CAR_Public/100706.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Tuesday, July 6, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 131

                            Headlines

AGRIA CORPORATION: Inks MOU to Settle Suit for $3.75 Million
APOLLO GROUP: Evaluating Options After Appeals Court's Reversal
APOLLO GROUP: No Discovery Yet in "Teamsters 617" Arizona Suit
APPLE INC: Mason LLP Files Class Suit Over iPhone 4 Faults
AT&T INC: Settles Class Suit on Billing Practices

BARNES & NOBLE: 9th Cir. Junks Appeal on Certification Denial
BARNES & NOBLE: Discovery in "Minor" Complaint Ongoing
BP PLC: NY Fund Will Sue Despite High Court Ruling in NAB
COMMONWEALTH BANK: Levitt Robinson Files Suit on Storm Collapse
COVENTRY HEALTH: 3rd Cir. Affirms $262MM Summary Judgment

CROCUS INVESTMENT: Shareholders Pursue C$5-Million Claim
DEL MONTE: Defends Suit by Moline and Lowe in California
DEL MONTE: Appeals to Denied MDL Settlement Objections Pending
DIEBOLD INC: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
DIEBOLD INC: Scott+Scott LLP Files Investor Class Suit

FOCUS MEDIA: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Consolidated Suit
HERLEY INDUSTRIES: Has Preliminary Deal to Settle Securities Suit
HITACHI LTD: Defends Class Suits in United States and Canada
ISLE OF WIGHT: Faces Class Suit Before Int'l Courts of Justice
KOSS CORP: Defends "Puskala" Securities Suit in Wisconsin

LAN AIRLINES: Cargo Unit Defends Suits in Canada Over DOJ Probe
LYONDELLBASELL INDUS: Defends Suits Over Sale of MDI and TDI
PRE-FILLED PROPANE: Settlement Provides $10-Mil. to Consumers
OB-GYN ASSOCIATES: Sued for Use of Unapproved IUDs
SAN FRANCISCO: Kirola Loses Bid to Join in Sidewalk Ramps Suit

SPHERION PACIFIC: Settles Workers' Non-Payment Suit for $1.3-Mil.
TECUMSEH PRODUCTS: Settles Compressors Suit for $7 Million
THOR INDUSTRIES: Rigrodsky & Long Files Securities Class Suit
TIM PARTICIPACOES: Suit to Recover Assets Continues
TIM PARTICIPACOES: Defends Suits Over Consumer/Labor Issues

WEIS MARKETS: 4th Cir. Reverses Denial of Stillmock Class Cert.
UNITED STATES: Lawsuit Challenges Immigration Policies

* 4 Class Suits Filed in Madison County for 2010 First Half


                            *********

AGRIA CORPORATION: Inks MOU to Settle Suit for $3.75 Million
------------------------------------------------------------
Agria Corporation has entered into a memorandum of understanding
to settle a class action for $3.75 million, according to the
company's June 29, 2010, Form 20-F with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

On Feb. 3, 2009, a consolidated class action lawsuit in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York was filed,
alleging violations of various sections of the Securities Act,
against the company, its executive officers, its directors and
other defendants.  The lawsuit alleges that the company's initial
public offering registration statement and prospectus failed to
disclose certain alleged discussions between two Agria executives
relating to requests for additional compensation and a threatened
resignation.

On Dec. 1, 2009, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York dismissed the consolidated class action against the
company and the underwriters defendants, and the Court issued a
judgment in favor of the company and the underwriter defendants.

On June 4, 2010, the company entered into a memorandum of
understanding with the lead plaintiff reflecting an agreement in
principle and agreed to pay $3.75 million to settle all claims
asserted in the class action lawsuit.  The settlement amount is
within the limit of the company's applicable insurance policies,
and the company says it does not expect the settlement to have any
impact on Agria's financial statements.

Agria Corporation -- http://www.agriacorp.com/-- is a China-based
agri-solutions provider focusing on research and development,
production and distribution of three different types of upstream
agricultural products. Its diversified portfolio of products
comprises corn seeds, sheep breeding and seedlings, including
proprietary products.


APOLLO GROUP: Evaluating Options After Appeals Court's Reversal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Apollo Group, Inc., is evaluating its options after the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed a lower court's ruling
in favor of the company and ordered the lower court to enter
judgment against the company in accordance with the jury verdict
in securities litigation arising out of a 2003 program review by
the U.S. Department of Education, according to the company's June
30, 2010, Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended May 1, 2010.

The Class Action Reporter ran a story about the Ninth Circuit's
reversal on June 28, 2010.

In October 2004, three class action complaints were filed in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona.

The District Court consolidated the three pending class action
complaints under the caption In re Apollo Group, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 04-cv-2147 and a consolidated class action
complaint was filed on May 16, 2005, by the lead plaintiff.  The
consolidated complaint named the company, Todd S. Nelson, Kenda B.
Gonzales and Daniel E. Bachus as defendants.

On March 1, 2007, by stipulation and order of the Court, Daniel E.
Bachus was dismissed as a defendant from the case.

Lead plaintiff represents a class of Apollo shareholders who
acquired their shares between Feb. 27, 2004 and Sept. 14, 2004.
The complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
under the Act by the company for defendants' allegedly material
false and misleading statements in connection with the company's
failure to publicly disclose the contents of a preliminary U.S.
Department of Education program review report.  The case proceeded
to trial on Nov. 14, 2007.

On Jan. 16, 2008, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the
plaintiffs awarding damages of up to $5.55 for each share of
common stock in the class suit, plus pre-judgment and post-
judgment interest.  The class shares are those purchased after
Feb. 27, 2004 and still owned on Sept. 14, 2004.  The judgment was
entered on Jan. 30, 2008, subject to an automatic stay until Feb.
13, 2008.

On Feb. 13, 2008, the District Court granted the company's motion
to stay execution of the judgment pending resolution of the
company's motions for post-trial relief, which were also filed on
Feb. 13, 2008, provided that the company post a bond in the amount
of $95.0 million.

On Feb. 19, 2008, the company posted the $95.0 million bond with
the District Court.  Oral arguments on the company's post-trial
motions occurred on Aug. 4, 2008, during which the District Court
vacated the earlier judgment based on the jury verdict and entered
judgment in favor of Apollo and the other defendants.

The $95.0 million bond posted in February was subsequently
released on Aug. 11, 2008.  Plaintiffs' lawyers filed a Notice of
Appeal with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on Aug. 29, 2008.
A hearing before a panel of the Court of Appeals took place on
March 3, 2010.

On June 23, 2010, the Court of Appeals reversed the District
Court's ruling in Apollo's favor and ordered the District Court to
enter judgment against Apollo in accordance with the jury verdict.

Liability in the case is joint and several, which means that each
defendant, including the company, is liable for the entire amount
of the judgment.  As a result, the company may be responsible for
payment of the full amount of damages as ultimately determined.
The company says it does not expect to receive material amounts of
insurance proceeds from the company's insurers to satisfy any
amounts ultimately payable to the plaintiff class and the company
expects its insurers to seek repayment of amounts advanced to the
company to date for defense costs.  The actual amount of damages
will not be known until all court proceedings have been completed
and eligible members of the class have presented the necessary
information and documents to receive payment of the award.

The company has estimated for financial reporting purposes, using
statistically valid models and a 60% confidence interval, that the
damages could range from $127.2 million to $228.0 million, which
includes the company's estimates of:

     (a) damages payable to the plaintiff class;

     (b) the amount the company may be required to reimburse its
         insurance carriers for amounts advanced for defense
         costs; and

     (c) future defense costs.

Accordingly, in the third quarter of fiscal year 2010, the company
recorded a charge for estimated damages in the amount of $132.6
million, which, together with the existing reserve of $44.5
million recorded in the second quarter of fiscal year 2010,
represents the mid-point of the estimated range of damages payable
to the plaintiffs, plus the other estimated costs and expenses.

The company relates it is evaluating its available options to
challenge the jury verdict or this ruling by the Court of Appeals.

If the company elects to seek a rehearing en banc, or to petition
for a writ of certiorari for review by the U.S. Supreme Court, or
to pursue other relief, the company will seek a stay of execution
of the judgment pending the resolution of any such action, and the
company expects that it will be required to post a bond as a
condition of any such stay.

Apollo Group, Inc. -- http://www.apollogrp.edu/-- is one of the
world's largest private education providers and has been in the
education business for more than 35 years.  The company offers
innovative and distinctive educational programs and services both
online and on-campus at the high school, undergraduate, masters
and doctoral levels through its subsidiaries: University of
Phoenix, Apollo Global, Institute for Professional Development,
College for Financial Planning and Meritus University.  The
Company's programs and services are provided in 40 states and the
District of Columbia; Puerto Rico; Canada; Latin America; and
Europe, as well as online throughout the world (data as of May 31,
2010).


APOLLO GROUP: No Discovery Yet in "Teamsters 617" Arizona Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery in the matter Teamsters Local 617 Pension & Welfare
Funds v. Apollo Group, Inc. et al., has yet to begin, according to
Apollo Group, Inc.'s June 30, 2010, Form 10-Q filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended May 1,
2010.

On Nov. 2, 2006, the Teamsters Local 617 Pension and Welfare Funds
filed a class action complaint purporting to represent a class of
shareholders who purchased the company's stock between Nov. 28,
2001 and Oct. 18, 2006.  The complaint, filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Arizona, is entitled Teamsters Local 617
Pension & Welfare Funds v. Apollo Group, Inc. et al., Case Number
06-cv-02674, and alleges that the company and certain of the
company's current and former directors and officers violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5  promulgated thereunder by purportedly making
misrepresentations concerning the company's stock option granting
policies and practices and related accounting.

The defendants are Apollo Group, Inc., J. Jorge Klor de Alva,
Daniel E. Bachus, John M. Blair, Dino J. DeConcini, Kenda B.
Gonzales, Hedy F. Govenar, Brian E. Mueller, Todd S. Nelson, Laura
Palmer Noone, John R. Norton III, John G. Sperling and Peter V.
Sperling.

The Plaintiff seeks unstated compensatory damages and other
relief.

On Jan. 3, 2007, other shareholders, through their separate
attorneys, filed motions seeking appointment as lead plaintiff and
approval of their designated counsel as lead counsel to pursue
this action.  On Sept. 11, 2007, the Court appointed The Pension
Trust Fund for Operating Engineers as lead plaintiff and approved
lead plaintiff's selection of lead counsel and liaison counsel.
Lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint on Nov. 23, 2007,
asserting the same legal claims as the original complaint and
adding claims for violations of Section 20A of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and allegations of breach of fiduciary duties
and civil conspiracy.

On Jan. 22, 2008, all defendants filed motions to dismiss.

On March 31, 2009, the Court dismissed the case with prejudice as
to Daniel Bachus, Hedy Govenar, Brian E. Mueller, Dino J.
DeConcini, and Laura Palmer Noone.  The Court also dismissed the
case as to John Sperling and Peter Sperling, but granted
plaintiffs leave to file an amended complaint against them.
Finally, the Court dismissed all of plaintiffs' claims concerning
misconduct before November 2001 and all of the state law claims
for conspiracy and breach of fiduciary duty.

On April 30, 2009, plaintiffs filed their Second Amended
Complaint, which alleges similar claims for alleged securities
fraud against the same defendants.  On June 15, 2009, all
defendants filed another motion to dismiss the Second Amended
Complaint.

On Feb. 22, 2010, the Court partially granted the plaintiffs'
motion for reconsideration, but withheld a final determination on
the individual defendants pending the Court's ruling on the motion
to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint.

Discovery in this case has not yet begun.

Apollo Group, Inc. -- http://www.apollogrp.edu/-- is one of the
world's largest private education providers and has been in the
education business for more than 35 years.  The company offers
innovative and distinctive educational programs and services both
online and on-campus at the high school, undergraduate, masters
and doctoral levels through its subsidiaries: University of
Phoenix, Apollo Global, Institute for Professional Development,
College for Financial Planning and Meritus University.  The
Company's programs and services are provided in 40 states and the
District of Columbia; Puerto Rico; Canada; Latin America; and
Europe, as well as online throughout the world (data as of May 31,
2010).


APPLE INC: Mason LLP Files Class Suit Over iPhone 4 Faults
----------------------------------------------------------
Mason LLP has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California, Dydyk v.
Apple, Inc., Civil Action No. 5:10-cv-02897, on behalf of hundreds
of thousands of customers who recently purchased the iPhone 4. The
lawsuit alleges that the antenna on the iPhone 4 is defective,
because the phone loses reception when a part of the external
stainless steel antenna comes in contact with the skin of the
user's hand. The lawsuit seeks an order requiring Apple to ship a
protective case for the phone to consumers who purchased the
iPhone 4. The lawsuit also seeks money damages on behalf of
consumers who purchased the iPhone 4 in order to compensate those
consumers for the diminished value of the phone.

The lead plaintiff, Chistopher Dydyk, pre-ordered an iPhone 4
believing that the phone would have a fully functioning antenna
and an attractive, stainless steel exterior when delivered. Mr.
Dydyk subsequently discovered that the iPhone 4 antenna system
will not function as advertised, and that in order to protect
against loss of cell phone reception he would have to spend
additional money on a protective case to cover the stainless steel
antenna band on his phone.

"Apple is not delivering the phone it promised to its customers,"
said Gary E. Mason of Mason LLP, an attorney for the plaintiff.
"Customers who paid hundreds of dollars for the phone now have to
spend an extra thirty dollars on a cell phone case just to ensure
their phone works as expected."

Mason LLP is continuing to monitor the situation as Apple responds
to customer complaints regarding antenna problems with the iPhone.
"We welcome input from other Apple customers who have experienced
problems with the iPhone 4," Mason stated.

Mason LLP has extensive experience in representing plaintiffs in
complex class action litigation, including class actions arising
from violations of privacy, defective products, price fixing
conspiracies, wage and hour law violations, and toxic torts. Mr.
Mason has served as class counsel on numerous product class
actions involving defective automobile components, construction
material, televisions, computers, mobile telephones, and other
consumer products.

Mr. Mason is the Court-appointed Interim Lead Class Counsel in In
re Google Buzz Privacy Litigation, CV-10-00672 (N.D. Ca.).


AT&T INC: Settles Class Suit on Billing Practices
-------------------------------------------------
AT&T announced the proposed settlements of class action lawsuits
relating to certain billing practices of AT&T Wireless Services,
Inc., which was merged out of existence when it combined with
Cingular in 2004.  The Settlements do not concern the practices of
Cingular Wireless or AT&T Mobility.  The class actions that are
part of the proposed settlements challenge the following alleged
billing practices of AT&T Wireless Services, Inc. and related
entities, including Santa Barbara Cellular Systems, Ltd.:

     (1) charges for mMode Data Service, if the subscriber did not
authorize the charges or did not understand the disclosures about
the charges;

     (2) charges for ENH Discount International Dial ("EDID"), if
the subscriber did not authorize the charges or did not understand
the disclosures about the charges;

     (3) charges for cellular telephone calls during a billing
period other than the billing period in which the calls were made
("Out-of-Cycle Billing"), if the subscriber did not understand the
disclosures about the charges; and

     (4) the Universal Connectivity Charge ("UCC"), if the
subscriber was not aware at the time of subscribing that the UCC
would be charged.

The representative plaintiffs claim that these practices violate
the Federal Communications Act and consumer protection laws of
California, Washington, and other states and territories of the
United States.  AT&T strongly denies the representative
plaintiffs' claims of any wrongdoing, but has agreed to settle to
avoid the burden and cost of further litigation.

Class members who were AWS customers after March 1, 1999 and who
submit Approved Claim Forms may be eligible for the following
benefits:

    * mMode: $8 check
    * EDID: $10 check
    * Out of Cycle Billing: $8 check or a 250 minute
      AT&T Phone Card
    * UCC: $7 check

To seek benefits and remain in the Settlement Classes, class
members must mail or submit a completed claim form online by
February 13, 2011.  Class members who do not wish to participate
in the settlements, may exclude themselves from the Settlement
Classes by September 29, 2010.  Class members may also stay in the
Settlement Classes and object to the settlements by September 29,
2010.  The Court will hold a hearing on November 15, 2010 to
consider the fairness of the proposed settlements.

For more information about making a claim and other matters
related to the settlements, please call 1-866-249-8109 or visit
http://www.awssettlement.com/

AT&T Inc. (NYSE: T) is a premier communications holding company.
Its subsidiaries and affiliates -- AT&T operating companies -- are
the providers of AT&T services in the United States and around the
world. With a powerful array of network resources that includes
the nation's fastest 3G network, AT&T is a leading provider of
wireless, Wi-Fi, high speed Internet and voice services. A leader
in mobile broadband, AT&T also offers the best wireless coverage
worldwide, offering the most wireless phones that work in the most
countries.  It also offers advanced TV services under the AT&T U-
verse(SM) and AT&T | DIRECTV(SM) brands. The company's suite of
IP-based business communications services is one of the most
advanced in the world. In domestic markets, AT&T Advertising
Solutions and AT&T Interactive are known for their leadership in
local search and advertising. In 2010, AT&T again ranked among the
50 Most Admired Companies by FORTUNE(R) magazine.


BARNES & NOBLE: 9th Cir. Junks Appeal on Certification Denial
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied plaintiff's
motion for permission to file an interlocutory appeal of the
certification denial in the complaint entitled, Hostetter v.
Barnes & Noble Booksellers, Inc. et al., according to Barnes &
Noble, Inc.'s June 30, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
May 1, 2010.

On Dec. 4, 2008, a purported class action complaint was filed
against Barnes & Noble Booksellers, Inc. in the Superior Court
for the State of California making these allegations against
defendants with respect to hourly managers and/or assistant
managers at Barnes & Noble stores located in the State of
California:

   (1) failure to pay wages and overtime;
   (2) failure to provide meal and/or rest breaks;
   (3) waiting time penalties; and
   (4) unfair competition.

The complaint contains no allegations concerning the number of
any such alleged violations or the amount of recovery sought on
behalf the purported class.

On March 4, 2009, Barnes and Noble filed an answer denying all
claims.

On March 5, 2009, B&N Booksellers removed this matter to federal
court.

Discovery concerning purported class member wages, hours worked,
and other matters has commenced.

The plaintiff moved for class certification on Oct. 19, 2009.

On Jan. 25, 2010, the Court denied certification in its entirety,
leaving only Hostetter's individual claim.

On Feb. 3, 2010, the plaintiff filed a petition under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 23(f) with the Ninth Circuit seeking permission
to file an interlocutory appeal of the certification denial.

The Ninth Circuit denied the plaintiff's petition on April 15,
2010.

The parties are now exploring a negotiated resolution of
Hostetter's remaining individual claims.

Barnes & Noble, Inc. -- http://www.barnesandnoble.com/-- is a
bookseller.  The company's principal business is the sale of trade
books (generally hardcover and paperback consumer titles,
excluding educational textbooks and specialized religious titles),
mass-market paperbacks (such as mystery, romance,
science fiction and other fiction), children's books, bargain
books, magazines, gift, cafe products and services, music and
movies direct to customers.  As of Jan. 31, 2009, the company
operated 778 bookstores and a Website.  Of the 778 bookstores, 726
operate under the Barnes & Noble Booksellers trade name and
52 operate primarily under the B. Dalton Bookseller trade name.


BARNES & NOBLE: Discovery in "Minor" Complaint Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------
Discovery concerning purported class member payroll checks and
related information in a purported class-action complaint
entitled, Minor v. Barnes & Noble Booksellers, Inc. et al., is
ongoing, according to Barnes & Noble, Inc.'s June 30, 2010, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended May 1, 2010.

On May 1, 2009, a purported class action complaint was filed
against Barnes & Noble Booksellers, Inc. in the Superior Court for
the State of California alleging wage payments by instruments in a
form that did not comply with the requirements of the California
Labor Code, allegedly resulting in impermissible wage payment
reductions and calling for imposition of statutory penalties.

The complaint also seeks restitution of such allegedly unpaid
wages under California's unfair competition law, and an injunction
compelling compliance with the California Labor Code.

The complaint alleges two subclasses of 500 and 200 employees,
respectively (there may be overlap among the subclasses), but
contains no allegations concerning the number of alleged
violations or the amount of recovery sought on behalf of the
purported class.

On June 3, 2009, Barnes & Noble Booksellers filed an answer
denying all claims.

Barnes & Noble, Inc. -- http://www.barnesandnoble.com/-- is a
bookseller.  The company's principal business is the sale of trade
books (generally hardcover and paperback consumer titles,
excluding educational textbooks and specialized religious titles),
mass-market paperbacks (such as mystery, romance,
science fiction and other fiction), children's books, bargain
books, magazines, gift, cafe products and services, music and
movies direct to customers.  As of Jan. 31, 2009, the company
operated 778 bookstores and a Website.  Of the 778 bookstores, 726
operate under the Barnes & Noble Booksellers trade name and
52 operate primarily under the B. Dalton Bookseller trade name.


BP PLC: NY Fund Will Sue Despite High Court Ruling in NAB
---------------------------------------------------------
Robert Steyer, writing for Crain's Pensions & Investments, reports
that Robert Whalen -- a spokesman for New York State Comptroller
Thomas P. DiNapoli, the sole trustee of the $132.6 billion the New
York State Common Retirement Fund, Albany -- confirmed that the
Fund will continue its effort to sue BP plc despite a U.S. Supreme
Court ruling that has created a jurisdictional hurdle.

"[The] ruling by the Supreme Court requires additional evaluation,
but we are going forward," Mr. Whalen said in an interview
Thursday.  "If necessary, we'll seek a remedy through another
venue."

The Supreme Court on June 24, in a ruling on Morrison vs. National
Australia Bank, voted 8-0 that SEC fraud provisions don't apply to
securities that are traded outside the U.S.

Although Mr. Whalen wouldn't discuss legal strategy, the other
venues could be state court or a court in the United Kingdom
because BP shares are traded primarily on the London Stock
Exchange.

Mr. Whalen said the fund now holds 14.1 million shares, and all
but 200,000 shares were purchased on the London Stock Exchange.
The rest were purchased as American depositary receipts on the New
York Stock Exchange.

The fund on June 23 hired the law firm of Cohen Milstein Sellers &
Toll, to represent it in a potential a class-action suit against
BP, alleging the company misled investors and misrepresented its
ability to handle a major oil spill, which led to a decline in the
company's stock. The fund is seeking to become the lead plaintiff.

On April 20, a company oil well exploded in the Gulf of Mexico,
causing a still-steady flow of oil into the water. The fund held
19 million shares when the well exploded and now holds about 14.5
million shares.


COMMONWEALTH BANK: Levitt Robinson Files Suit on Storm Collapse
---------------------------------------------------------------
Levitt Robinson filed a statement of claim as part of its Storm
Financial class action against the Commonwealth Bank of Australia.
The claim was filed with the Federal Court on behalf of former
clients of the collapsed financial advisory group.

Kate Kachor, writing for InvestorDaily in Australia, reports that
Levitt Robinson principal Stewart Levitt said the claim was filed
in the "interests of justice".

Alison Bell at The Australia Associated Press reports Commonwealth
Bank said the class action is premature and potentially denies the
claimants a quick and certain outcome.  CBA vowed to fight the
claim, saying that of more than 40 law firms representing
customers under the bank's resolution scheme, only Levitt Robinson
had decided to bring litigation.

Stuart Washington, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, says the
claim alleges that Commonwealth Bank and Storm breached the
Corporations Act by entering into an unregistered managed
investment scheme.  The court action demands that Storm investors
be repaid in full for their losses.  Storm collapsed in 2009 with
investor losses of about $3 billion.

According to the SMH report, the class action also alleges the
Commonwealth Bank failed in its responsibility to contact Storm
clients when margin loans provided by a bank subsidiary fell into
margin call in September and October 2008.

SMH says the statement of claim initially represents four clients
of Levitt Robinson, a Sydney solicitor, including Sean McArdle, a
police officer, of Coolum, who says he lost his investments for
the sake of a phone call to warn him he was in margin call.

InvestorDaily says the claim was settled by senior counsel and
pleads a class action against the CBA on behalf of clients of
Storm who borrowed money from the CBA, pursuant to a Colonial
Geared Investment Margin Loan entered into after May 18, 2007, the
statement said.  The clients involved in the class action invested
the money in one or more of the Storm branded Colonial Index Funds
and had their investments redeemed or sold by the CBA between
October and December 2008, it said.

The CBA class action is set to be the first in a series of class
actions against the major banks and focuses on whether the
relationship between the major players can be characterized as an
unlawful scheme, the statement added.

SMH reports that Ken Fowlie, the practice group leader of Slater &
Gordon, said his firm had considered the option of taking a class
action but had instead pursued the dispute resolution scheme now
offered to clients by Commonwealth Bank.  About 700 claims have
been settled and a further 400 Slater & Gordon clients are
considering offers.

"Whichever way you go to cut it, a litigation is going to be more
costly and more risky and more prolonged," Mr. Fowlie said.

A Comm Bank statement said more than 1,000 customers had settled
through the scheme using 40 lawyers, with the exception of Levitt
Robinson.


COVENTRY HEALTH: 3rd Cir. Affirms $262MM Summary Judgment
---------------------------------------------------------
Coventry Health Care, Inc. said the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit
for the State of Louisiana has affirmed the trial court's decision
to grant summary judgment against First Health Group Corp., Inc.
-- a wholly owned subsidiary of Coventry -- for $262 million in
previously disclosed provider class action litigation in Louisiana
state court.  The suit involves claims of alleged violations of
notice provisions of Louisiana's Any Willing Provider Act in
connection with providers providing services to injured workers
with workers' compensation claims and is described in more detail
in Coventry's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2009 and in the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the
quarter ended March 31, 2010.

As a result of the decision, and inclusive of interest, Coventry
will incur a non-recurring pre-tax charge to earnings in the
second quarter of 2010 in the amount of $278 million, or
approximately $1.18 per diluted share.

Coventry does not believe the decision is supported by the facts
or the law and intends to file a motion for rehearing and explore
other avenues of appeal. The Company believes that it has
available resources to pay any final unappealable judgment in this
litigation.

Coventry's fundamental business operations, across all measures,
have continued to build upon the strong performance reported for
the quarter ended March 31, 2010 with all seven core businesses
performing at or above internal expectations.  Based upon results
through the month ended May 31, 2010, Coventry is revising its
guidance range, including this one-time charge, to an earnings per
diluted share range of $1.57 to $1.72 for full year 2010.

Excluding the one-time charge, the Company's full year guidance
range is being increased by $0.40 earnings per diluted share to a
range of $2.75 to $2.90 which is inclusive of $0.28 earnings per
diluted share from Medicare Advantage Private-Fee-for-Service
through May 31, 2010.  Coventry will provide additional details on
its guidance during the second quarter earnings call which will be
held on July 30, 2010.

Coventry Health Care -- http://www.coventryhealthcare.com/-- is a
diversified national managed healthcare company based in Bethesda,
Maryland, operating health plans, insurance companies, network
rental and workers' compensation services companies.  Coventry
provides a full range of risk and fee-based managed care products
and services to a broad cross section of individuals, employer and
government-funded groups, government agencies, and other insurance
carriers and administrators.


CROCUS INVESTMENT: Shareholders Pursue C$5-Million Claim
--------------------------------------------------------
Martin Cash at the Winnipeg Free Press reports that when maverick
Crocus shareholder Bernie Bellan convinced some lawyers to file a
class-action suit against Crocus Investment Fund officers and
directors and some of its professional service providers several
years ago, few would have predicted that it would be as successful
as it was.

In time, it has become almost a cottage industry of sorts.

More than a year ago, the class won a total of C$12.5 million in
out-of-court settlement agreements against the fund's auditors,
underwriters, directors and officers and the province.

Another C$5-million claim was filed late in June by the class.

This time the defendants are the fund's former lawyers, Fillmore
Riley, and the independent business valuator Stafford Swain &
Associates.

According to lawyers, the shareholders would not normally have the
right to make a direct claim against the lawyers and valuators,
but rather it would be the officers and directors -- who already
settled out of court with the shareholders -- who have might have
a claim.

But in arriving at the agreement to settle with the shareholders,
the officers and directors assigned any claims they may have for
contribution or indemnity arising from the class action to the
shareholder group led by Bellan.

Thus the latest legal action.

The officers and directors' defense in the original class-action
claim was that they relied on what turned out to be faulty advice
from their professional advisers, namely the lawyers who signed
off on the prospectus and the business valuators who may not have
executed their duties exactly as they were set out in the
prospectus.

"The twist in this case is that the shareholders have no direct
claims," said David Klein, the Vancouver-based lawyer who has
represented the shareholder class for some time. "In this lawsuit,
it is the shareholder class that steps into the shoes of the
directors and officers to assert the indemnity claim."

The C$5-million claim is based on the fact the officers and
directors were insured for C$5 million and that claim paid out
C$3.15 million as a settlement and, Klein believes, at least
another C$1 million in legal fees.

If it all sounds like an attempt at a cash grab, it sort of is.

"We are continuing to try to provide value to the shareholders
through the class-action litigation," Klein said. "We have not let
go of the case just yet."

Of course the lawyers will likely receive one-third of the total
of any settlement as they have in the past, but despite the
lengthy legal battle and massive court costs Crocus shareholders
have definitely benefited from the legal enterprise.

Last fall, the 33,000 shareholders received cheques for C$4.31 a
share with about 50 cents per share of that -- or close to C$7
million -- coming from the proceeds of the settlements.

Klein would not comment on whether a settlement was attempted
before this latest action was filed.

A spokesman for Fillmore Riley was not available for comment.

Ken Filkow, the lawyer representing many of the directors, said
this latest installment in the class-action litigation does have
interest for him and his clients.

That's because there is still an outstanding action against the
directors from the Manitoba Securities Commission that had been on
hold until the conclusion of the class-action matter and is still
to be heard.

The MSC's allegations against the directors include the manner in
which directors handled share valuations, concern that sales and
redemptions were made at a price that had not been approved by the
board and the fact that directors did not seek a suspension of
trading when they became aware of a material change that may have
had an effect on the value of some of the fund's assets.

Some of those issues pertain pretty close to the claims being made
against the lawyers and valuators in this latest action.

"To the extent there are allegations being made with respect to
directors having not received good advice, that can have some
relevance to those (MSC) proceedings," Mr. Filkow said.


DEL MONTE: Defends Suit by Moline and Lowe in California
--------------------------------------------------------
Del Monte Foods Company defends a suit alleging violations of
California's False Advertising Act, among others.

On Oct. 13, 2009, Kara Moline and Debra Lowe filed a class action
complaint against the company in San Francisco Superior Court,
alleging violations of California's False Advertising Act, Unfair
Competition Law, and Consumer Legal Remedies Act.

Specifically, the plaintiffs allege that the company engaged in
false and misleading advertising in the labeling of Nature's
Recipe Farm Stand Selects dog food.  The plaintiffs seek
injunctive relief, disgorgement of profits in an undisclosed
amount, and attorneys' fees.  Additionally, the plaintiffs are
seeking class certification.

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 May 2, 2010.

Del Monte Foods Company -- http://www.delmonte.com/-- is one of
the country's largest and most well-known producers, distributors
and marketers of premium quality, branded food and pet products
for the U.S. retail market, generating approximately $3.6 billion
in net sales in fiscal 2009.  With a powerful portfolio of brands
including Del Monte(R), S&W(R), Contadina(R), College Inn(R), Meow
Mix(R), Kibbles 'n Bits(R), 9Lives(R), Milk-Bone(R), Pup-
Peroni(R), Meaty Bone(R), Snausages(R) and Pounce(R), Del Monte
products are found in eight out of ten U.S. households.  The
company also produces, distributes and markets private label food
and pet products.


DEL MONTE: Appeals to Denied MDL Settlement Objections Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Appeals filed by four class members to their denied objections on
the court approved settlement in the matter entitled In re Pet
Food Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 1850, which names Del
Monte Foods Co. as one of the defendants, are pending.

Beginning with the pet food recall announced by Menu Foods, Inc.,
in March 2007, many major pet food manufacturers, including Del
Monte, announced recalls of their own select products.  The
company currently believes there are more than 90 purported class
action suits relating to these pet food recalls.

The company is currently a defendant in these specific cases,
related to its pet food and pet snack recall:

       -- "Carver v. Del Monte," filed on April 4, 2007, in the
          U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
          California;

       -- "Ford v. Del Monte," filed on April 7, 2007, in the
          U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
          California;

       -- "Hart v. Del Monte," filed on April 10, 2007, before
          the state court in Los Angeles, California;

       -- "Schwinger v. Del Monte," filed on May 15, 2007, in
          the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
          Missouri; and

       -- "Tompkins v. Del Monte," filed on July 13, 2007, in
          the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado.

The named plaintiffs in these cases allege that their pets
suffered injury or death as a result of ingesting the company's
and the other defendants' allegedly contaminated pet food and pet
snack products.

By order dated June 28, 2007, the Carver, Ford, Hart, Schwinger,
and Tompkins cases were transferred to the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Jersey and consolidated with other purported
pet food class action suits under the federal rules for multi-
district litigation (In re Pet Food Products Liability Litigation,
MDL No. 1850).

The plaintiffs and the defendants in the multi-district litigation
cases, including the five consolidated cases in which
the company is a defendant, have tentatively agreed to a
settlement deal to resolve their dispute.

On May 30, 2008, the Court granted preliminary approval to the
settlement.  Pursuant to the Court's order, notice of the
settlement was disseminated to the public by mail and publication
beginning June 16, 2008.

A hearing on a final settlement approval and class certification
has been scheduled for Oct. 14, 2008.

If approved, the class will be certified and the total settlement
will aggregate $24 million.  The portion of the
company's contribution to this settlement, if approved, would be
$0.25 million.

On Nov. 19, 2008, the Court entered orders approving the
settlement, certifying the class and dismissing the complaints
against the defendants, including the company.  The total
settlement was $24.0 million.  The portion of the company's
contribution to this settlement was $250,000, net of insurance
recovery.

Four class members have filed objections to the settlement, which
objections have been denied by the Court.  On Dec. 3, 2008, and
Dec. 12, 2008, these class members filed Notices of Appeal.

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 May 2, 2010.

Del Monte Foods Company -- http://www.delmonte.com/-- is one of
the country's largest and most well-known producers, distributors
and marketers of premium quality, branded food and pet products
for the U.S. retail market, generating approximately $3.6 billion
in net sales in fiscal 2009.  With a powerful portfolio of brands
including Del Monte(R), S&W(R), Contadina(R), College Inn(R), Meow
Mix(R), Kibbles 'n Bits(R), 9Lives(R), Milk-Bone(R), Pup-
Peroni(R), Meaty Bone(R), Snausages(R) and Pounce(R), Del Monte
products are found in eight out of ten U.S. households.  The
company also produces, distributes and markets private label food
and pet products.


DIEBOLD INC: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm announced that a class action lawsuit has been
filed on behalf of purchasers of Diebold, Inc. common stock during
the period from June 30, 2005 through January 15, 2008.

To join the Diebold, Inc. class action, go to the Web site at
http://www.rosenlegal.comor call:

     Laurence Rosen, Esq.
     Phillip Kim, Esq.
     THE ROSEN LAW FIRM P.A.
     Telephone: (212) 686-1060
                (917) 797-4425
                (866) 767-3653 (Toll Free)
     Facsimile: (212) 202-3827
     E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
             pkim@rosenlegal.com

for information on the class action

The Complaint alleges that Diebold, certain of its officers, and
KPMG, LLP, its auditor, violated federal securities laws by
issuing false financial statements that misrepresented Diebold's
financial performance. The Complaint alleges that defendants used
improper accounting methods to inflate Diebold's pre-tax earnings
by $127 million.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than August 30, 2010. If you wish to join the litigation or
to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action,
please contact Laurence Rosen, Esq. or Phillip Kim, Esq. of The
Rosen Law Firm toll-free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at
lrosen@rosenlegal.com or pkim@rosenlegal.com

If you purchased Diebold stock and would like further information
concerning your legal rights and ability to recover your
investment losses in Diebold stock, please contact Laurence Rosen,
Esq. or Phillip Kim, Esq. of The Rosen Law Firm toll-free at 866-
767-3653 or via e-mail at lrosen@rosenlegal.com or
pkim@rosenlegal.com

The Rosen Law Firm -- http://www.rosenlegal.com/-- has expertise
in prosecuting investor securities litigation and extensive
experience in actions involving financial fraud. The Rosen Law
Firm represents investors throughout the nation, concentrating its
practice in securities class actions.


DIEBOLD INC: Scott+Scott LLP Files Investor Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Scott+Scott LLP on June 30, 2010, filed a class action complaint
against Diebold Inc., certain of the Company's officers and KPMG,
LLP, Diebold's auditor, in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Ohio.  The action for violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 is brought on behalf of those
purchasing Diebold common stock during the period beginning June
30, 2005 through January 15, 2008, inclusive.

If you purchased Diebold common stock during the Class Period and
wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in the action, you must move the
Court no later than August 30, 2010. Any member of the investor
class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through
counsel of its choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an
absent class member. If you wish to discuss this action or have
questions concerning this notice or your rights, please contact
Scott+Scott -- scottlaw@scott-scott.com ; (800) 404-7770; (860)
537-5537 or visit the Scott+Scott Web site, http://www.scott-
scott.com for more information. There is no cost or fee to you.

Based in Ohio, Diebold manufactures and sells automated teller
machines, bank security systems, and electronic voting machines.
The Company's securities are traded on the New York Stock
Exchange. The complaint against Diebold alleges that, during the
Class Period, Diebold and several of its officers intentionally
and knowingly misstated the Company's financial performance and
financial condition.

During the Class Period, Diebold spokespersons made numerous
positive statements about Diebold's revenues and earnings,
according to the complaint. The complaint further alleges that
these statements were materially false and misleading because they
failed to disclose the fraudulent accounting practices employed to
achieve the Company's reported results, including: (i) improper
use of "bill-and-hold" accounting; (ii) improper recognition of
revenue on a lease agreement subject to an undisclosed side buy-
back agreement; (iii) manipulating reserves and accruals; (iv)
improperly delaying and capitalizing expenses; and (v) improperly
writing up the value of used inventory. The complaint also alleges
that Diebold's auditor, KPMG, failed to withdraw its unqualified
audit opinions after learning that Diebold's prior year financial
statements were materially false.

According to the allegations, Diebold's fraudulent accounting
practices misstated the Company's reported pre-tax earnings by at
least $127 million and skewed the revenue and earnings trends that
analysts and investors used to value Diebold's stock. In order to
correct the most recent misstatements, on September 30, 2008,
Diebold restated its financial statements for the years 2003
through 2006 and the first quarter of 2007 in its belatedly filed
10-K for 2007.

Scott+Scott has significant experience in prosecuting major
securities, antitrust and employee retirement plan actions
throughout the United States. The firm represents pension funds,
foundations, individuals and other entities worldwide.


FOCUS MEDIA: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Consolidated Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in a consolidated suit against Focus Media Holding
Limited are appealing the dismissal of their suit, according to
the company's June 29, 2010, Form 20-F filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec.
31, 2009.

On or about Nov. 27, 2007, Eastriver Partners, Inc. filed a
purported class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York against the company and the
underwriters of its follow-on offering of November 2007.

On or about Dec. 21, 2007, Scott Bauer filed a purported class
action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York against the company, certain of its officers
and directors, and the underwriters of its follow-on offering of
November 2007.

Both complaints allege that the company's registration statement
on Form F-1 on November 1, 2007, as amended, and the related
prospectus contained inaccurate statements of material fact.

On April 24, 2008, the court consolidated the Eastriver Partners,
Inc. and Scott Bauer actions into an action captioned In re Focus
Media Holding Limited Litigation and named Iron Workers Local No.
25 Pension Fund as lead plaintiff in the consolidated action.

On June 23, 2008, Lead Plaintiff filed a consolidated amended
complaint.  Specifically, the complaints allege that the company
failed to disclose reduced gross margins in the company's Internet
advertising business division due to acquisitions the company
made.  The complaint filed by Scott Bauer also alleges that the
company issued a press release concerning its second quarter 2007
financial results that contained inaccurate statements of material
fact.

On Sept. 5, 2008, the company, certain of its officers and
directors, and the underwriters filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint.  On Nov. 5, 2008, the lead
plaintiff filed its opposition to the motion to dismiss.  A reply
brief was filed on Dec. 5, 2008.

On March 29, 2010, the court issued an opinion granting the
company's motion to dismiss.  On March 30, 2010, the court entered
a judgment dismissing the case.

The plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on April 29, 2010,
appealing the judgment granting the company's motion to dismiss.

Focus Media Holding Limited -- http://www.focusmedia.cn/en/-- is
a multi-platform digital media company.  The company is
engaged in selling out-of home television advertising time slots
on its network of flat-panel television advertising displays
located in high traffic areas, such as commercial locations and
in-store network.  It is also engaged in providing advertising
services on in-elevator poster frames, mobile handsets, the
Internet, on screens in movie theatre, and on traditional outdoor
billboards.  On Jan. 2, 2008, Focus Media Holding completed the
acquisition of CGEN Digital Media Company, Limited (CGEN).  On
Dec. 10, 2008, the Company terminated the mobile handset
advertising network.


HERLEY INDUSTRIES: Has Preliminary Deal to Settle Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
John A. Thonet, Chairman of the Board for Herley Industries, Inc.,
(Nasdaq: HRLY), said an agreement has been reached and
preliminarily approved by the Court, to settle all securities
class actions originally filed in 2006 in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania,
consolidated at In re Herley Industries, Inc. Securities
Litigation,  Docket No. 06-cv-2596 (JRS).  The proposed settlement
resolves any and all lawsuits filed against the Company as a
result of the indictment brought in June 2006. As previously
disclosed, the Company and certain of its current and former
officers and directors were named as defendants in a class action
under which the lead plaintiff sought damages in excess of $80
million on behalf of a class of purchasers of the Company's
securities between October 1, 2001 and June 14, 2006 for alleged
violations of the federal securities laws.  The Company and the
individual defendants have steadfastly maintained that the claims
raised in the securities class action were without merit, and have
vigorously contested those claims.  As part of the settlement, the
Company and the individual defendants continue to deny any
wrongdoing or any other improper actions.

The terms of the settlement provide for the dismissal of the
litigation against all defendants, including the Company, and the
creation by the Company of a $10 million settlement fund.  The
fund will be allocated, after deduction of court-ordered expenses
and counsel fees, among members of the settlement class who submit
valid proofs of claims.  The settlement remains subject to the
final approval of the Court, which will convene a hearing to
address this issue on September 13, 2010.  Terms for distribution
of the settlement fund to class members, less fees awarded by the
Court to class counsel, will be contained in a notice to be sent
to class members.

In connection with the settlement, the Company will record a
charge to operations of $10,000,000 during its fiscal fourth
quarter.

John A. Thonet, Chairman of Herley's Board of Directors,
commented: "I am pleased to announce the settlement of the
Securities Class Action litigation. This settlement marks the end
of years of litigation dating back to 2006, which saddled the
Company with significant legal fees and other expenses while
challenging the Company in ways not previously experienced as it
effectively managed this complex litigation process. With this
settlement, Herley closes the door on perhaps the most difficult
and challenging period in its 45-year history.

"The settlement should further serve to address any remaining
uncertainty associated with the potential impact of the results of
the litigation on Herley's financial condition, which I can report
remains strong. It will also eliminate ongoing legal fees and
expenses associated with defending this action, thus hopefully
reducing the impact of legal expenses on Herley's earnings going
forward.

"Despite the challenges presented, Herley endured successfully and
continued to grow in technological capability during this
difficult period. With three good quarters under our belt thus far
in fiscal year 2010 and with these legal matters now behind us,
Herley is well positioned to continue to do what it does best --
design and manufacture electronic components and systems,
utilizing microwave and millimeter wave technology, for the
defense, aerospace and medical industries worldwide. We look
forward to fiscal year 2011 during which Herley intends to sharpen
its focus even further on performance and strategic planning for
growth within our industry."

The proposed settlement agreement will be filed as an exhibit to a
Current Report on Form 8-K, reporting the tentative settlement, to
be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

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


HITACHI LTD: Defends Class Suits in United States and Canada
------------------------------------------------------------
Hitachi Ltd., certain of its subsidiaries, and its equity method
affiliates which are engaged in or had been engaged in the
semiconductor, LCD and CRT businesses, defend a number of class
action lawsuits filed in the United States and Canada.

These complaints allege violations of various jurisdictions'
antitrust, consumer protection and/or unfair competition laws and
seek treble monetary damages, restitution, costs, interest and
attorneys' fees for unspecified amounts.

No further details were disclosed in the company's June 29, 2010,
Form 20-F with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended March 31, 2010.

Hitachi Ltd. -- http://www.hitachi.co.jp/-- develops a
diversified product mix ranging from electricity generation
systems to consumer products and electronic devices.  The company
has seven segments: Information & Telecommunication Systems,
Electronic Devices, Power & Industrial Systems, Digital Media &
Consumer Products, High Functional Materials & Components,
Logistics, Services & Others and financial services.  In April
2008, Hitachi acquired a majority ownership interest in M-Tech
Information Technology, Inc.  In April 2008, Hitachi, Ltd.
established a wholly owned subsidiary, Hitachi Information &
Telecommunication Systems Global Holding Corporation.  In March
2008, Hitachi Consulting, the global consulting company of
Hitachi, acquired JMN Associates.  On March 16, 2009, the company
made Hitachi Koki Co., Ltd. a subsidiary via share purchase.  On
March 18, 2009, the company made Hitachi Kokusai Electronic Inc.,
a subsidiary via share purchase.


ISLE OF WIGHT: Faces Class Suit Before Int'l Courts of Justice
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rachael Brooks, writing for ventnorblog.com, reports that The Isle
of Wight council and the Isle of Wight courts have been named in a
class action filed by Freedom, Advocacy & Law Ltd. Thursday
morning in the International Courts of Justice in the Hague.

The suit concerns violations of International Human Rights, Law
and local Statute.  It was filed by parents and other family
members, for parents and extended families who feel they have
unjustly, unfairly or unlawfully lost contact with or care of
their children for any reason, whether resulting from
separation/divorce, or dealings with Children's Services.

A spokesman for Freedom, Advocacy & Law on the Island said "Around
two hundred and fifty families from around the UK, including from
the Isle of Wight and across the mainland have enjoined this
unprecedented action so far, but the numbers enjoined to the
rolling list rises daily and could reach into four figures by the
time the case comes to be heard in the Hague."

He went on to say "This action covers both Public and Private law
cases and is expected to send shock waves right through the legal
and social care system and bring justice, accountability and
reform into this very secret and unaccountable arena.

"Once the public see the extent of the abuses that go on under the
veil of secrecy that is family law in the UK they will be shocked
and we believe this action will now give many the courage to come
forward for the first time. But we also have not just families but
professionals coming forward who are just as appalled as we are,
they are speaking to us and we welcome this, we respect and
grateful to them for doing so!"

Island spokeperson speaks out

The Island spokesman, a retired Steward of the Isle of Wight LINk
also said "Some of the issues I tried to raise, as a member of the
LINk, also involve serious Adult Social Care Issues and as the
elected and nominated LINk member of the Isle of Wight Councils
Adult Social Care, Health and Housing Scrutiny Panel,
unfortunately I believe I was undemocratically removed from the
panel by some one in the Council. But this action, will mean the
Isle of Wight Council like every other one named, will have to
address matters rather than I believe brushing them under the
secrecy carpet, especially as the national media are reporting as
well!"

The action is being handled pro-bono (at no cost) by Freedom,
Advocacy & Law who they tell us that they have around 5,000kg of
evidence to present to the court in the Hague.


KOSS CORP: Defends "Puskala" Securities Suit in Wisconsin
---------------------------------------------------------
Koss Corp. defends a class action complaint in Wisconsin for
allegedly violating securities law, according to the company's
June 30, 2010, Form 10-Q/A filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

On January 15, 2010, a class action complaint was filed in federal
court in Wisconsin against the Company, Michael Koss and Sujata
Sachdeva.  The suit alleges violations of Section 10(b), Rule 10b-
5 and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act relating to the
unauthorized transactions and requests an award of compensatory
damages in an amount to be proven at trial.

The complaint is styled David A. Puskala v. Koss Corporation, et
al., Case No. 10-cv-00041 (E.D. Wisc.).

Koss Corporation -- http://www.koss.com/-- is engaged in the
design, manufacture and sale of stereo headphones and related
accessory products.  The company's products are sold through audio
specialty stores, the Internet, direct mail catalogs,
regional department store chains, discount department stores,
military exchanges, prisons and national retailers under the Koss
name and dual label.  The company also sells products to
distributors for resale to school systems and directly to other
manufactures for inclusion with their own products.


LAN AIRLINES: Cargo Unit Defends Suits in Canada Over DOJ Probe
---------------------------------------------------------------
Four civil class actions, which include Lan Airlines S.A.'s main
cargo subsidiary Lan Cargo S.A. as a defendant, are pending in
Canada.

The investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice prompted the
filing of numerous civil class actions by freight forwarding and
shipping companies against many airlines, including Lan Cargo and
Lan Airlines, including four in Canada.

No further updates were reported in the company's June 29, 2010,
Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

Lan Airlines S.A. -- http://www.lan.com/index-en-us.html-- is a
passenger airlines company in Latin America and the main cargo
operator in the region.  The company provides domestic and
international passenger services in Chile, Peru, Ecuador and
Argentina.  As of March 31, 2009, in the passenger business the
company operated through five main airlines: LAN Airlines,
Transporte Aereo S.A. (which does business under the name Lan
Express), Lan Peru S.A. (Lan Peru), Aerolane Lineas Aereas
Nacionales del Ecuador S.A. (Lan Ecuador), and Lan Argentina S.A.
(Lan Argentina, previously Aero 2000 S.A.).  Its cargo operations
are carried out by a number of companies, including Lan Airlines
and Lan Cargo, and are complemented by the
operations of certain related companies, such as Aero Transportes
Mas de Carga S.A. de C.V. (MasAir), in Mexico,
Aerolinhas Brasileiras S.A. (ABSA), in Brazil and Linea Aerea
Carguera de Colombia S.A. (LANCO), in Colombia.


LYONDELLBASELL INDUS: Defends Suits Over Sale of MDI and TDI
------------------------------------------------------------
LyondellBasell Industries N.V. continues to defend class action
lawsuits in connection with the manufacture and sale of polyether
polyols, methylene diphenyl diisocyanate (MDI) and toluene
diisocyanate (TDI), according to the company's June 29, 2010, Form
10-12B/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Beginning in November 2004, several class action lawsuits were
filed in federal court against Lyondell Chemical and certain other
chemical companies, alleging violations of U.S. antitrust laws and
seeking treble damages in an unspecified amount on behalf of U.S.
direct purchasers of such products.

The lawsuits were consolidated by the Judicial Panel for
Multidistrict Litigation in the United States District Court for
the District of Kansas.

In addition, in May 2006, two class action lawsuits were filed in
the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, London, Ontario, Canada and
the Superior Court, Province of Quebec, District of Quebec,
Canada, both alleging claims and seeking relief similar to those
in the Multidistrict Litigation.

In June 2007, Lyondell Chemical was named as an additional
defendant in a case previously filed in the Superior Court for the
State of California, County of San Francisco, on behalf of
indirect purchasers of polyether polyols, MDI and TDI and other
products alleging claims and seeking relief similar to that in the
Multidistrict Litigation.  The California case has been stayed
pending further order of the California court.

In May 2008, the plaintiffs in a previously filed class action
suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts,
seeking relief similar to that in the Multidistrict Litigation in
Kansas, filed a motion to add Lyondell Chemical and certain other
parties as additional defendants, making essentially the same
complaints as in the Multidistrict Litigation.

In October 2008, a claim was filed against Lyondell Chemical in
the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey by
approximately 48 direct purchasers of polyurethane products. These
plaintiffs, who had opted out of the class in the Multidistrict
Litigation, asserted essentially the same complaints as in the
Multidistrict Litigation based upon the same underlying facts.

The actions in the United States against Lyondell Chemical were
stayed pursuant to section 362 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code.
Liabilities, if any, relating to this litigation will be treated
as unsecured claims in the Bankruptcy Cases.

LyondellBasell -- http://www.lyondellbasell.com/-- is one of the
world's largest plastics, chemical and refining companies.  The
company manufactures products at 59 sites in 18 countries.
LyondellBasell products and technologies are used to make items
that improve the quality of life for people around the world
including packaging, electronics, automotive parts, home
furnishings, construction materials and biofuels.


PRE-FILLED PROPANE: Settlement Provides $10-Mil. to Consumers
-------------------------------------------------------------
A proposed Settlement has been reached in a class action lawsuit
called In re Pre-Filled Propane Tank Marketing and Sales Practices
Litigation, MDL No. 2086, pending in the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Missouri.

According to the statement issued by Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
LLP, Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP, Girard Gibbs LLP, and Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP, the lawsuit claims that AmeriGas, together with
certain competitors, did not fill propane gas cylinders to the
proper level and failed to disclose the actual net weight or level
of propane in the cylinders to customers.  AmeriGas denies these
claims and denies it did anything wrong.

The proposed Settlement provides up to $10 million to benefit
consumers allegedly overcharged for propane gas cylinders
purchased between June 15, 2005 and November 30, 2009.  In
addition, AmeriGas has committed to provide more information
regarding the net weight of propane in its cylinders.

In order to get a payment, Class Members must submit a claim form
by U.S. mail or e-mail by October 31, 2010.  Class Members who
remain in the Settlement give up the right to sue AmeriGas for
certain claims and will be bound by all Court orders.  The amount
paid to Class Members will be determined according to terms in the
Settlement Agreement.

Class Members wanting to keep the right to sue AmeriGas about the
claims in this Settlement must exclude themselves in writing by
September 1, 2010.  Class Members who exclude themselves will not
get any payment from the Settlement.  Any objections or comments
on the Settlement must be received by September 15, 2010. Class
Members who object give up the right to sue and are bound by Court
orders even if the objection is rejected.  Objectors may appear at
the Fairness Hearing, but are not required to attend.

If Class Members do nothing, they remain in the proposed
Settlement but will not get a payment unless a valid claim form is
timely submitted.  They give up their right to sue AmeriGas for
certain claims and are bound by all Court orders

The Court appointed lawyers to represent Class Members. They will
ask the Court for attorneys' fees and costs, which will be paid by
AmeriGas separately from the benefits available to the Class
Members. Class Members do not need to hire their own lawyer, but
they do have the right to choose to hire a lawyer at their own
expense for advice about the proposed Settlement and their rights
in connection with the proposed Settlement.

The Court will hold a Fairness Hearing on October 1, 2010 to
determine whether to approve the proposed Settlement and
attorneys' fees and expenses. Class Members may attend this
hearing if they wish, but they are not required to attend to
participate in the proposed Settlement.

For more detailed information about the proposed Settlement, and
your options, visit http://www.PropaneSettlement.com/call 1-866-
682-1763, or TEXT "Propane" to 41513* (*Msg & Data rates may
apply. Txt STOP to opt-out.)


SOURCE Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer
LLP, Girard Gibbs LLP, and Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP


OB-GYN ASSOCIATES: Sued for Use of Unapproved IUDs
--------------------------------------------------
The Providence Journal reports that Ronald Resmini, Esq., a
personal injury lawyer, on Wednesday filed a class-action suit on
behalf of three women against over unapproved birth-control
devices that were used by at least three obstetrics practices --
OB-GYN Associates, Bayside OB-GYN and the Obstetrics & Gynecology
-- in Rhode Island.

The state Department of Health said the three practices used
intrauterine devices that were not approved by the U.S. Food and
Drug Administration.  The IUDs may have been implanted in hundreds
of women.


SAN FRANCISCO: Kirola Loses Bid to Join in Sidewalk Ramps Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In January 2007, plaintiffs and respondents Eddie King et al.,
filed a disability access class action lawsuit against defendant
and respondent City and County of San Francisco, alleging that
plaintiffs were unable to access the City's sidewalks because the
sidewalks lacked wheelchair ramps and cutouts.  In July 2007,
appellants Ivana Kirola and Elizabeth Elftman filed a separate
disability access class action against the City in federal court
seeking broader relief than that sought in the King litigation.
In February 2008, appellants sought to intervene in the King
litigation to protect their interests in the federal litigation
and to obtain relief for themselves and class members for the
City's failure to provide suitable access to its sidewalks and
other pedestrian walkways for disabled persons.  The trial court
denied appellants' motion to intervene, concluding that appellants
were not entitled to intervene as of right and that permissive
intervention was unwarranted because it would enlarge the issues
in the case.

On appeal, appellants contend that they are entitled to intervene
in the King litigation because their motion satisfied the criteria
set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 387, subdivisions (a)
and (b), for permissive and mandatory intervention.  Finding
appellants' contentions unpersuasive, the Court of Appeals of
California, First District, Division Three affirmed the order
denying appellants' motion for leave to intervene.

The case is Eddie King et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. City
and County of San Francisco, Defendant and Respondent; Ivana
Kirola et al., Interveners and Appellants, Case No. A123015
(Calif. App. Ct.)

A copy of the decision is available at:

     http://www.leagle.com/unsecure/page.htm?shortname=incaco20100630027


SPHERION PACIFIC: Settles Workers' Non-Payment Suit for $1.3-Mil.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Steven Mayer at The Bakersfield Californian reports that the
operator of a local call center that dispersed aid to victims of
Hurricane Katrina will pay up to $1.3 million to settle a class-
action lawsuit brought by former employees.

Spherion Pacific Workforce, which set up a 2,000-employee center
in Bakersfield in 2005 to help the American Red Cross distribute
donations to hurricane-ravaged areas on the Gulf Coast, allegedly
failed to properly pay employees and failed to provide meal and
rest breaks, according to the lawsuit filed in Kern County
Superior Court.

Delaware-based Spherion, along with co-defendants Interim
Personnel of Fresno and ACS Education Services, admitted to no
wrongdoing under the settlement agreement. A spokesman for the
defendants' attorney could not immediately be reached for comment
Wednesday.

Philip Ganong, Esq., a Bakersfield attorney representing the
employees, characterized the settlement as fair and reasonable and
in the best interests of the employees and all parties to the
lawsuit.

"I don't believe Spherion was malicious," Mr. Ganong said. "I
think they were careless, in the literal sense of the word."

Employees were required to stand in long security lines when
entering and leaving work, Mr. Ganong said.  They had to travel to
another location and wait in line for significant periods to pick
up their paychecks.  Employees were not compensated for these and
other off-the-clock requirements.

"Many of these folks were hand-to-mouth individuals," Mr. Ganong
said. "Some had their power shut off. Many were sent to
collections. Some faced evictions."

According to an information packet sent this week to former
workers, individuals who were employed at the 34th Street call
center between Sept. 5, 2005, and Dec. 21, 2005, may be eligible
for a portion of the settlement.  Those who have previously
received compensation from an earlier lawsuit filed by the Kern
County District Attorney's office or from a labor commissioner
action may not participate in the settlement.

The call center faced other problems as well.

The center and Spherion came under heavy scrutiny in fall 2005
when several employees complained they weren't paid and the FBI
discovered several Bakersfield residents, including 10 call center
employees, filed false aid claims through the call center.

In the following months, dozens of people were charged federally
with wire fraud for taking money that should have gone to Katrina
victims.

The employees' counsel may be reached at:

     Philip W. Ganong, Esq.
     GANONG LAW OFFICE
     924 Truxtun Avenue
     Bakersfield, California


TECUMSEH PRODUCTS: Settles Compressors Suit for $7 Million
----------------------------------------------------------
Tecumseh Products Company has entered into a settlement agreement
resolving the matter In Re: Refrigerant Compressors Antitrust
Litigation, MDL No. 09-md-02042, for $7 million, according to the
company's June 29, 2010, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission.

The company, Tecumseh Compressor Company, Tecumseh do Brasil,
Ltda., and Tecumseh do Brasil U.S.A. LLC, have been named as
defendants in several class action lawsuits filed in the United
States and Canada, including by both direct and indirect purchaser
groups.  All such U.S. lawsuits have been or are being transferred
to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan
for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings under multi-
district litigation procedures in the matter captioned In Re:
Refrigerant Compressors Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 09-md-02042.

The plaintiff class representatives in the direct-purchaser Action
allege that, inter alia, Tecumseh and the other named compressor
manufacturers participated in an unlawful conspiracy to raise,
fix, maintain, or stabilize the price of certain products in the
United States at artificially high levels and/or to allocate
markets or customers for the sale of those products in violation
of section 1 of the Sherman Act.

On June 24, 2010, Tecumseh entered into a settlement agreement
with the direct-purchaser Plaintiffs to resolve certain claims in
the Action in order to avoid the costs and distraction of this
ongoing class action litigation.  The Settlement Agreement was
made by and between Tecumseh and its subsidiaries and affiliates,
and Plaintiffs, both individually and on behalf of a class of
persons who purchased in the United States, its territories and
possessions, directly from a Defendant during the period from Jan.
1, 2004 through Dec. 31, 2008: (a) compressors of less than one
horsepower used for refrigeration, freezing or cooling purposes,
and/or (b) refrigeration products, including condensers,
containing compressors of less than one horsepower used for
refrigeration, freezing or cooling purposes (the "Covered
Products").  Compressors used for air-conditioning applications
are specifically excluded.

Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, in exchange for
Plaintiffs' full release of all U.S. direct-purchaser claims
against Tecumseh relating to the Covered Products, Tecumseh agreed
to pay a settlement amount of $7 million and, in addition, agreed
to pay up to $250,000 for notice and administrative costs
associated with administering the settlement both of which will be
accrued as an expense in the second quarter ending June 30, 2010
in the line item caption "Impairments, restructuring charges, and
other items."

Tecumseh also agreed to assist Plaintiffs in obtaining the Court's
approval of the settlement and to share with Plaintiffs
information relating to the anti-competitive conduct alleged in
the Action.  If the Court refuses to approve the Settlement
Agreement or if the Settlement Agreement is modified or set aside
on appeal, Plaintiffs and Tecumseh each may rescind the Settlement
Agreement and the settlement amount will be returned to Tecumseh.
In addition, if Tecumseh customers representing a significant
percentage of purchases of Covered Products choose not to
participate in the settlement (opt-out), Tecumseh has the right
under certain circumstances to withdraw from the Settlement
Agreement and have the settlement funds returned.

Tecumseh Products Company -- http://www.tecumseh.com/-- is a
full-line, independent global manufacturer of hermetically sealed
compressors for residential and specialty air conditioning,
household refrigerators and freezers, and commercial refrigeration
applications, including air conditioning and refrigeration
compressors, as well as condensing units, heat pumps and complete
refrigeration systems.


THOR INDUSTRIES: Rigrodsky & Long Files Securities Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. announces that a class action lawsuit has
been filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio on behalf of all persons or entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of Thor
Industries, Inc. between November 30, 2009 and June 10, 2010 at
12:13 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, inclusive, seeking to pursue
remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The Complaint names Thor and certain of the Company's executive
officers and directors. The Complaint alleges that during the
Class Period, defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or omitted material facts in statements concerning the
Company's financial condition. Specifically, it is alleged that
Thor failed to disclose that certain accounting positions taken by
the Company in its audited financial statements included in the
Company's annual report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended
July 31 2009, as well as the unaudited financial statements
included in the Company's Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q for the
periods ended January 31, 2009, April 30, 2009, October 31, 2009
and January 31, 2010, were inaccurate and may have to be restated,
which may lead to an earnings decline. It appears that Thor used
its capital to support its business with dealer loans and consumer
lenders to support floor inventory and sales, and failed to
properly account for these maneuvers.

On June 10, 2010 at 12:13 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, Thor issued
a press release in which it announced financial results for the
third quarter of 2010 which included a note disclosing that it
would not be filing its 10-Q on time and may have to restate the
2009 10-K and the first three 10-Qs for fiscal 2010 due to
concerns from its auditor, Deloitte & Touche LLP.  Specifically,
Deloitte "is addressing issues relating to the accounting
treatment for (a) the Company's transactions with Stephen Adams
and FreedomRoads that were consummated in January 2009, and (b)
repurchase reserves relating to agreements with lenders to the
Company's independent dealers and revenue recognition issues with
respect to transactions with its independent dealers." Prior to
the announcement, Thor common stock was trading at $28.39. On this
news, however, the Company's shares plummeted approximately 27% in
intra-day trading, reaching a low of $20.74 before closing at
$26.22.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than August 24, 2010. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. If you wish to discuss this action or have any
questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests,
please contact Timothy J. MacFall, Esquire or Noah R. Wortman,
Case Development Director of Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., 919 North
Market Street, Suite 980 Wilmington, Delaware, 19801 at
(888) 969-4242, by e-mail to info@rigrodskylong.com , or via our
Web site: http://www.rigrodskylong.com/news/ThorIndustries-THO 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.

While Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. did not file the Complaint in this
matter, the firm, with offices in Wilmington, Delaware and Garden
City, New York, regularly litigates securities class, derivative
and direct actions, shareholder rights litigation and corporate
governance litigation, including claims for breach of fiduciary
duty and proxy violations in the Delaware Court of Chancery and in
state and federal courts throughout the United States.

     Timothy J. MacFall, Esq.
     RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
     585 Stewart Avenue, Suite 304
     Garden City, New York 11530
     Telephone: (516) 683-3516
     E-mail: tjm@rigrodskylong.com


TIM PARTICIPACOES: Suit to Recover Assets Continues
---------------------------------------------------
TIM Participacoes SA expects proceedings relating to the return to
the federal government of the company's assets used in connection
with the provision of telecommunication services to continue.

In January 2003, a type of class action was brought by an
individual against Anatel and all the companies controlled by
Telecom Italia in Brazil, including Tim Participacoes.

The claim sought to suspend the effects of Resolucao 318, of Sept.
27, 2002, and other acts by Anatel, including
Authorizations PVCP/SPV Nos. 001/2002 to 011/2002, published on
Dec. 12, 2002, which authorized the company to migrate from the
SMC regime to the PCS regime.

The action specifically challenged the omission of provisions
regulating the return of the assets used by the company in
connection with the provision of telecommunication services by the
time of the expiration of the authorizations.  By reason of such
omission, argues the claimant, the Brazilian Federal Government
would suffer irreparable damage and, therefore,
Anatel acts allowing the migration from SMC to PCS should be
declared null and void.

The company challenged this action, and after some preliminary
decisions by lower courts it has obtained a unanimous decision
from the Regional Federal Court of Appeals ("Tribunal Regional
Federal") permitting the migration from SMC to PCS, reserving
discussion about the return of the assets to the Brazilian Federal
Government for a later date.  The judge extinguished the action.
The decision was subject to compulsory appeal at a superior court.
On Oct. 19, 2007, the court of appeals ordered the return of the
case to the lower courts to allow other interested parties to take
part in the litigation.

In 2003, Anatel and the federal government informed the Court that
Authorizations PVCP/SVP nos. 001/2002 to 011/2002 are valid and
should not be voided by the Court.

The company entered into amendments to its authorizations to
provide for the contingency that in the event of the termination
of its authorizations, the assets essential to its provision of
services would be returned to the federal government.

No new information relating to the matter was disclosed in the
company's June 30, 2010, Form 20-F filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Dec. 31, 2009.

TIM Participacoes SA -- http://www.timpartri.com.br/tim-- is a
wireless provider in Brazil.  The company primarily uses the
global system for mobile communications technology (GSM), to
provide mobile telecommunications services throughout Brazil.
The company offers value-added services, including short message
services or text messaging, multimedia messaging services, push-
mail, Blackberry service, video call, turbo mail, wireless
application protocol (WAP) downloads, Web browsing, business
data solutions, songs, games, television access, voice mail,
conference calling, chats and other content and services.  The
company provides interconnection services to fixed line and mobile
service providers as well.


TIM PARTICIPACOES: Defends Suits Over Consumer/Labor Issues
-----------------------------------------------------------
TIM Participacoes SA remains a party to consumer protection and
labor law proceedings.

The company remains a party to certain legal proceedings, which
may be divided into two main categories: consumer protection
claims and labor law claims.

The most common issue raised by claimants in the consumer
protection cases against the company is allegedly incorrect
charges imposed by TIM as well as defects on mobile handsets the
company sells.

Most labor law claims against the company have been brought by
former employees for alleged infringement of labor laws during the
duration of their employment contracts with TIM.

As of Dec. 31, 2009, the company was party to approximately 61,141
consumer protection claims and 2,350 labor law claims.
There are also 181 public civil actions and class actions,
according to the the company's June 30, 2010, Form 20-F filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

TIM Participacoes SA -- http://www.timpartri.com.br/tim-- is a
wireless provider in Brazil.  The company primarily uses the
global system for mobile communications technology (GSM), to
provide mobile telecommunications services throughout Brazil.
The company offers value-added services, including short message
services or text messaging, multimedia messaging services, push-
mail, Blackberry service, video call, turbo mail, wireless
application protocol (WAP) downloads, Web browsing, business
data solutions, songs, games, television access, voice mail,
conference calling, chats and other content and services.  The
company provides interconnection services to fixed line and mobile
service providers as well.


WEIS MARKETS: 4th Cir. Reverses Denial of Stillmock Class Cert.
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the interlocutory appeal, Patrick Stillmock; Jeanne Stillmock;
Jenny Barnstein; Leonid Opacic, individually and on behalf of a
class of all those similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v.
Weis Markets, Incorporated, Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 09-1632
(4th Cir.), plaintiff-appellants Patrick Stillmock, Jeanne
Stillmock, Jenny Barnstein, and Leonid Opacic challenge the
district court's denial of their motion for class action
certification on behalf of themselves and all other customers of
retail stores owned and operated by Weis Markets, Inc., which
customers received credit card and debit card receipts printed in
violation of the truncation requirement under the Fair and
Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003.  The putative class
expressly excluded customers of Weis Markets' stores who suffered
actual damages due to identity theft and any persons who had ever
been executives of Weis Markets.  The United States Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit vacated the district court's denial
of Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and remand for
further proceedings.

The case was before Chief Judge William Byrd Traxler, Jr.; Circuit
Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III; and Senior Circuit Judge Clyde H.
Hamilton.  Senior Judge Hamilton wrote the opinion, in which Chief
Judge Traxler joined.

A copy of the decision is available at:

     http://www.leagle.com/unsecure/page.htm?shortname=infco20100701078

The appellants were represented by:

     Martin Eugene Wolf, Es.
     QUINN, GORDON & WOLF, CHTD
     102 W. Pennsylvania Avenue, Suite 402
     Towson, Maryland  21204
     Telephone: (410) 825-2300
     Facsimile: (410) 825-0066

Weis was defended by:

     Charles Mikell Hart, Esq.
     DUANE MORRIS, LLP
     1940 Route 70 East, Suite 200
     Cherry Hill, NJ 08003
     Telephone: (856) 874-4275
     Facsimile: (215) 405-2548
     E-mail: chart@duanemorris.com


UNITED STATES: Lawsuit Challenges Immigration Policies
------------------------------------------------------
A U.S. based immigration lawyer, Brent Renison, from the law firm
Parrilli Renison LLC, has recently filed a class action lawsuit
against the U.S. Department of State, Department of Homeland
Security and United States Citizenship and Immigration Services
challenging the immigration policies and procedures for returning
approved fiance visa petitions to USCIS with a recommendation that
the petition be revoked.  Dzu Cong Tran v. Napolitano, 3:10-CV-
724-ST (D.Or. filed June 24, 2010) (class action lawsuit
challenging K-1 petition return policies of the U.S. State
Department and Department of Homeland Security) filed in the
United States District Court, District of Oregon, Portland
Division.

Three years ago the USCIS Ombudsmand had issued recommendations to
DHS and USCIS regarding necessary changes to the standards and
processes for re-adjudication of petitions returned by consular
officers for revocation because of a systemic nationwide failures
of the immigration system. Only some of the recommendations were
implemented and some specifically rejected. The class action
lawsuit involves some of the recommendations which were rejected.

For a K1 fiance(e) to acquire permanent resident, the US citizen
first obtains an approved I-129F petition filed with DHS/USCIS. 8
U.S.C. Section 1184(d); 8 C.F.R Section 214.2(k)(1). The K1
petition approval requires that the couple have met in person
within two years of the filing of the petition and must have a
bona fide intention to marry within 90 days of the fiance's
arrival. 8 U.S.C. Section 1184(d)(1).

If the fiance(e) visa petition is denied, DHS/USCIS shall explain
in writing the specific reasons for the denial and notify the
petitioner of the right to appeal. If the fiance(e) visa petition
is approved then it bears a four month validity period which the
consular officer has the discretion to extend. However, if it
appears to the consular officer that statements in the application
or in documents submitted that the fiance(e) is not eligible to
receive a visa, the officer shall refuse the visa.  8 U.S.C.
Section 1201(g). If the visa is refused then the affirmed K1
petition is returned to DHS/USCIS with the officer's
recommendation for revocation. Additionally, when a visa case is
returned to USCIS the State Department place a marker called a
"P6C1" marker, or "quasi-refusal" in an applicant's record so the
revocation of the petition automatically establishing a permanent
misrepresentation bar to any future immigration possibility under
INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i).

When the State Department return the affirmed K1 visa petition,
DHS/USCIS will not review such returned petition, nor will they
provide the visa applicant with the opportunity to rebut consular
officer's findings. The applicant will not have an opportunity to
appeal and in light of the P6C1 marker, may face a permanent bar
to admissibility for misrepresentation.

The class action lawsuit recently filed in Oregon alleges
contradictory and unlawful practices of the agencies have caused
class members to be subjected to arbitrary, capricious, and
unlawful visa denials and therefore been deprived of their due
process of law. Specifically, the class action challenges USCIS'
policies and procedures for revoking, denying or terminating
petitions that the State Department return.

For the US citizen petitioner who has filed and received an
approved I-129F for a K1 visa or K3 visa, any policy or procedural
changes originated under this lawsuit may mean consular processing
service that is streamlined, judicious, and efficient. It shall
remove any unnecessary visa delays and inconsistent, arbitrary
visa refusals. Furthermore, the visa applicant will be able to
obtain written notice of the legal and factual basis for their K1
and K3 visa denial instead of being issued a boiler plate 221(g)
blue sheet which does not detail the consular officer's findings.
US citizen petitioners will then be given the opportunity to rebut
the findings within a reasonable time after the decision. More
importantly given the opportunity to appeal the decision if the
visa was denied. For the US citizen petitioner who has filed and
received a reaffirmation of approval, to deliver the reaffirmed
petition to the State Department and compel them to issue the K1
visa within a reasonable period of time.

The resounding effect of the lawsuit is the requirement that
consular officers provide a succinctly written notice supported by
the legal and factual basis for the visa denial, permit the visa
applicant the opportunity to rebut the findings, and compel
DHS/USCIS to take action that is conclusive, and provide the
petitioner an opportunity to appeal the consular officer's
findings.


* 4 Class Suits Filed in Madison County for 2010 First Half
-----------------------------------------------------------
Amelia Flood at The Madison/St. Clair Record reports that while
Madison County has seen an uptick in asbestos lawsuits filed at
the Edwardsville courthouse, medical malpractice lawsuit filings
are down and class action cases are holding firm.

Last year, 17 medical malpractice lawsuits had been filed by
June 30.  This year, that number is down by half, with only eight
med mal suits currently filed.

There were five class action suits filed in 2009 up to the mid-
year mark. Four have been filed up to June 30 this year.

The Madison County Circuit Clerk's office released the mid-year
lawsuit filings and foreclosure numbers Thursday.

While medical malpractice suit filings rose dramatically
throughout the 1990s and early part of this century, the number of
filings have been trending downwards in recent years.

Madison County's four 2010 class actions are a diverse bunch.

The suits range from a class action filed by an Edwardsville real
estate company against First Cloverleaf Bank over allegedly skewed
interest rates to a class action filed by two Madison County
residents against the owner of the Blimpie restaurant chain.

In the Blimpie class action, the plaintiffs contend that the chain
did not deliver on its promise to double stack meat portions.

Neighboring St. Clair County has had even fewer filings this year,
with six medical malpractice suits filed from Jan. 1 to July 2.

Only two class action suits have been filed to date in St. Clair
County.

                            *********

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  * * *