. He said the notes taken at the Tulsa
site at best supported an inference that isolated discriminatory
acts occurred.  The judge also disagreed with workers' claim that
Spirit's failure to act after an internal report showed that the
workers over age 40 were adversely impacted proved discrimination.
The judge sided with the company's contention that the results did
not show discrimination because multiple decision makers were
involved in the hiring.

The lawsuit was initially filed by 90 former workers, a number
that has grown by more than 700 additional ex-workers who have
since asked to join the suit.  The court's decision makes moot the
class-action status sought by workers.


BP PLC: Alabama Suit Complains About Claims Process
---------------------------------------------------
Tracey Dalzell Walsh at Courthouse News Service reports that a
RICO class action claims BP has corrupted the claims process
during the Gulf oil spill by using "unqualified and inept" third
parties to process legal claims, to practice law without a
license, and to commit mail fraud, wire fraud and violate state
insurance laws.  The class challenges "what defendants refer to as
the 'BP claims process,'" calling it a conspiracy "involving the
unauthorized practice of law and other criminal acts that are
ultimately designed to delay and reduce the payment of legitimate
legal damages by lulling class members into a false understanding
of the availability of recoverable damages at law."

The federal complaint continues: "The BP defendants are actively
soliciting third parties, including defendant Brett Robinson
[Brett Robinson Gulf Corp. -- a property manager], to provide
services tantamount to the giving of legal advice to plaintiffs
regarding their claims, losses, and recoverable damages.
Moreover, the BP defendants have authorized third parties,
including defendant Brett Robinson and others, to evaluate and
present damage claims of claimants in a manner which constitutes
criminal conduct in Alabama and Florida."

The State of Alabama, ex rel. Ben Chenault and CMCO LLC, asked the
court to enjoin BP and its co-defendants from "1) authorizing
unlicensed and unqualified third parties to evaluate and/or
present legal damage claims within the BP claims process; 2)
engaging in the unauthorized practice of law and/or soliciting
third parties to engage in the unauthorized practice of law and/or
engage in violations of state insurance laws and regulations
within the State of Alabama and the State of Florida; and 3)
engaging in other criminal or unlawful activity designed to delay,
underpay, or avoid payment of claims within the BP claims
process."

Claims from property owners affected by the catastrophic oil spill
have been "delayed, underpaid and even denied," according to the
complaint.

According to the complaint, in "what defendants refer to as the
'BP claims process," each claimant is required to fill out a
series of forms.

Mr. Chenault says BP hired third parties, including co-defendants
ESIS Inc., Worley Catastrophe Services, Worley Catastrophe
Response LLC and Brett Robinson Gulf Corporation, to give legal
advice to Mr. Chenault and others on their claims for damages.

Mr. Chenault calls this unauthorized practice of law, and a
"direct result of the defendants' pattern of racketeering activity
and corruption" that is "designed to delay, underpay and deny
claims".

Mr. Chenault and fellow plaintiff CMCO own properties on the Gulf
of Mexico that are managed by Brett Robinson Gulf Corp.  They say
they received a letter from Robinson stating that it "had the
capability of submitting these claims" on their behalf, along with
a release absolving it from liability.

Robinson charged a fee to present the claims to BP, and the
defendants told the property owners they did not need a lawyer,
all the while knowing the Alabama State Bar and Florida State Bar
have programs in place to help people with their claims without
any legal fees, according to the complaint.

The class claims that the defendants, through the "BP Claims
Process," are "authorizing third parties to engage in the
unauthorized practice of law and to violate state insurance laws
and regulations for their own pecuniary gain."

It adds: "The pattern of racketeering activity is currently
ongoing and open ended, and threatens to continue indefinitely
unless this court enjoins the racketeering activity.  The
defendants have absolutely no incentive to cease and desist such
pattern of unlawful activity in the absence of judicial
intervention."

The plaintiffs seek an injunction and treble and punitive damages
for RICO conspiracy and unjust enrichment.

A copy of the Complaint in Chenault, et al. v. BP, plc, et al.,
Case No. 10-cv-00331 (S.D. Ala.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/06/30/BPLull.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          M. Shane Lucado, Esq.
          J. Michael Keel, Esq.
          LUCADO LAW FIRM, LLC
          One Perimeter Park South, Suite 125 S
          Birmingham, AL 35243
          Telephone: 205-278-0025


BP PLC: Barroway Topaz Files Shareholder Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
The following statement was issued June 30, 2010, by the law firm
of Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer & Check, LLP:

Notice is hereby given that a class action lawsuit was filed in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Louisiana on behalf of all investors who purchased or otherwise
acquired American Depository Shares of BP, plc between June 30,
2005 and June 1, 2010, inclusive.

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions
concerning this notice or your rights or interests with respect to
these matters, please contact:

     Darren J. Check, Esq.
     David M. Promisloff, Esq.
     BARROWAY TOPAZ KESSLER MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
     280 King of Prussia Road
     Radnor, PA 19087
     Telephone: (888) 299-7706
                (610) 667-7706
     E-mail: dpromisloff@btkmc.com
             dcheck@btkmc.com

The Complaint charges BP and certain of its officers and directors
with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. BP is one
of the world's largest energy companies, providing its customers
with fuel for transportation, energy for heat and light, retail
services and petrochemicals products. Among other things, the
Company engages deepwater drilling for hydrocarbons around the
globe including in the Gulf of Mexico.

More specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company failed
to disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse
facts which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by
them: (1) that BP had recklessly inefficient and wholly inadequate
safety procedures; (2) BP's conducted its operations in the Gulf
without any legitimate oil spill response plan; (3) that BP was
wholly incapable of adequately responding to deepwater events in
the Gulf; (4) that BP understated the risks of investing in BP
while overstating its ability to extract oil from the Gulf; (5)
that the Company lacked adequate internal and safety controls; and
(6) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's financial
statements, public statements and presentations were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times.

Since at least June 2005 the Company has touted the Gulf as one of
its "largest area of growth in the US." BP's statements about the
Gulf, however, completely failed to disclose that its operations
were being conducted in a highly reckless manner as it lacked any
legitimate plan to respond to an oil spill from its drilling
activities in the region.  Exacerbating the probability that BP's
inadequate spill response would actually be relied upon to respond
to a sizable spill BP has for years maintained a corporate culture
where adherence to safety protocols and environmental laws were
ignored in favor of profits.

On night of April 20, 2010, the risks concealed by BP's inadequate
spill response plan and its false assurances about its
organizational changes to improve its culture began to materialize
when, at the Company's Macondo prospect site about 50 miles off of
the Louisiana coast in the Gulf, an eruption of oil or natural gas
occurred leading to an intense fire on the Deepwater Horizon semi-
submersible oil rig.  Eleven lives were lost in the disaster.

The fire on the Deepwater Horizon consumed the rig and eventually
caused it to sink.  As the Deepwater Horizon sank, it pulled a
pipe connecting the rig to the well with it. The riser
subsequently tore away from the well, and oil began leaking into
the Gulf.  Rather than respond to the disaster with a definitive
plan to contain the spill, BP began a trial and error approach to
containing the oil by employing various tactics which were
seemingly developed as the spill was raging.  The cost to BP's
investors' from the defendants' deceptive statements will run into
the billions of dollars.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members and
is represented by the law firm of Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer &
Check which prosecutes class actions in both state and federal
courts throughout the country.  Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer &
Check is a driving force behind corporate governance reform, and
has recovered billions of dollars on behalf of institutional and
individual investors from the United States and around the world.

For more information about Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer & Check,
or for additional information about participating in this action,
please visit http://www.btkmc.com/

If you are a member of the class, you may, not later than July 20,
2010, move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff of the class, if
you so choose.  A lead plaintiff is a representative party that
acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation.
In order to be appointed lead plaintiff, the Court must determine
that the class member's claim is typical of the claims of other
class members, and that the class member will adequately represent
the class. Your ability to share in any recovery is not, however,
affected by the decision whether or not to serve as a lead
plaintiff.  Any member of the purported class may move the court
to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may
choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member.


CASEY'S GENERAL: Parties in Two Suits Ordered to Show Cause
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas in Kansas City,
Kansas, has ordered the parties in two suits against Casey's
General Stores, Inc., to show cause in writing why their cases
should not be consolidated for all purposes, according to the
company's June 29, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended April 30, 2010.

The company is named as a defendant in four lawsuits (hot fuel
cases) brought in the federal courts in Kansas and Missouri
against a variety of gasoline retailers.  The complaints generally
allege that the company, along with numerous other retailers, has
misrepresented gasoline volumes dispensed at its pumps by failing
to compensate for expansion that occurs when fuel is sold at
temperatures above 60 degrees Fahrenheit.  Fuel is measured at 60
degrees Fahrenheit in wholesale purchase transactions and
computation of motor fuel taxes in Kansas and Missouri.  The
complaints all seek certification as class actions on behalf of
gasoline consumers within those two states, and one of the
complaints also seeks certification for a class consisting of
gasoline consumers in all states.  The actions generally seek
recovery for alleged violations of state consumer protection or
unfair merchandising practices statutes, negligent and fraudulent
misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, civil conspiracy, and
violation of the duty of good faith and fair dealing; several seek
injunctive relief and punitive damages.

These actions are among a total of 45 similar lawsuits that have
been filed since November 2006 in 27 jurisdictions, including 25
states, Guam, and the District of Columbia, against a wide range
of defendants that produce, refine, distribute, and/or market
gasoline products in the United States.

On June 18, 2007, the Federal Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation ordered that all of the pending hot fuel cases
(officially, the Motor Fuel Temperature Sales Practices
Litigation) be transferred to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Kansas in Kansas City, Kansas, for coordinated or
consolidated pretrial proceedings, including rulings on discovery
matters, various pretrial motions, and class certification.
Discovery efforts by both sides were substantially completed
during the ensuing months, and the plaintiffs filed motions for
class certification in each of the pending lawsuits.

In a Memorandum and Order entered on May 28, 2010, the Court ruled
on the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification in two cases
originally filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Kansas, American Fiber & Cabling, LLC v. BP West Coast Products,
LLC, et al., Case No. 07-2053, and Wilson v. Ampride, Inc., et
al., Case No. 06-2582, in which the company is a named Defendant.

The Court determined that it could not certify a class as to
claims against the company in the American Fiber & Cabling case,
having decided that the named Plaintiff had no standing to assert
such claims.

However, in the Wilson case the Court certified a class as to the
liability and injunctive aspects of the Plaintiff's claims for
unjust enrichment and violation of the Kansas Consumer Protection
Act (KCPA) against the Company and several other Defendants. With
respect to claims for unjust enrichment, the class certified
consists of all individuals and entities (except employees or
affiliates of the Defendants) that, at any time between Jan. 1,
2001 and the present, purchased motor fuel at retail at a
temperature greater than 60 degrees Fahrenheit, in the state of
Kansas, from a gas station owned, operated, or controlled by one
or more of the Defendants.  As to claims for violation of the
KCPA, the class certified is limited to all individuals, sole
proprietors and family partnerships (excluding employees or
affiliates of Defendants) that made such purchases.

The Court also ordered the parties to show cause in writing why
the Wilson case and the American Fiber & Cabling case should not
be consolidated for all purposes.  The matter is now under
consideration by the court.  No trial date has been set.

Casey's General Stores, Inc. -- http://www.caseys.com/-- operates
convenience stores under the name Casey's General Store in nine
Midwest states, primarily Iowa, Missouri and Illinois.


CASEY'S GENERAL: Faces "Mercier" Suit Over Couche-Tard Offer
------------------------------------------------------------
Casey's General Stores, Inc., faces a suit styled Mercier v.
Casey's General Stores, Inc., et al., in relation to the proposed
acquisition of the company by Couche-Tard, according to the
company's June 29, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended April 30, 2010.

The company and members of its Board of Directors are defendants
in an action brought in the Iowa District Court for Polk County on
April 28, 2010.

The suit is filed as a purported class action on behalf of all
holders of Common Stock and is brought in connection with the
proposed acquisition of Casey's by Couche-Tard for $36 per share.

Plaintiff alleges that the individual defendants breached their
fiduciary duties through their refusal to properly consider and
negotiate with Couche-Tard.  Among other things, plaintiff seeks
an order maintaining the action as a class action and certifying
plaintiff as class representative and plaintiff's counsel as class
counsel, an order requiring the individual defendants to place the
company up for auction and/or to conduct a market check, and
requiring defendants to make full and fair disclosure of all
material facts to the class before the completion of any such
acquisition; a declaration that the individual defendants have
breached their fiduciary duties to plaintiff and the class; and an
award of fees, expenses and costs.

Casey's General Stores, Inc. -- http://www.caseys.com/-- operates
convenience stores under the name Casey's General Store in nine
Midwest states, primarily Iowa, Missouri and Illinois.


CHRISTY: Recalls 8,600 Women's Bathrobes
----------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Christy, of Charlotte, N.C., announced a voluntary recall of about
8,600 Women's Bathrobes.  Consumers should stop using recalled
products immediately unless otherwise instructed.

The bathrobes fail to meet the federal flammability standard for
clothing textiles and pose a risk of burn injury.

The firm has received one report of a robe igniting.  No injuries
have been reported.

This recall involves women's wrap bathrobes with long sleeves and
a belt.  They are made from 100 percent cotton terry cloth in
aqua, ivory, white and porcelain pink.  A woven label at the neck
edge of the robes read "Collection Fifty Nine".  Pictures of the
recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10289.html

The recalled products were manufactured in Turkey and sold through
Bloomingdale's department stores nationwide and
http://www.bloomingdales.com/from January 2008 through March 2010
for about $80.

Consumers should stop using the recalled bathrobes immediately and
return them to the Domestics Department in any Bloomingdale's
store for a full refund.  If the Bloomingdale's store does not
have a Domestics Department, the robe should be returned to the
Customer Service Department.  For additional information, contact
Christy's at (800) 261-6326 or visit Bloomingdale's web site at
http://www.bloomingdales.com/


ELI LILLY: Canadian Courts OK $17.6MM Settlement in Zyprexa Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Theresa Boyle at The Toronto Star reports that Canadian courts
have approved a $17.6 million settlement in a class-action lawsuit
launched by individuals who became diabetic after taking an
antipsychotic drug.

The settlement with Eli Lilly, manufacturer of Zyprexa, was
announced Wednesday.  It stems from allegations that the drug
giant failed to warn about risks of severe weight gain, diabetes,
hyperglycemia and pancreatitis.  Zyprexa is used for treatment of
schizophrenia and bipolar disorder.

Eli Lilly denies any wrongdoing and the allegations have not been
proved in court.

"While we believe the allegations are without merit, Lilly is
taking this difficult step because we believe it is in the best
interest of the company as well as the Canadian health care
professionals who depend on this important medication," John
Rudolph, legal counsel for Eli Lilly, said in a written statement.

The drug continues to be used, but changes have since been made to
its label to include warnings of diabetes.

The class action was filed on behalf of 11 people from Ontario,
British Columbia and Quebec and approved by the superior courts of
those provinces.

"We acknowledge that Eli Lilly has done the right thing," said
Harvin Pitch, Esq., counsel for Stevensons LLP, which represented
some of the plaintiffs.  "We encourage all users of Zyprexa who
qualify to apply for their benefits."

To receive a settlement payment, an individual must have started
taking the drug prior to June 6, 2007 and then been diagnosed with
diabetes, hyperglycemia, ketoacidosis or pancreatitis.  The size
of each payment will depend upon severity of illness and the total
number of approved claims.

The settlement was based on an estimate that there would be 1,450
claims, though it is possible that the actual number may be
higher, Mr. Pitch said.

The total number of prescriptions filled in 2009 in Canadian
retail pharmacies for Zyprexa and its generic equivalents was
2,493,081. It is the third most prescribed antipsychotic on the
Canadian market.

Further information is available at http://www.classaction.ca/

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Harvin Pitch, Esq.
     J. Daniel McConville, Esq.
     STEVENSONS LLP
     144 Front Street, Suite 400
     Toronto, Ontario M5J 2L7
     Telephone: (416) 865-5310
     Facsimile: (416) 365-7702
     E-mail: hpitch@teplitskycolson.com
             dmcconville@stevensonlaw.net


EXPEDIA INC: Monroe County Commission OKs $6.18MM Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
RYAN McCarthy at The Florida Keys Keynoter reports that the Monroe
County Commission approved a potential $6.18 million settlement
Tuesday in a class-action bed-tax lawsuit against several online
travel companies.

Monroe alleges the loss of roughly $2 million in taxes on
accommodations based on the travel companies' policy of buying
rooms at a wholesale rate and reselling them for higher prices.
The companies then pocket the difference in bed-tax dollars.

Chief Assistant County Attorney Bob Shillinger told the commission
about the settlement in a closed session in Marathon.  The three-
member commission -- Mario Di Gennaro and George Neugent were
absent -- approved the deal unanimously and without discussion.

Monroe sued travel Web sites Priceline, Travelocity, Expedia and
Orbitz in January 2009.  Mr. Shillinger said Orbitz is the only
company not involved in the potential agreement.

"We're still negotiating," Mr. Shillinger said.

Mr. Shillinger told Keynoter that if approved, Monroe would
receive approximately $1.9 million of the $6.18 million total.  As
the lead plaintiff, Monroe must take the proposed settlement
before Judge K. Michael Moore at U.S. District Court in Miami.

In March, Judge Moore granted class-action status to the county's
lawsuit.  The proposed class was 59 Florida counties, 33 of which
opted to take part.

"It needs to go to the court for approval since it's a class
action," Mr. Shillinger said.  "The counties will have an
opportunity once the court gives approval . . . to object to the
settlement."

Attorney Jay Shapiro, Esq., represents Monroe in the case.  He
said if any counties, Mr. Moore will "weigh it in the context of
the settlement as a whole."  But Mr. Shapiro said he doesn't
expect any objections.  "I don't think they will; we think it's a
very good settlement," he said.

Mr. Shillinger estimated the settlement proposal will be filed "in
the next couple weeks."  Should the settlement fall through, a
trial date has been set for July 19 at the Freeman Justice Center
in Key West.


FELT BICYCLES: Recalls 2,100 Bicycles
-------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Felt Bicycles, of Irvine, Calif., announced a voluntary recall of
about 2,100 bicycles.  Consumers should stop using recalled
products immediately unless otherwise instructed.

The bicycle's fork steer tube can break, causing the rider to lose
control, fall and suffer injuries.

Felt Bicycles has received seven reports of the bicycle forks
breaking.  Minor injuries, including bumps and bruises were
reported in one of the incidents.

Description: The recall includes all 2009 Felt model B12, B16 and
S32 road bicycles.

    * 2009 B12 - These bicycles are gloss silver/carbon and have
      carbon fiber frames with carbon fiber forks with aluminum
      steer tubes.

    * 2009 B16 - These bicycles are matte black/red and have
      carbon fiber frames with carbon fiber forks with aluminum
      steer tubes.

    * 2009 S32 - These bicycles are available in gloss white/red
      and have aluminum frames with carbon fiber forks with
      aluminum steer tubes.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10290.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold through
bicycle specialty stores nationwide from October 2008 through May
2010 for between about $2,300 and $3,100 per bicycle.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled bicycles and
contact your local Felt Bicycles dealer to receive a free
inspection and repair.  For additional information, call Felt
Bicycles toll-free at (866) 433-5887 or (866) 4-FELT-US, or visit
the firm's Web site at http://www.feltracing.com/


FOSAMAX MDL: NY Jury Gives $8MM Verdict for Boles; Merck to Appeal
------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Hamblett at The New York Law Journal reports that a Southern
District of New York jury delivered the first plaintiff's verdict
recorded in the multidistrict litigation over the anti-bone loss
drug Fosamax.  A jury in Judge John Keenan's courtroom took about
four hours to decide that Merck & Co. should pay $8 million for
present and future pain and suffering to Shirley Boles of Fort
Walton, Fla., said Gary Douglas Esq., at Douglas & London, who
represented Boles along with Timothy M. O'Brien, Esq., at Levin
Papantonio of Pensacola, Fla.

Ms. Boles is one of some 900 plaintiffs who filed suit in federal
and state courts alleging that instead of offsetting the bone loss
associated with menopause, Fosamax caused deterioration of the
jawbone.  Paul F. Strain, Esq., at Venable represented Merck.  The
trial, which began on June 7, was the second for Ms. Boles.  The
first one ended in a mistrial in September after jurors, who could
be heard by lawyers arguing vehemently in the jury room,
deadlocked 7-1 in favor of the pharmaceutical company.

The case is one of the bellwether cases selected by the court in
In Re: Fosamax Products Liability Litigation, 06-md-01789.  The
first bellwether ended in a defense verdict on May 5.  Mr. Strain
said Merck intended to challenge the verdict as contrary to the
evidence and the award as "unjustified and excessive."

Ms. Boles is represented by:

     Timothy M. O'Brien, Esq.
     Meghan McCormick, Esq.
     Ned McWilliams, Esq.
     LEVIN PAPANTONIO THOMAS MITCHELL
       ECHSNER RAFFERTY & PROCTOR, P.A.
     316 South Baylen Street, Suite 600
     Pensacola, FL 32502
     Telephone: (850) 435-7084
                (888) 435-7001 (toll free)
     Facsimile: (850) 436-6084
     E-mail: tobrien@levinlaw.com
             mtans@levinlaw.com
             nmcwilliams@levinlaw.com

          - and -

     Gary J. Douglas, Esq.
     DOUGLAS & LONDON P.C.
     111 John Street, 14th Floor
     New York, NY 10038
     Telephone: (212) 566-7500
     Facsimile: (212) 566-7501

          - and -

     Jim Green, Esq.
     ASHCRAFT GEREL LLP
     2000 L Street, N.W., Suite 400
     Washington, D.C. 20036
     Telephone: (202) 783-6400
     Facsimile: (202) 416-6392


GENERAL NUTRITION: Accused in Pa. Suit of Not Paying Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that General Nutrition Centers
stiffed workers for overtime, a class action claims in Pittsburgh
Federal Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Vargas, et al. v. General Nutrition
Centers, Inc., et al., Case No. 05-mc-02025 (W.D. Pa.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/06/30/Employ.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Adrian N. Roe, Esq.
          ADRIAN N. ROE P.C.
          The Gulf Tower, Suite 1331
          707 Grant St.
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: (412) 434-8187
          E-mail: aroe@roelawoffice.com

               - and -

          Michael D. Simon, Esq.
          2520 Mosside Blvd.
          Monroeville, PA 15146
          Telephone: (412) 856-8107
          E-mail: mdsimon20@msn.com


H&R BLOCK: Appeal of Decertification in "Basile" Remains Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
The appeal on the decertification of a class in a putative class
action against H&R Block, Inc., remains pending, according to the
company's June 29, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended April 30, 2010.

The company was named in multiple lawsuits as defendants in
litigation regarding its refund anticipation loan program in past
years.  All of those lawsuits have been settled or otherwise
resolved, except for one.

The sole remaining case is a putative class action styled Sandra
J. Basile, et al. v. H&R Block, Inc., et al., April Term 1992
Civil Action No. 3246 in the Court of Common Pleas, First Judicial
District Court of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia County, instituted on
April 23, 1993.

The plaintiffs allege inadequate disclosures with respect to the
RAL product and assert claims for violation of consumer protection
statutes, negligent misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty,
common law fraud, usury, and violation of the Truth In Lending
Act.

The plaintiffs seek unspecified actual and punitive damages,
injunctive relief, attorneys' fees and costs.

A Pennsylvania class was certified, but later decertified by the
trial court in December 2003.

The trial court's decertification decision is currently on appeal.

H&R Block Inc. -- http://www.hrblock.com/-- is one of the world's
largest tax services providers, having prepared more than 550
million tax returns worldwide since 1955.  In fiscal 2010, H&R
Block had annual revenues of $3.9 billion and prepared more than
23 million tax returns worldwide, utilizing more than 100,000
highly trained tax professionals.  The company provides tax return
preparation services in person, through H&R Block At Home(TM)
online and desktop software products, and through other channels.
The company is also one of the leading providers of business
services through RSM McGladrey.


H&R BLOCK: Class Certification Motion in "Marshall" Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs' motion for class certification in the matter Lorie
J. Marshall, et al. v. H&R Block Tax Services, Inc., et al., Case
No. 08-cv-591, remains pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Illinois, according to H&R Block Inc.'s June
29, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended April 30, 2010.

The suit was originally filed in the Circuit Court of Madison
County, Illinois on Jan. 18, 2002.  The suit relates to the
company's Peace of Mind program (POM), under which the company's
applicable tax return preparation subsidiary assumes liability for
additional tax assessments attributable to tax return preparation
error.

The plaintiffs allege that the sale of POM guarantees constitutes:

     (1) statutory fraud by selling insurance without a license,

     (2) an unfair trade practice, by omission and by "cramming"
         (i.e., charging customers for the guarantee even though
         they did not request it or want it), and

     (3) a breach of fiduciary duty.

The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages, injunctive relief,
attorneys' fees and costs.

The Madison County court ultimately certified a class consisting
of all persons residing in 13 states who paid a separate fee for
POM from Jan. 1, 1997, to the date of a final judgment from the
court.

The company subsequently removed the case to federal court in the
Southern District of Illinois, where it is now pending.

In November 2009, the federal court issued an order effectively
vacating the state court's class certification ruling and allowing
plaintiffs time to file a renewed motion for class certification
under the federal rules.

Plaintiffs filed a new motion for class certification seeking
certification of an 11-state class.  Oral argument on plaintiffs'
motion occurred in April 2010 and the parties are awaiting a
ruling.

A trial date has been set for November 2010.

H&R Block Inc. -- http://www.hrblock.com/-- is one of the world's
largest tax services providers, having prepared more than 550
million tax returns worldwide since 1955.  In fiscal 2010, H&R
Block had annual revenues of $3.9 billion and prepared more than
23 million tax returns worldwide, utilizing more than 100,000
highly trained tax professionals.  The company provides tax return
preparation services in person, through H&R Block At Home(TM)
online and desktop software products, and through other channels.
The company is also one of the leading providers of business
services through RSM McGladrey.


H&R BLOCK: No Class Certified in Texas "Soliz" Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------
A class has yet to be certified in the matter Desiri L. Soliz v.
H&R Block, et al. (Cause No. 03-032-D), pending in the District
Court of Kleberg County, Texas, according to H&R Block Inc.'s June
29, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended April 30, 2010.

The putative class action pending was filed on Jan. 23, 2003.
The suit relates to the company's Peace of Mind program (POM),
under which the company's applicable tax return preparation
subsidiary assumes liability for additional tax assessments
attributable to tax return preparation error.

The suit involves the same plaintiffs' attorneys that are involved
in the matter Lorie J. Marshall, et al. v. H&R Block Tax Services,
Inc., et al., Case No. 08-cv-591, pending in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Illinois.

The Soliz suit contains allegations similar to those in the
Marshall litigation.

The plaintiff seeks actual and treble damages, equitable relief,
attorneys' fees and costs.

No class has been certified in this case.

H&R Block Inc. -- http://www.hrblock.com/-- is one of the world's
largest tax services providers, having prepared more than 550
million tax returns worldwide since 1955.  In fiscal 2010, H&R
Block had annual revenues of $3.9 billion and prepared more than
23 million tax returns worldwide, utilizing more than 100,000
highly trained tax professionals.  The company provides tax return
preparation services in person, through H&R Block At Home(TM)
online and desktop software products, and through other channels.
The company is also one of the leading providers of business
services through RSM McGladrey.


H&R BLOCK: Appellate Court Affirms Dismissal of Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The appellate court has affirmed the dismissal of the putative
class action styled In re H&R Block Securities Litigation, Case
No. 06-0236-cv-W-ODS, according to H&R Block Inc.'s June 29, 2010,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended April 30, 2010.

The suit was filed on April 6, 2007, against the company and
certain of its officers in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Missouri.

The complaint alleged, among other things, deceptive, material and
misleading financial statements and failure to prepare financial
statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting
principles.  The complaint sought unspecified damages and
equitable relief.

The court dismissed the complaint in February 2008, and the
plaintiffs appealed the dismissal in March 2008.

In September 2009, the appellate court affirmed the dismissal of
the securities fraud class action.

H&R Block Inc. -- http://www.hrblock.com/-- is one of the world's
largest tax services providers, having prepared more than 550
million tax returns worldwide since 1955.  In fiscal 2010, H&R
Block had annual revenues of $3.9 billion and prepared more than
23 million tax returns worldwide, utilizing more than 100,000
highly trained tax professionals.  The company provides tax return
preparation services in person, through H&R Block At Home(TM)
online and desktop software products, and through other channels.
The company is also one of the leading providers of business
services through RSM McGladrey.


H&R BLOCK: Trial Date in Do Right's Suit Set for January 2011
-------------------------------------------------------------
A trial date in the class action styled Do Right's Plant Growers,
et al. v. RSM EquiCo, Inc., et al., Case No.
06 CC00137, is set for January 2011.

RSM EquiCo, its parent and certain of its subsidiaries and
affiliates, are parties to a class action filed on July 11, 2006,
in the California Superior Court, Orange County.

The complaint contains allegations relating to business valuation
services provided by RSM EquiCo, including allegations of fraud,
negligent misrepresentation, breach of contract, breach of implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing, breach of fiduciary duty
and unfair competition.  Plaintiffs seek unspecified actual and
punitive damages, in addition to pre-judgment interest and
attorneys' fees.

On March 17, 2009, the court granted plaintiffs' motion for class
certification on all claims.  The defendants filed two requests
for interlocutory review of the decision, the last of which was
denied by the Supreme Court of California on Sept. 30, 2009.  A
trial date has been set for January 2011.

The certified class consists of RSM EquiCo's U.S. clients who
signed platform agreements and for whom RSM EquiCo did not
ultimately market their business for sale.  The fees paid to RSM
EquiCo in connection with these agreements total approximately
$185 million, a number which substantially exceeds the equity of
RSM EquiCo.  The Company said it intends to defend the case
vigorously.

The amount claimed in this action is substantial and could have a
material adverse impact on the company's consolidated results of
operations, according to H&R Block Inc.'s June 29, 2010, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended April 30, 2010.

H&R Block Inc. -- http://www.hrblock.com/-- is one of the world's
largest tax services providers, having prepared more than 550
million tax returns worldwide since 1955.  In fiscal 2010, H&R
Block had annual revenues of $3.9 billion and prepared more than
23 million tax returns worldwide, utilizing more than 100,000
highly trained tax professionals.  The company provides tax return
preparation services in person, through H&R Block At Home(TM)
online and desktop software products, and through other channels.
The company is also one of the leading providers of business
services through RSM McGladrey.


H&R BLOCK: Motion to Consolidate Wage and Hour Suits Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
H&R Block Inc.'s motion to consolidate several wage and hour class
action lawsuits remains pending, according to the company's June
29, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended April 30, 2010.

The company has been named in several wage and hour class action
lawsuits throughout the country, respectively styled:

     (1) Alice Williams v. H&R Block Enterprises LLC, Case
         No.RG08366506 (Superior Court of California, County of
         Alameda, filed Jan. 17, 2008);

     (2) Arabella Lemus v. H&R Block Enterprises LLC, et al.,
         Case No. CGC-09-489251 (U.S. District Court, Northern
         District of California, filed June 9, 2009);

     (3) Delana Ugas v. H&R Block Enterprises LLC, et al., Case
         No. BC417700 (U.S. District Court, Central District of
         California, filed July 13, 2009);

     (4) Joaquin Llano v. H&R Block Eastern Enterprises, Inc.,
         Case No. 09-cv-22531 (U.S. District Court, Southern
         District of Florida, filed Aug. 27, 2009);

     (5) Barbara Petroski v. H&R Block Eastern Enterprises,
         Inc., et al., Case No. 10-cv-00075 (U.S. District
         Court, Western District of Missouri, filed Jan. 25,
         2010);

     (6) Lance Hom v. H&R Block Enterprises LLC, et al., Case
         No. 10CV0476 H (U.S. District Court, Southern District
         of California, filed March 4, 2010);

     (7) Stacy Oyer v. H&R Block Eastern Enterprises, Inc.,
         et al., Case No. 10-cv-00387-WMS (U.S. District Court,
         Western District of New York, filed May, 10 2010);

     (8) Rita Greene v. H&R Block Eastern Enterprises, Inc.,
         et al., Case No. 10-cv-21663-FAM (U.S. District Court,
         Southern District of Florida, filed May 21, 2010); and

     (9) Li Dong Ma v. RSM McGladrey TBS, LLC, et al.,
         Case No. C-08-01729  JF (U.S. District Court, Northern
         District of California, filed Feb. 28, 2008).

The cases involve a variety of legal theories and allegations
including, among other things, failure to compensate employees for
all hours worked; failure to provide employees with meal periods;
failure to provide itemized wage statements; failure to pay wages
due upon termination; failure to compensate for mandatory off-
season training; and/or misclassification of non-exempt employees.

The plaintiffs seek actual damages, in addition to statutory
penalties, pre-judgment interest and attorneys' fees.

The company has moved to consolidate certain of these cases into a
single action because they allege substantially identical claims.

H&R Block Inc. -- http://www.hrblock.com/-- is one of the world's
largest tax services providers, having prepared more than 550
million tax returns worldwide since 1955.  In fiscal 2010, H&R
Block had annual revenues of $3.9 billion and prepared more than
23 million tax returns worldwide, utilizing more than 100,000
highly trained tax professionals.  The company provides tax return
preparation services in person, through H&R Block At Home(TM)
online and desktop software products, and through other channels.
The company is also one of the leading providers of business
services through RSM McGladrey.


INTEGRATED HEALTHCARE: Status Conference in Suit Set for July 14
----------------------------------------------------------------
A status conference in a lawsuit against Integrated Healthcare
Holdings, Inc., has been set for July 14, 2010, according to the
company's June 29, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2010.

On June 5, 2009, a potential class action lawsuit was filed
against the company by Alexandra Avery.

Ms. Avery purports to represent all 12-hourly employees and the
complaint alleges causes of action for restitution of unpaid wages
as a result of unfair business practices, injunctive relief for
unfair business practices, failure to pay overtime wages, and
penalties associated therewith.

On Dec. 23, 2009, the Company filed an answer to the complaint,
generally denying all of the plaintiff's allegations.

The parties are currently exchanging initial discovery in the
action, and a status conference has been scheduled by the Court
for July 14, 2010.

Integrated Healthcare Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.ihhioc.com/
-- owns and operates four acute care hospitals and ancillary
health businesses in Orange County, California.


INTEGRATED HEALTHCARE: Faces "Ross" Labor Violations Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Integrated Healthcare Holdings, Inc., faces a suit filed by Julie
Ross, according to the company's June 29, 2010, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended March 31, 2010.

On Jan. 25, 2010, a potential class action lawsuit was filed
against the company by Julie Ross.

Ms. Ross purports to represent all similarly-situated employees
and the complaint alleges causes of action for violation of the
California Labor Code and unfair competition law.  The parties are
currently exchanging initial discovery in the action.

Integrated Healthcare Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.ihhioc.com/
-- owns and operates four acute care hospitals and ancillary
health businesses in Orange County, California.


LINCOLN NATIONAL: 7th Cir. Won't Review Bezich Remand Order
-----------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
dismissed a petition by Lincoln National Life Insurance Co. for
leave to appeal a district court ruling denying its bid to
transfer a class suit to federal court.  The Seventh Circuit held
that it lacks appellate jurisdiction in the case, Lincoln National
Life Insurance Co., v. Peter S. Bezich, individually and on behalf
of a class of others similarly situated.

A copy of the decision is available at:

     http://www.leagle.com/unsecure/page.htm?shortname=infco20100625172


MACY'S INC: Dismissal of One-Day Sale Lawsuit Affirmed
------------------------------------------------------
In Harold M. Hoffman, Individually and in behalf of the class of
purchasers at the Bloomingdale's one-day Las Vegas Sale of
4/18/09, v. Macy's, Inc., Case No. A-6131-08T3, the Superior Court
of New Jersey, Appellate Division, affirmed a July 2009 trial
court order dismissing a purported class action suit for failure
to assert any cognizable loss or damages.

Harold M. Hoffman argued the cause pro se.

Macy's was defended by:

     Sigrid S. Franzblau, Esq.
     RIKER DANZIG SCHERER HYLAND & PERRETTI, LLP
     One Speedwell Avenue
     Morristown, NJ 07962-1981
     Telephone: (973) 451-8431
     Facsimile: (973) 538-1984
     E-mail: sfranzblau@riker.com

A copy of the decision is available at:

     http://www.leagle.com/unsecure/page.htm?shortname=innjco20100628251


MEDTRONIC INC: Minnesota Court Denies Motion to Dismiss Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota denied
Medtronic, Inc.'s motion to dismiss a putative class action
relating to its defibrillators, according to the company's
June 29, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended April 30, 2010.

On Feb. 10, 2005, Medtronic voluntarily began to advise physicians
about the possibility that a specific battery shorting mechanism
might manifest itself in a subset of implantable cardioverter
defibrillators (ICDs) and cardiac resynchronization therapy-
defibrillators (CRT-Ds).  These included certain Marquis VR/DR and
Maximo VR/DR ICDs and certain InSync I/II/III CRT-D devices.

Subsequent to this voluntary field action, a number of lawsuits
were filed against the company alleging a variety of claims,
including individuals asserting claims of personal injury and
third-party payors alleging entitlement to reimbursement.

Many of these lawsuits were settled, and in the third quarter of
fiscal year 2008, the company recorded an expense of $123 million
relating to the settlement in accordance with U.S. GAAP as the
potential loss was both probable and reasonably estimable.  The
company paid substantially all of the $123 million in the first
quarter of fiscal year 2009.

One third-party payor, Kinetic Knife, dismissed its original
action without prejudice and on Nov. 5, 2008, filed a putative
class action relating to the same subject matter.  After removing
the case to the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota,
Medtronic filed a motion to dismiss.

That motion was denied on December 4, 2009.

Pretrial proceedings are underway.

Medtronic, Inc. -- http://www.medtronic.com/-- headquartered in
Minneapolis, is the world's leading medical technology company,
alleviating pain, restoring health and extending life for people
with chronic disease.


MEDTRONIC INC: Defends Consolidated Product Liability Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Medtronic, Inc., defends a consolidated suit Ontario Superior
Court of Justice, according to the company's June 29, 2010, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended April 30, 2010.

A class action product liability suits pending in Canada are
consolidated in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.  That court
certified a class of individual implant recipients and their
family members for proceeding on Dec. 6, 2007.

In addition, the subrogated claims of the provincial health
insurers to recover costs incurred in providing medical services
to the implant class are claimed in the class proceeding.
Pretrial proceedings are underway.

Medtronic, Inc. -- http://www.medtronic.com/-- headquartered in
Minneapolis, is the world's leading medical technology company,
alleviating pain, restoring health and extending life for people
with chronic disease.


MERCK & CO: Louisiana Loses Bid to Recoup Payments for Vioxx
------------------------------------------------------------
Linda A. Johnson, writing for The Associated Press, reports that
Merck & Co. on Tuesday won the first trial over withdrawn
painkiller Vioxx brought by a state trying to recoup what it paid
for residents to take the drug, arguing it wouldn't have been
covered had its risks been better known.  U.S. District Court
Judge Eldon Fallon in New Orleans ruled for Whitehouse Station,
N.J.-based Merck in a 2005 case brought by the Louisiana attorney
general's office, one of more than a dozen such government
lawsuits.

Attorney James R. Dugan II, Esq., at The Murray Law Firm in New
Orleans, the lead attorney representing Louisiana, said his team
would be meeting with state officials to discuss appellate
possibilities.  "We are not giving up on the case," Mr. Dugan
said, adding he believes the state has strong grounds for an
appeal.

Mr. Dugan's team had argued Louisiana would have restricted sales
of Vioxx, a former blockbuster drug with peak annual sales of
about $2.5 billion, through the state's Medicaid program if
officials had known more about the drug's risks of heart attack
and stroke.

Lawyers for the state also had argued that Merck exaggerated how
safe Vioxx was, compared with other anti-inflammatory drugs, in
reducing the chances of potentially fatal stomach ulcers and
gastrointestinal bleeding.

In his ruling, Judge Fallon noted that even though pain relievers
in the same class as Vioxx, called Cox-2 inhibitors, were all
required by the Food and Drug Administration to carry a warning
about cardiovascular risks, Louisiana health officials never
restricted payments for those drugs.  The judge also ruled that
"the weight of the evidence indicates that Vioxx has
gastrointestinal benefits" and that Merck's marketing was
consistent with that evidence.

Louisiana was trying to recover more than $20 million, for what it
paid for Vioxx prescriptions, interest, attorney fees and
litigation expenses, Mr. Dugan said.

Tuesday's ruling followed a nonjury trial presided over by Judge
Fallon, who heard testimony and reviewed other evidence from April
12 through April 21.

In the only other such case in which a court has ruled, a case
filed by the Texas attorney general, Merck won a summary judgment
from a state judge, said Tarek Ismail, Esq., outside counsel for
Merck.  "We're very pleased with the court's decision and believe
it accurately found that Merck provided the correct information
about Vioxx . . . and that the state would not have acted
differently," Mr. Ismail said.

Merck still faces about 20 similar lawsuits filed by other
government entities, including 13 filed by state attorneys
general, one filed by the city of New York and five filed by
counties in New York state, a Merck spokeswoman said.

Merck voluntarily pulled Vioxx from the market on Sept. 30, 2004,
after its own research found the popular treatment for arthritis
and other pain doubled risk of heart attack, stroke and death.
Shareholders lost a combined $28 billion when Merck stock plunged
overnight after Vioxx was withdrawn.

Merck was quickly slammed by lawsuits from patients alleging harm,
stockholders who lost money and groups that had paid for Vioxx
prescriptions. The company is winding down payments out of a $4.85
billion settlement reached in November 2007 to end roughly 50,000
patient lawsuits, the vast majority of such cases.

Merck won about two-thirds of the Vioxx personal injury lawsuits
that went to trial.


MERRILL LYNCH: Tex. Sup. Ct. Directs Stay of MetroPCS Case
----------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of Texas in In Re Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. and
Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated, Relators, Case
No. 09-0161, held that the trial court abused its discretion by
refusing to stay the litigation related to MetroPCS
Communications, Inc., until the identical claims of its corporate
affiliate, MetroPCS Wireless, Inc., are decided by arbitration or
until Wireless is a member of a certified class action.  The Texas
Supreme Court conditionally granted relator Merrill Lynch's
petition for writ of mandamus, and directed the trial court to
grant Merrill Lynch's motion to stay Communications' claims.

Justice Debra Ann H. Lehrmann did not participate in the decision.

A copy of the decision is available at:

     http://www.leagle.com/unsecure/page.htm?shortname=intxco20100625684


MOTT'S LLP: Accused in N.Y. of Deceptive Consumer Sales Practice
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Mott's and Dr Pepper Snapple
Group push their Yoo-Hoo chocolate drink with false claims about
its nutritional value, a class action claims in Brooklyn Federal
Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Dahl v. Mott's LLP, et al., Case No.
10-cv-_____ (E.D.N.Y.) (Johnson, J.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/06/30/YooHoo.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael R. Reese, Esq.
          Kim E. Richman, Esq.
          Belinda L. Williams, Esq.
          REESE RICHMAN LLP
          875 Sixth Ave., 18th Floor
          New York, NY 10001
          Telephone: (212) 643-0500


NATIONAL CITY: Del. Sup. Ct. Affirms PNC Merger Class Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
In Re: National City Corporation Shareholders Litigation, Julien
J. Mccall, Jr., Leon Atayan, Thomas O'Rourke and William E. Manby;
and Peter Vadas and Dr. Daniel Rocker took an appeal from the
Delaware Court of Chancery's approval of a class action settlement
resolving litigation challenging the decision of the board of
directors of National City Corporation to approve a merger
transaction with The PNC Financial Services Group, Inc.  The
Supreme Court of Delaware rejected both appeals, and affirmed the
Court of Chancery's ruling.

In McCall, the Delaware Supreme Court noted that during oral
arguments on June 2, McCall's attorney relied upon Phillips
Petroleum Co. v. Shutts and other cases that were not cited in
McCall's opening brief.  If those cases were additional authority
that supported an argument which was fairly presented in McCall's
opening brief, it was incumbent upon McCall's attorney to provide
this Court and opposing counsel with copies of those cases prior
to oral argument.  McCall did not comply with that proper
appellate procedure.  Moreover, those new legal authorities were
cited to support a legal argument that was not fully and fairly
presented in McCall's opening brief.  Arguments that are not
presented in an appellant's opening brief are waived on appeal.
New legal arguments cannot be presented for the first time at oral
argument.

In Vadas, the Delaware Supreme Court noted that the Vadas
appellants had dismissed a related federal action in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, without
prejudice.  That dismissal was disclosed during oral argument by
the McCall appellants' pro hac vice counsel and was unknown to
Vadas' Delaware counsel, who was present at the oral argument but
made no argument on behalf of the Vadas appellants.  According to
the Supreme Court, the voluntary dismissal of Vadas' federal
action in Ohio makes his arguments moot.

A copy of the decision is available at:

     http://www.leagle.com/unsecure/page.htm?shortname=indeco20100629095


NEW YORK: No Escrow of Recovery in Ferry Mishap Case
----------------------------------------------------
Mark Fass, writing for The New York Law Journal, reports that two
law firms that claim they are entitled to as much as 13% of the
nearly $90 million the city of New York has paid out to victims of
the 2003 Staten Island Ferry disaster suffered a minor setback in
Brooklyn federal court.

The two firms, Dougherty, Ryan, Giuffra, Zambito & Hession in
Manhattan and Bosco, Bisignano & Mascolo on Staten Island, served
respectively as maritime counsel and liaison counsel for the 171
cases against the city stemming from the crash of the Andrew J.
Barberi, which killed 11 people and injured at least 70.

In the long-running fee dispute, the firms argue that, in most of
those 171 cases, they are entitled to between 8% and 13% of the
total recovery for their efforts in creating a "common benefit."
Most significantly, Dougherty Ryan successfully fought the city's
attempt to use a 19th century maritime law to cap its total
liability for the accident at $14 million.

In advance of a judge's decision on a preliminary injunction, the
two firms at a hearing in June before Eastern District of New York
Magistrate Judge Viktor V. Pohorelsky sought a temporary
restraining order that would require each of the individual
claimants' attorneys to place 13% of their gross recovery in
escrow.

Dougherty Ryan and Bosco Bisignano argued that collecting any fees
that may ultimately be awarded will only become more difficult as
the various firms' finances and compositions change.

Judge Pohorelsky disagreed.  In a two-page report, he recommended
against the temporary restraining order, finding the issue
insufficiently urgent to require such an order.

Considering that many of the settlements are already several years
old, the two extra weeks that will be needed to consider the
firms' motion for a "substantially identical" preliminary
injunction are not likely to affect the firms' ability to collect,
the magistrate judge concluded.

"The risk of such changes occurring during that relatively brief
period is certainly minuscule when compared to the risk that they
already have occurred, because most of the settlement funds out of
which the award would be paid were obtained years before the
preliminary injunction motion was made," he wrote.

As of June 23, the presiding judge, Eastern District Judge Edward
R. Korman, had not ruled on the magistrate judge's recommendation.

Dougherty Ryan and Bosco Bisignano now have one week to submit
papers in support of their motion for a preliminary injunction.

In the 171 cases regarding the ferry accident, the city settled
164 for $67.9 million and was ordered to pay $19.4 million in
three judgments, according to the New York City Law Department.
One case was tried to a dismissal, one case was tried and is
awaiting decision and one case was dismissed for failure to
prosecute.

The single largest payment, $18.3 million, was awarded by Eastern
District Judge Jack B. Weinstein to James McMillan, who was
paralyzed in the crash.

Judge Weinstein ordered McMillan's attorney, Evan Torgan, to place
13% of the award in escrow pending resolution of the fee dispute.

The dispute involves dozens of law firms -- the Pacer list of
attorneys and claimants extends to 76 pages.

Dougherty Ryan and Bosco Bisignano are represented by the firm of
Godosky & Gentile.

Mr. Torgan is represented by Michael S. Ross.


RYDEX SERIES: Loses Bid to Transfer Rafton Suit to Maryland
-----------------------------------------------------------
In James Rafton v. Rydex Series Funds, et al. Case No. 10-cv-1171
(N.D. Calif.), Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated
securities laws by disseminating prospectuses and other documents
that contained false and misleading information about the Rydex
Inverse Government Long Bond Strategy Fund.  Defendants have moved
to transfer the case to the District of Maryland, where the Fund's
operations are located and where the allegedly misleading
documents were drafted.  The Rydex Litigation Group and its
counsel have moved to be appointed lead plaintiff and lead
counsel, a motion Defendants do not oppose.

On June 29, 2010, Judge Charles R. Breyer denied Defendants'
Motion to Transfer.  The Court appointed the Rydex Litigation
Group as lead plaintiff and approved the Sparer Law Group as lead
counsel.

In denying the Motion to Transfer, the Court held that
"transferring this case to the District of Maryland is not in the
interest of justice.  Plaintiff resides in this District, received
the relevant materials here, and purchased his shares here.  As a
result of these significant connections to the Northern District,
his choice of forum is entitled to substantial weight."

A copy of the decision is available at:

     http://www.leagle.com/unsecure/page.htm?shortname=infdco20100629b33


SALOMON USA: Recalls Ski Boot Sole Pads and All-Terrain Ski Boots
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Salomon USA of Ogden, Utah, announced a voluntary recall of about
175 pairs of "Quest Touring Pads" about 83 pairs of "Quest Pro
Pebax" and "Quest Pro" ski boots.  Consumers should stop using
recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed.

The toe portion of the boot pad may unexpectedly release from the
touring-style ski binding on a ski, posing a fall or injury hazard
to the user.

The firm has received one report of injury, involving a fractured
leg and knee injuries.

This recall involves the Salomon "Quest Touring Pads" distributed
as sole pads only, and Salomon "Quest Pro Pebax" and "Quest Pro"
ski boots configured with the recalled sole pads.  The sole pads
have visible steel inserts intended to make these Quest touring-
style sole pads compatible with a specific type of touring-style
ski binding, commonly referred to by back-country skiers as a
"low-tech binding."  Pictures of the recalled products are
available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10285.html

The recalled products were manufactured in Romania and sold
through Eight selected Salomon USA ski boot dealers in Colorado,
Utah, Vermont and Washington from February 2010 through April 2010
for about $50 for the sole pads and about $750 for the ski boots
configured with the recalled sole pads.  Other sales agents and
consumers were contacted by Salomon.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled sole pads and
ski boots and return them to any authorized Salomon ski dealer for
a refund of their purchase price.  For additional information,
contact the firm toll-free at (877) 789-5111 between 8:00 a.m. and
4:00 p.m., Mountain Time, Monday through Friday, by email at
qualityinfo.usa@salomon-sports.com , or visit the firm's Web site
at http://www.salomon.com/


SECURITIES AMERICA: Klayman & Toskes Files Securities Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities Arbitration Law Firm of Klayman & Toskes, P.A.
encourages all Securities America customers who purchased Medical
Capital Notes to consider their legal options in light of the
class action that was filed against Securities America concerning
Medical Provider Financial Corp. III, Medical Provider Financial
Corp. IV, Medical Provider Funding Corp. V and Medical Provider
Funding Corp. VI.  Potential class members who purchased Medical
Capital Notes from Securities America should consider whether they
should participate in the class action or file an individual
securities arbitration claim.

It is alleged that " . . . Securities America . . . did not make a
reasonable investigation or possess reasonable grounds to believe
that the statements contained and incorporated by reference in the
[Private Placement Memoranda] at the time of the MedCap Entities'
offerings were true and without omissions of material fact and
were not misleading.  Had . . . Securities America . . . exercised
reasonable care, they would have known of such omissions."

Additionally, the Massachusetts Securities Division filed an
Administrative Complaint against Securities America in connection
with its sales of Medical Capital Notes.  According to
Massachusetts Secretary of State Bill Galvin, "Our investigation
showed that Securities America ignored their own due diligence
analysts and sold these notes to unsophisticated investors without
telling them the risks involved."  Mr. Galvin added, "People
invested their life savings, while this dealer hid from them the
truth of what they were getting into."

K&T reminds investors of the benefits of filing an individual
securities arbitration claim, as opposed to participating in a
class action lawsuit.  By participating in a class action lawsuit,
an investor may only recover a nominal amount.  However, if one
has experienced significant losses in Medical Capital notes, it
may be more beneficial for them to file an individual securities
arbitration claim.  In 2003, K&T conducted a detailed study of
securities arbitration versus class action.  The study concluded
that investors who file a securities arbitration claim
traditionally obtain an overall higher rate of recovery as opposed
to participating in a class action lawsuit.  To view the full
results of the comparison, please visit the firm's Web site:

     http://www.nasd-law.com/documents/classvr.pdf

Investors who purchased Medical Capital notes from Securities
America and sustained significant losses can contact K&T to
explore their legal rights and options.  The attorneys at K&T are
dedicated to pursuing claims on behalf of investors who have
suffered investment losses. K&T, an experienced, qualified and
nationally recognized securities litigation law firm, practices
exclusively in the field of securities arbitration and litigation.
It continues its representation of investors throughout the world
in securities arbitration and litigation matters against major
Wall Street brokerage firms.

If you wish to discuss this announcement or have investment losses
of $100,000 or more in Medical Capital Notes, please contact:

     Steven D. Toskes, Esq.
     Jahan K. Manasseh, Esq.
     KLAYMAN & TOSKES, P.A.
     Peninsula Plaza
     2424 N. Federal Highway, Suite 450
     Boca Raton, Florida 33431
     Telephone: (561) 997-9956

On the Net: http://www.nasd-law.com/


SMILEMAKERS INC: Recalls 66,200 Charm Bracelets and 2,200 Rings
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
SmileMakers Inc., of Spartanburg, S.C., announced a voluntary
recall of about 66,200 Charm Bracelets and 2,200 Rings.  Consumers
should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise
instructed.

The metal substrate in the jewelry contains high levels of
cadmium.  Cadmium is toxic if ingested by young children and can
cause adverse health effects.

No injuries or incidents have been reported.

This recall involves "Happy" charm bracelets and football rings.
The "Happy" charm bracelet is comprised of colorful beads on a
small elastic band to which a metal charm in the shape of a
butterfly, moon or sun is attached.  The football ring is a small
adjustable metal band to which a football charm (made of metal) is
attached.  Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10287.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold through
doctor and dentist offices nationwide from June 2005 through March
2010 for free.

Consumers should immediately take the recalled jewelry away from
children and discard the product.  For additional information,
contact SmileMakers toll-free at (877) 390-5470 between 9:00 a.m.
and 5:00 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, visit the
company's Web site at http://www.smilemakers.com/, or send email
to product.questions@smilemakers.com


SONY CORP: Court Won't Postpone Evidence Gathering in ODD Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP said consumers won a victory in
their fight against a group of technology companies including
Sony, Hitachi, and Philips, who are accused of fixing prices of
optical disc drives common in computers, DVD and Blu-Ray players
among other devices.

In a ruling on June 24, Judge Walker rejected a motion to postpone
evidence gathering for a class-action lawsuit filed by consumers
while the defendants address criminal charges.  The judge's ruling
allows the attorneys representing consumers to continue to build
the case against these corporations that dominate the ODD market.

Published reports state that ODD manufacturers sell 313 million
drives a year for use in personal computers, and another 200
million for other applications, with revenue topping $45 billion
between 2004 and 2008, and estimated at $14 billion for 2010.

Individual losses vary depending on the number of ODDs purchased,
but attorneys believe the amounts are significant. "We intend to
prove that the defendants conspired to inflate and sustain prices
of ODDs simply to increase profit, all at the expense of
consumers," said Steve Berman, Esq., founding partner of Hagens
Berman and lead attorney representing consumers.

"While the Department of Justice is working on the criminal
investigation, we think it is vitally important for us to push
forward with our civil class action," said Berman. "While one of
the goals of the criminal action is to punish the guilty, our goal
is solely to return what we believe are ill-gotten profits to the
pockets of consumers."

The relatively small numbers of ODD manufacturers, including the
defendants, have a long history of joint ventures and other close
working arrangements that gave ample opportunity to share
information, the complaint states.

Berman said that the high cost of entry into the ODD market adds
to the tight control the defendants have over the ODD marketplace.
"When you can lock out competition, it makes it much easier to
artificially -- and illegally -- set prices and bar competition."

Earlier this month, the Department of Justice asked the court to
postpone Hagens Berman's efforts to collect evidence, saying the
actions could interfere with its criminal investigation.   The
court's ruling allows the civil case to continue forward parallel
to the criminal investigation.

"The court's decision supports our belief that consumers' claims
are as important as the criminal investigation and that our
prosecution of those claims can commence alongside the DOJ
investigation," Berman added.

Some of the defendants have been involved in the DOJ
investigations on related issues in the past.  Samsung, for
example, paid a $300 million fine following claims of price fixing
involving Dynamic Random Access Memory chips (DRAM).  Hagens
Berman was lead counsel in the DRAM litigation.

The DOJ also launched an investigation of Samsung, LG Electronics,
Toshiba and Hitachi, among others, probing claims of collusion in
the manufacture of liquid crystal displays. The ongoing criminal
investigation has led to admissions of guilt by LG Electronics,
who paid a $400 million fine and Hitachi who paid $31 million.

On Monday, October 26, 2009, Toshiba Samsung Storage Technology
Corp., a joint venture between defendants Toshiba and Samsung
Electronics; Hitachi-LG Data Storage, a joint venture between
defendants Hitachi and LG Electronics; and Sony Optiarc America
confirmed that they received subpoenas from the DOJ concerning a
criminal antitrust investigation including possible price fixing
charges.  In Philips Electronics' 2009 annual report issued a few
weeks later, the Dutch electronics company also disclosed it was a
subject of the same investigation.

Since the investigation was launched, the defendants have been the
subject of a grand-jury investigation. "Rarely does the Department
of Justice go to the extent of convening a grand jury unless they
have solid reasons to believe that a crime has occurred," Berman
added.

Under antitrust law, customers who can prove that they have been
overcharged as a result of price fixing may collect damages worth
three times the amount of the overcharge. Attorneys intend to
prove that the defendants in the ODD case agreed to manipulate
prices and overcharged consumers for certain devices.

Hagens Berman is representing consumers in the class-action
lawsuit against big tech companies that make optical disc drives.
If you purchased a laptop, desktop computer, gaming console or
entertainment player that features an optical disc drive after
November 1, 2005, you are encouraged to join this lawsuit at
http://www.hbsslaw.com/ODD

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


SONY ELECTRONICS: Recalls 233,000 Notebook Computers
----------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Sony Electronics Inc. of San Diego, Calif., announced a voluntary
recall of about 233,000 notebook computers.  Consumers should stop
using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed.

The computers can overheat, posing a burn hazard to the consumer.

Sony has received 30 reports of units overheating resulting in
deformed keyboards and casings. No injuries have been reported.

This recall involves VPCF11 Series and VPCCW2 Series notebook
computers.  The computers are available in many colors and have
"VAIO" on the front outside panel.  The model numbers can be found
on the bottom of the computers.

These models are included:

   VPCF11 Series
   -------------

VPCF111FD/B    VPCF111FX/B  VPCF111FX/H   VPCF112FX/B  VPCF112FX/H
VPCF113FX/B    VPCF113FX/H  VPCF114FX/B   VPCF114FX/H  VPCF115FM/B
VPCF115FM/B    VPCF116FX/B  VPCF116FX/H   VPCF117FX/B  VPCF117FX/B
VPCF117FX/H    VPCF11AFX/B  VPCF11BFX/B   VPCF11CGX/B  VPCF11DGX/B
VPCF11EGX/B    VPCF11FGX/B  VPC11GGX/B    VPCF11HGX/B  VPCF11JFX/B
VPCF11KFX/H    VPCF11LFX/B  VPCF11MFX/B   VPCF11NFX/B  VPCF11PFX/H
VPCF11QFX/B    VPCF11QFX/H

   VPCCW2 Series
   -------------

VPCCW21FX/B    VPCCW21FX/P  VPCCW21FX/R  VPCCW21FFX/W VPCCW22FX/B
VPCCW22FX/L    VPCCW22FX/P  VPCCW22FX/R  VPCCW22FX/W  VPCCW23FX/B
VPCCW23FX/L0   VPCCW23FX/P  VPCCW23FX/R  VPCCW23FX/W  VPCCW26FX/B
VPCCW26FX/L    VPCCW26FX/P  VPCCW26FX/R  VPCCW27FX/B  VPCCW27FX/L
VPCCW27FX/P    VPCCW27FX/R  VPCCW27FX/W  VPCCW28FJ/W  VPCCW2AFX/B
VPCCW2BFX/B    VPCCW2CGX/B  VPCCW2DGX/B  VPCCW2EGX/B  VPCCW2FGX/B
VPCCW2GGX/B    VPCCW2HGX/B  VPCCW2JGX/B  VPCCW2KGX/B  VPCCW2LFX/B
VPCCW2LFX/L    VPCCW2LFX/P  VPCCW2LFX/R  VPCCW2LFX/W  VPCCW2MFX/PU
VPCCW2MFX/WJ   VPCCW2MGX/B  VPCCW2NFX/LU VPCCW2PFX/L  VPCCW2PFX/R
VPCCW2FX/W     VPCCW2QGX/B  VPCCWERGX/B  VPCCW2SGX/B  VPCCW2TGX/B
VPCCW2UFX/B    VPCCW2VFX/B

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10284.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and United States
sold through Best Buy, Costco, Frys, Amazon.com and Sony Style
retail stores and sonystyle.com as well as other electronics
retailers and business suppliers nationwide.  The recalled
computers were shipped to consumers and resellers between January
2010 and April 2010.  They sold for between $800 and $1,500.

Consumers should immediately go to
http://esupport.sony.com/US/f1cw2updatefor instructions on how to
update the computer's BIOS firmware.  Consumers can also call Sony
or visit Sony Style retail stores nationwide for help with
installing the update.  This firmware will prevent the computer
from overheating.  The firmware update will also be available
through the VAIO Update software program installed on the recalled
computers.  A prompt will appear when users log on.  For
additional information, please contact Sony toll-free any time at
(866) 496-7669 or visit the firm's Web site at
http://esupport.sony.com/US/f1cw2update/


SOUTHERN TECHNOLOGIES: Recalls 500 Powertec Drill Presses
---------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Southern Technologies of Mundelein, Ill., announced a voluntary
recall of about 500 Powertec Drill Presses.  Consumers should stop
using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed.

Wires in the motor housing can be pinched, posing a risk of
electrical shock to the consumer.

The firm has received one report of a consumer experiencing a
minor electrical shock.

The recall involves the Powertec 8" Drill Press with AC powered
laser.  The model number is DP800 and can be found on the product
specification label located above the handle on the right side of
the machine.  Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10288.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold through
Blain's Farm and Fleet stores nationwide from November 2009
through February 2010 for about $80.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled product and
return the item to the place of purchase for a full refund.  For
additional information, contact Southern Technologies at (877)
393-7121 between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Central Time, Monday
through Friday or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.southerntechllc.com/


SUN PACIFIC: Owner Faces Class Suit for Breach of Workplace Laws
----------------------------------------------------------------
Art Marroquin, writing for The Daily Breeze, reports that a class-
action lawsuit was filed Wednesday against the owner of a trucking
company that serves the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach,
alleging the owner violated several workplace laws.  Sun Pacific
Trucking, a shuttered company that was based in Wilmington,
allegedly failed to pay the minimum wage to drivers and offer meal
and rest periods, according to the lawsuit.

The company's owner, Vincent Zarate, closed Sun Pacific in
February and replaced it a short time later with Whittier-based
Pacific Green Trucking, which also serves the twin port complex.

"Sun Pacific basically stole our money," Jorge Ramirez, one of the
plaintiffs, said in a written statement.

"Usually Sun Pacific would ask us to work an extra hour here, an
extra half-hour there," Mr. Ramirez said, "By the end of the week,
all those hours would add up but we would never see our hard-
earned money."

Mr. Zarate disputed the lawsuit's claims and said he always paid
his drivers.  "If a group of drivers filed this, I guess it's
because they want money, otherwise there's no point to it," Mr.
Zarate said. "But I can honestly tell you, I have paid everything
that everybody was owed."

Attorney General Jerry Brown has already successfully prosecuted
several port trucking companies that misclassified their workers
and failed to provide them with Social Security, Medicare and
workers' compensation benefits.

The plaintiffs' attorney, Adam Luetto, Esq., recently filed a
similar class-action lawsuit against another trucking firm that
serves the twin port complex.

"Port drivers consistently claim that they are forced to drive
long hours without breaks and required to perform work they never
get paid for," Mr. Luetto said. "These drivers, unsurprisingly,
are simply tired of working for free and we are working harder to
hold their employers responsible for such unlawful employment
practices."


TC GLOBAL: Continues to Defend Calif. Hourly Employees' Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
TC Global, Inc., continues to defend a lawsuit filed against
Tully's Coffee in California state court by a former store
employee alleging that Tully's failed to provide meal and rest
periods for its employees.

The suit was filed in December 2007 and the company anticipates
that the plaintiff will seek class action certification on behalf
of all hourly employees in Tully's California stores.

The plaintiff is seeking damages, restitution, injunctive relief,
and attorneys' fees and costs.  Similar lawsuits alleging missed
meal and rest periods have been filed in California against many
other companies.

The company is investigating the claims and intend to vigorously
defend this litigation, but cannot predict the financial impact to
us of the litigation at this time.  The company believes that
Tully's has complied with all laws that require providing meal and
rest periods for its employees.

The company has accrued $390,000 as of March 28, 2010 to defend
this litigation, according to the company's June 28, 2010, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended March 28, 2010.

TC Global, Inc. -- http://www.tullyscoffeeshops.com/-- formerly
Tully's Coffee, operates and franchises a chain of more than 150
coffeehouses under the Tully's Coffee banner (used under a
licensing deal with Green Mountain Coffee Roasters) offering a
variety of specialty blend coffees along with baked goods,
espresso, and related supplies.  The chain has locations in more
than a dozen states, mostly in Arizona, California, and
Washington; more than 80 stores are company-owned, while the
rest are franchised.  In addition to its coffeehouse chain, TC
Global sells coffee and brewing supplies online through its Web
site.


THOR INDUSTRIES: Accused in Ohio Suit of Misleading Shareholders
----------------------------------------------------------------
Thor Industries inflated its share price through false and
misleading information, the Teamsters claim in a class action in
Dayton, Ohio, Federal Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Teamsters Allied Benefit Funds v.
Thor Industries, Inc., et al., Case No. 10-cv-00251 (S.D. Ohio),
is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/06/30/SCA.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard S. Wayne, Esq.
          Thomas P. Glass, Esq.
          STRAUSS & TROY
          150 East Fourth St.
          Cincinnati, OH 45202-4018
          Telephone: (513) 621-2120
          E-mail: rswayne@strausstroy.com
                  tpglass@strausstroy.com

               - and -

          Maya Saxena, Esq.
          Joseph E. White III
          Christopher S. Jones, Esq.
          Lester R. Hooker, Esq.
          SAXENA WHITE
          2424 N. Federal Highway, Suite 257
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Telephone: (561) 394-3399


VERIZON WIRELESS: Calif. Appeals Ct. Upholds $21-Mil. Refund
------------------------------------------------------------
Roger Cheng at Dow Jones Newswires reports a California appeals
court upheld a $21 million refund that Verizon Wireless will have
to pay to some of its customers as a result of a settlement of a
class-action lawsuit over its early termination fees, according to
the lawyer representing the plaintiffs.

Each person in the class-action claim is estimated to receive
$87.50 after challenging the carrier's practice of charging a $175
fee for breaking a wireless-service contract early.

"[The] ruling by the Court of Appeal confirms that this is a
terrific settlement for Verizon Wireless customers, and now more
than 175,000 of those customers will get a substantial refund,"
said Scott Bursor, Esq., lead attorney for the plaintiffs.

A spokesman for Verizon Wireless said the settlement ended all of
its early termination fee-related litigation, and doesn't relate
to how the carrier currently charges those fees.

Early termination fees have long been a hot-button issue for
consumers and regulators, leading to increased scrutiny and legal
action over the practice.  The carriers argue the fees are
necessary because they offset the costs incurred when subsidizing
cellphones for subscribers.  A basic Apple Inc. (AAPL) iPhone 4,
for instance, would cost $200 with a two-year contract, but $600
if purchased without a service plan.

The legal victory won't have a huge effect on current practices.
The California case centered on the charging a flat $175 fee
despite when a customer breaks the contract, so the amount would
be the same if the person canceled the service in the first month
or 23rd month.

Since 2006, Verizon Wireless has begun to lower the early
termination fee after each month goes by in a subscriber's
contract, a practice that all of the carriers have shifted to.

The original complaint dates back to 1999.

A settlement was agreed upon in 2008, but two appeals were filed.
An appeals court based in Alameda, Calif., rejected the appeals on
Tuesday, noting the awards were justified.

The funds have been kept in an escrow account. They can't be
distributed until all appeals are used up, Mr. Bursor said, adding
he expects the process to be completed within the next 60 days.

Verizon Wireless raised eyebrows when it increased its early-
termination fee on smartphones late last year.  Earlier this
month, AT&T Inc. also raised its early-termination fee on
smartphones.  Both say the heavy subsidies they pay for expensive
smartphones justify the move.

Verizon Wireless is jointly owned by Verizon Communications Inc.
and Vodafone Group PLC.


VERIZON WIRELESS: Sued in N.J. Over Defective Droid Smart Phones
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a class action claims Verizon
Wireless sold Droid smart phones that delete email messages, email
accounts and text messages without being prompted, in Trenton,
N.J., Federal Court. Droids are made by nonparty Motorola.

A copy of the Complaint in Sobel v. Cellco Partnership, Case No.
10-cv-_____, docketed as Doc. 2786 in Case No. 33-av-00001 on June
29, 2010 (D. N.J.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/06/30/TooSmart.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark C. Gardy, Esq.
          James S. Notis, Esq.
          Charles A. Germershausen, Esq.
          GARDY & NOTIS, LLP
          560 Sylvan Ave.
          Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632
          Telephone: (201) 567-7377


WASHINGTON D.C.: Settlement of "2000 Protest" Suit Gets Final OK
----------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Glod at The Washington Post reports that a federal judge
gave final approval Wednesday to a $13.7 million settlement
between the District and people who were picked up in a mass
arrest during a 2000 protest near the World Bank and International
Monetary Fund buildings.

U.S. District Judge Paul L. Friedman said the class-action
lawsuit, which has wended its way through the court for about a
decade, will benefit "future generations" who want to speak out
and air their grievances.  He said it sparked a 2004 D.C. law that
set out policies for police to follow at demonstrations, including
a prohibition against encircling protesters without probable cause
to arrest them.

Under the settlement, each person arrested and found eligible for
compensation will be awarded $18,000, and the record of that
arrest will be expunged.  It also requires additional training for
police officers.

"It is an important settlement. It's an historic settlement,"
Judge Friedman said.  "This is a fair settlement to the plaintiffs
and in the interest of the First Amendment."

Mara Verheyden-Hilliard of the nonprofit Partnership for Civil
Justice Fund, which represents the plaintiffs, said the case has
helped change the way police respond to large-scale protests and
demonstrations.  "This has been an ongoing effort to make the
nation's capital hospitable to cherished First Amendment
activities," Ms. Verheyden-Hilliard said.

Brian Becker, who was arrested April 15, 2000, along with his
then-16-year-old son, recalled police in riot gear surrounding a
group of marchers peacefully protesting problems in the U.S.
prison system.  Mr. Becker, a group organizer, said he was
arrested, spent hours on a bus, and later had his right hand and
left foot cuffed together.

"The police made a decision to arrest us not because we were doing
something illegal but because we were demonstrating," he said.

Attorneys said Mr. Becker and his son are among 464 people
arrested that day who have come forward and are eligible for the
award.  They were in a group of about 700 protesters and
bystanders arrested in the area of 20th Street NW and I and K
streets. An additional 26 claims are pending.

George C. Valentine, deputy attorney general for the District,
said in court that officials concluded that "settling the case in
a fair manner was in the best interest of the public." The city,
he said, "is paying a very high price."

Other lawsuits have stemmed from mass arrests in the District in
recent years. Last year, the city agreed to pay $8.25 million to
almost 400 protesters and bystanders to end a class-action lawsuit
over mass arrests in Pershing Park during 2002 World Bank
protests, according to the Partnership for Civil Justice Fund,
which also represents those plaintiffs. That case is awaiting
final approval.

Ike Gittlen, 56, then a local official with the steelworkers
union, was heading to dinner with a date in April 2000 when they
decided to walk near the World Bank to see the protests.  Both
were swept up in the arrest.

"I was amazed," Mr. Gittlen said. "I came from a little town where
you really do believe you have right to stand up and protest and,
if you are peaceful, they will let you do it. I was truly amazed
that in America this could happen."


* Congress Allows Oil Spill Workers to Sue Non-Economic Damages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tresa Baldas at The National Law Journal reports that the House of
Representatives on Thursday approved a bill that would allow the
families of oil spill victims to sue for non-economic damages --
to the chagrin of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the cruise line
industry.

In a voice vote, the House approved the Securing Protections for
the Injured from Limitations on Liability Act, which amended the
decades-old Death on the High Seas Act to allow families of the
deceased oil workers to recover non-economic damages, such as pain
and suffering, loss of care, comfort and companionship.

Plaintiffs lawyers hailed the vote as an overdue victory for those
seeking legal recourse for injuries that occur at sea.

"That's the greatest thing that's ever happened for widows and
kids. It's unfortunate, though, that it took the oil spill to make
it happen," said plaintiffs attorney Daniel Becnel, Esq.  Mr.
Becnel has several oil spill lawsuits pending on behalf of both
those injured in the oil rig explosion and for businesses
suffering economic damages.

The American Association for Justice, the plaintiffs bar's primary
lobbying group, was equally pleased with vote. "The House's quick
passage of this bill shows how current maritime laws desperately
need to be updated if the negligent corporations responsible for
the tragedy are to be held accountable," AAJ President Anthony
Tarricone said in a statement. "The families of workers who died
aboard the Deepwater Horizon, as well as those affected by other
maritime disasters, are now one large step closer to receiving
justice."

The vote, however, was a blow to the Chamber and the Cruise Lines
International Association, which had lobbied heavily against the
bill.  They have argued that it could open the door to more
litigation against businesses that have nothing to do with the oil
spill.

Of particular concern to both groups were provisions that expanded
the types of damages a plaintiff could collect as a result of the
death of a family member to include non-pecuniary damages, which,
they contend, are difficult to measure and evaluate.

"There's no question that these provisions will invite lawsuits on
issues that have nothing to do with the issues around the Gulf
spill," said Brian Quigley, a spokesperson for the Chamber of
Commerce.

For example, Mr. Quigley said, the SPILL Act could lead to more
asbestos-related lawsuits against the maritime industry.  Workers'
compensation liability standards are also likely to be much
broader for the maritime industry, he said.  "The last thing we
need is these kinds of provisions that will drive up liability,
and thus the cost of doing business to industries that had nothing
to do with the Gulf oil spill," he said.

The Cruise Lines International Association echoed those concerns
in a letter it wrote to the Florida congressional delegation on
Tuesday, strongly urging members to reject the bill. The
association noted that the bill could lead to costly litigation
against the cruise industry, which, it noted, contributed more
than $5.8 billion to Florida's economy in 2009.

"While we have no objection to addressing the rights of victims of
the Gulf oil spill, we are concerned that the bill goes too far,"
Cruise Lines International stated in its letter. "The Death on the
High Seas Act expansion proposed in the bill would have sweeping
consequences because the Act applies to all deaths arising beyond
U.S. waters, including incidents involving foreign nationals.
Furthermore, non-pecuniary damage awards, which are expanded under
the bill, are unpredictable. These claims are inherently difficult
to value and vary dramatically from case to case."

The House, however, passed the bill on a voice vote. As Rep.
Charlie Melancon, D-La., said to his colleagues before the bill's
passage, "When it comes to compensating victims' families, current
laws are inconsistent, lax and encourage companies to take risks
-- gambling with the lives of workers in the process," he said.
"Today, we have the opportunity to change those laws, and the
SPILL Act does exactly that."

The SPILL Act also updated another maritime liability law by
repealing the Limitation of Liability Act, the 1851 law that
allows Transocean to claim it is only responsible for $27 million
in damages, the current worth of its now-destroyed rig.

The bill now moves to the Senate.  The Chamber said it will
continue to lobby against the measure, though it wouldn't give
specifics on its strategy moving forward.

                            *********

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  * * *