CAR_Public/100707.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Wednesday, July 7, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 132

                            Headlines

AIR SERV: Accused in NY Suit of Failing to Pay All Wages Due
AMEDISYS INC: Kahn Swick Sues Over SEC Probe Disclosure
ARCTIC GLACIER: Loses Bid to Dismiss Anti-trust Action
AUTO-OWNERS: Accused of Breaching Insurance Policy Agreement
B COMMUNICATIONS: Bezeq to Appeal "Collection Expenses" Ruling

B COMMUNICATIONS: Bezeq in Talks to Settle "Internet Fee" Suit
B COMMUNICATIONS: Appeals "Advertising" Suit Certification Ruling
B COMMUNICATIONS: Bezeq Seeks to Settle Suit Over ADSL Fee
B COMMUNICATIONS: Trial Bezeq "Disconnection Fee" Suit Ongoing
B COMMUNICATIONS: Cert. Bid in "Disconnection Delay" Suit Pending

B COMMUNICATIONS: Bezeq Defends Shareholder Suit in Tel Aviv
B COMMUNICATIONS: Bezeq Defends Suit Over VAT Collected
B COMMUNICATIONS: Defends Suit Over Tariff for Text Messages
B COMMUNICATIONS: Cert. Hearing in Suit vs. Pelephone Ongoing
B COMMUNICATIONS: Pelephone Fights Suit Over New Immigrants Plan

B COMMUNICATIONS: Pelephone Defends Suit Over "Radiation"
B COMMUNICATIONS: Pelephone Fights Service Center Call Fee Suits
B COMMUNICATIONS: Pelephone Defends Suit Seeking Refund
CANADIAN SOLAR: Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set for August 2
CITIMORTGAGE INC: Accused of Extorting $30 "Reconveyance Fee"

EDEN SPRINGS: Tel Aviv Suit Alleges Water Contamination
HARK PARTNERS: Film Crew Members Win $900,000 Judgment
LOCKHEED MARTIN: Class Certification Sought in Tallevast Suit
MATRIX COMMUNICATION: Sued for Violating State Wage and Hour Laws
NOBEL BIOCARE: Calif. Dentist Files Suit Over Defective Implant

ONTARIO: License Issuers' Suit Gets Class Action Status
RESOURCE LIFE: Appeals Court Allows Class Suit to Proceed
ST. LOUIS VETERANS: Unsafe Dental Job May Expose Veterans to HIV
TOYOTA MOTOR: To Recall 270,000 Vehicles World Wide
TULSA: Police to Buy Cameras Under Discrimination Suit Settlement

WEATHERFORD INT'L: Sued in Texas for Breach of Fiduciary Duty

* Analysis in Aussie Class Suits Show Low Recovery for Plaintiffs



                            *********

AIR SERV: Accused in NY Suit of Failing to Pay All Wages Due
------------------------------------------------------------
Brenda Williams, Tamerlane Burton, and James Berry, individually
and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Air Serv
Corporation, Case No. 108648/2010 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. June 30, 2010),
seeks to recover earned but unpaid wages for work performed
related to cleaning and maintenance of aircraft and other airline
services located within the State of New York.  Air Serv provides
passenger, ground transportation, ramp, and cargo handling
services to the aviation industry in the United States.

The plaintiffs accuse Air Serv of requiring employees to work in
excess of 40 hours per week, and in excess of 10 hours per day,
without paying for all wages due, underpaying employees by
reporting fewer hours worked than were actually worked, deducting
time for "meal breaks" regardless of whether meal breaks were
actually taken, failing to make "spread of hours" payments
required under 12 NYCRR Sec. 142-2.4, and failing to pay overtime
wages.  Plaintiffs explain that under 12 NYCRR Sec. 142-2.4,
employees are entitled to receive an additional hour's pay when
they work more than 10 hours in a day.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Lloyd Ambinder, Esq.
          James Emmet Murphy, Esq.
          VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
          Trinity Centre
          111 Broadway, Suite 1403
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: (212) 943-9080

               - and -

          Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq.
          LEEDS MORELLI & BROWN, P.C.
          One Old Country Road, Suite 347
          Carle Place, NY 11514
          Telephone: (516) 873-9550


AMEDISYS INC: Kahn Swick Sues Over SEC Probe Disclosure
-------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC, said investors have until August 9, 2010
to apply for lead plaintiff in a securities class action lawsuit
filed in the United States District Court, Middle District of
Louisiana against Amedisys, Inc. (Nasdaq: AMED) and certain of its
top officials.  No class has yet been certified in this action.

If you are an Amedisys shareholder who has suffered losses on your
investment and would like to discuss your legal rights, you may
e-mail or call, without obligation or cost to you:

     Neil Rothstein, Esq.
     Director of Client Relations
     KAHN SWICK & FOTI, LLC
     206 Covington Street
     Madisonville LA 70447
     Telephone: (877) 694-9510 (Toll free)
                (330) 860-4092
     E-mail: neil.rothstein@ksfcounsel.com

          - or -

     Lewis Kahn, Esq.
     Managing Partner
     KAHN SWICK & FOTI, LLC
     206 Covington Street
     Madisonville LA 70447
     Telephone: (866) 467-1400, ext. 200 (Toll free)
                (504) 301-7900
     E-mail: lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com

On July 1, 2010, Amedisys announced that it had received subpoenas
for documents and a formal investigation from the Securities and
Exchange Commission related to the company's billing practices.
Shares of Amedisys fell as much as 22% in Thursday early morning
trading.  The subpoena seeks documents related to the company's
home health care services and operations, including reimbursements
under the Medicare home health prospective payment system, since
January 1, 2000.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff in this class action
lawsuit, you must move the Court no later than August 9, 2010. Any
member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as lead
plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do
nothing and remain an absent class member. To learn more about
KSF, you may visit http://www.ksfcounsel.com/ KSF is a law firm
focused on securities class action litigation with offices in
Louisiana and New York. KSF's lawyers have significant experience
litigating complex securities class actions and have recovered
tens of millions of dollars over the past two years for aggrieved
investors.


ARCTIC GLACIER: Loses Bid to Dismiss Anti-trust Action
------------------------------------------------------
Martin Cash, writing for the Winnipeg Free Press, reports that
Winnipeg's Arctic Glacier Inc. and a co-defendant failed to
persuade a U.S. judge to dismiss a massive class-action suit
against the companies, alleging they not only conspired to divvy
up packaged-ice customers in the U.S. Midwest -- something Arctic
has already admitted -- but also throughout the United States.

A separate suit by Canadian wholesalers alleges Arctic is guilty
of the same anti-competitive behavior in Canada.

The legal onslaught has pummeled Arctic Glacier's share value
since the U.S. Department of Justice probe was first made public
in March 2008.

The latest ruling was further indication that as much progress as
Arctic has made since that date, there are still many legal
challenges ahead for the Winnipeg ice company.

Last fall, Arctic settled with the U.S. Department of Justice,
agreeing to pay $9 million over five years.  At the time, it was
seen as a major accomplishment for the company, ending a
significant overhang of uncertainty about its fate.

But it may have an even larger problem ahead of it.

Included in district Judge Paul D. Borman's 40-page ruling denying
the motion to dismiss, it was revealed Home City Ice, the third
defendant in the U.S. class action, has already agreed to settle
with the class for $13.5 million. (A hearing is scheduled for
later this month to consider preliminary approval of that
settlement.)

Home City, the Cincinnati-based ice company that is the third-
largest in North America (Dallas-based Reddy is largest and Arctic
is second-largest), was also the first of the three to settle with
the DOJ.  It agreed to pay the same $9-million fine as Arctic did.

The class-action plaintiffs allege Arctic and the other two
"conspired to allocate customers and markets throughout the United
States, in violation of . . . the Sherman Antitrust Act."

Arctic settled with the DOJ, admitting some of its U.S. executives
conspired to suppress and eliminate competition, but its admission
was restricted to activities in southeast Michigan and the Detroit
area.

Arctic argued the court can't infer a national conspiracy based on
the DOJ settlement, which only admitted anti-competitive activity
in one region. It also argued the market structure of the packaged
ice business -- with large companies effectively maintaining
monopolies in the regions in which they operate -- "is equally as
consistent with lawful activity as it is with an illegal agreement
and that mere opportunities to conspire" are not enough to launch
such an antitrust class-action case.

It also tried once again to discount the credibility of the
allegations of the whistleblower in the case, a Michigan company
executive who worked for a firm that was acquired by Arctic.

Although the court was only dealing with a motion on whether to
allow the case to continue, it did shoot down all of the
defendants' arguments.

That's particularly noteworthy for Arctic because, chances are, it
will have to defend itself against the same general set of
allegations in two similar class actions in Canada.

And according to Andrew Morganti, the lawyer spearheading the
Canadian class actions, the U.S. court ruling bodes well for his
clients' case.

"The judge dismissed out of hand all the ice companies'
arguments," Mr. Morganti said. "The court said it is plausible
that this was a nationwide conspiracy. I do believe it will be
persuasive for the Canadian action."

But Arctic's CEO Keith McMahon continued to express calm in an
interview Friday.

"We're disappointed (with the ruling), but we are not terribly
surprised," McMahon said. "In the U.S. they have a pretty
difficult standard to meet in order to meet a motion to dismiss.
We are prepared now to go forward and defend against the
allegations."


AUTO-OWNERS: Accused of Breaching Insurance Policy Agreement
------------------------------------------------------------
Provenance Condominium Association, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. Auto-Owners Insurance Company, et
al., Case No. 2010-L-007559 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty. June 30,
2010), asserts breach of contract against the insurance company,
equitable estoppel, violation of the Illinois Condominium Property
Act, and violations of Section 155 of the Illinois Insurance Code
and the Illinois Administrative Code.  Provenance also accuses
defendant Frisbi & Lohmeyer, Inc., an independent insurance agent,
of breaching its duty to act with due care in procuring policies
for Provenance.

Provenance Condominium Association is an association of unit
owners of the property located at 5230 N. Kenmore, in Chicago,
Illinois, which is insured under Auto-Owners' Policy No.
46-440-576-00 for the policy term of June 23, 2009, to June 23,
2010, with limits of $7,482,700.  In August 2009, Provenance
submitted a claim for first-party property damage to the building
at 5230 N. Kenmore, seeking indemnification for water damage to
exterior and interior common elements of the building caused by
"the incursion of rain and other weather, and resultant effects of
this incursion, including thawing and freezing."  In its
November 5, 2009 initial coverage position, Auto-Owners concluded
that the water damage the association sustained to the exterior of
the insured location was not covered under its policy and denied
payment on the claim.  However, it said the water damage to the
interior of the building was covered.  On May 12, 2010, however,
Auto-Owners reversed its earlier position that the interior
property damage was covered, and denied payment on the claim.

Provenance says the insurance company's decision to deny any
benefits under its policy was a substantial and material breach of
that agreement, because the cause of the property damage which was
the subject of Provenance's claim resulted from a covered cause of
loss under its policy.  Provenance added that Auto-Owners should
be estopped from changing coverage positions with respect to
coverage for interior elements of the property and should be
required to make the payment on the claim.  Provenance relates
that Auto-Owners also violated the Illinois Condominium Property
Act, because its policy provided coverage for less than all of the
common elements of the building subject to its policy, which is
required under the Act.

As for F&L, Provenance explains that in obtaining coverage from
Auto-Owners, F&L breached its duty of care to select an insurer
which would not use "unwritten exclusions" to deny coverage for
its claim.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Patrick G. Donnelly, Esq.
          Scott O. Reed, Esq.
          Elizabeth J. Mitchell, Esq.
          DONNELLY, LIPINSKI & HARRIS, LLC
          29 South LaSalle St., Suite 1210
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 546-5200


B COMMUNICATIONS: Bezeq to Appeal "Collection Expenses" Ruling
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bezeq The Israel Telecommunications Corp., Ltd., intends to appeal
the decision of the Tel Aviv District Court certifying the class
in a suit alleging that Bezeq unlawfully collected "collection
expenses" from its subscribers, according to
B Communications Ltd.'s June 30, 2010, Form 20-F filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
Dec. 31, 2009.

B Communications, on April 14, 2010, completed its acquisition of
30.44% of Bezeq's outstanding shares and became the controlling
shareholder of Bezeq.

In September 2000, a lawsuit and motion for certification as a
class action were filed against Bezeq in the Tel Aviv District
Court.  The amount of the claim is estimated at NIS103 million
($27.3 million).

According to the plaintiffs, Bezeq unlawfully collected
"collection expenses" from its subscribers for bills which were
not paid by their due date but were paid within 14 days of their
due date, although Bezeq took no collection action until 14 days
after the due date.

In March 2010, the District Court certified the lawsuit as a class
action.  The plaintiffs are seeking the return of the fee that
Bezeq allegedly collected unlawfully, with the class of the claim
including all those who were charged collection expenses despite
having paid their bill before Bezeq began collections, from March
11, 1999 through Dec. 7, 2006.

Bezeq intends to file a motion for leave to appeal the decision.

B Communications Ltd., formerly 012 Smile.Communications Ltd. --
http://www.012smile.com/-- is a communication services provider
in Israel, offering a range of broadband and traditional voice
services.  The company operates in two segments: broadband and
traditional voice services.  The company's broadband services
include broadband Internet access with a suite of value-added
services, specialized data services and server hosting, as well as
services, such as local telephony via voice over broadband and a
wireless fidelity network of hotspots across Israel.  Its
traditional voice services include outgoing and incoming
international telephony, hubbing, roaming and signaling and
calling card services.  The company offers its services to
residential and business customers, as well as to Israeli cellular
operators and international communication services providers, or
carriers through its integrated multipurpose network, which allows
the company to provide services to almost all of the homes and
businesses in Israel.


B COMMUNICATIONS: Bezeq in Talks to Settle "Internet Fee" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in a suit against Bezeq The Israel Telecommunications
Corp., Ltd. -- in connection with payments collected for Internet
browsing -- are currently negotiating a settlement arrangement,
according to B Communications Ltd.'s June 30, 2010, Form 20-F
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

B Communications, on April 14, 2010, completed its acquisition of
30.44% of Bezeq's outstanding shares and became the controlling
shareholder of Bezeq.

On Dec. 25, 2005, a lawsuit and motion for certification as a
class action were filed in the Tel Aviv District Court against
Bezeq, alleging that Bezeq unlawfully collects payment for
browsing high-speed Internet while technically it is unable to
provide the service in certain areas at the promised speed.

The plaintiffs estimate the amount of the class action at NIS100
million ($37.7 million) for all subscribers.

On March 6, 2008, the Court certified the lawsuit as a class
action in part for a group of subscribers defined in the Court's
decision.  On April 7, 2008, Bezeq filed a motion for leave to
appeal the decision of the District Court.

The parties are currently negotiating a settlement arrangement.

B Communications Ltd., formerly 012 Smile.Communications Ltd. --
http://www.012smile.com/-- is a communication services provider
in Israel, offering a range of broadband and traditional voice
services. The Company operates in two segments: broadband and
traditional voice services.  The company's broadband services
include broadband Internet access with a suite of value-added
services, specialized data services and server hosting, as well as
services, such as local telephony via voice over broadband and a
wireless fidelity network of hotspots across Israel.  Its
traditional voice services include outgoing and incoming
international telephony, hubbing, roaming and signaling and
calling card services.  The company offers its services to
residential and business customers, as well as to Israeli cellular
operators and international communication services providers, or
carriers through its integrated multipurpose network, which allows
the company to provide services to almost all of the homes and
businesses in Israel.


B COMMUNICATIONS: Appeals "Advertising" Suit Certification Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bezeq The Israel Telecommunications Corp., Ltd., has filed its
appeal to the decision of the Tel Aviv District Court certifying
the class in a suit alleging deception in advertising relating to
a charge, according to B Communications Ltd.'s June 30, 2010, Form
20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

B Communications, on April 14, 2010, completed its acquisition of
30.44% of Bezeq's outstanding shares and became the controlling
shareholder of Bezeq.

In May 2006, a lawsuit and motion for certification as a class
action were filed in the Tel Aviv District Court, alleging
deception in advertising relating to a charge.

According to the plaintiff, Bezeq deceived the public in its
advertisements regarding fees for calls from a Bezeq line to a
cellular line and did not disclose that the charge for the calls
was made according to segments of 12 seconds.

The plaintiff estimates the amount of the claim, if certified as a
class action, at NIS 68.5 million ($18.14 million).

On May 10, 2010, the District Court certified the lawsuit as a
class action.  On June 9, 2010, Bezeq filed a motion for leave to
appeal the decision of the District Court.

B Communications Ltd., formerly 012 Smile.Communications Ltd. --
http://www.012smile.com/-- is a communication services provider
in Israel, offering a range of broadband and traditional voice
services. The Company operates in two segments: broadband and
traditional voice services.  The company's broadband services
include broadband Internet access with a suite of value-added
services, specialized data services and server hosting, as well as
services, such as local telephony via voice over broadband and a
wireless fidelity network of hotspots across Israel.  Its
traditional voice services include outgoing and incoming
international telephony, hubbing, roaming and signaling and
calling card services.  The company offers its services to
residential and business customers, as well as to Israeli cellular
operators and international communication services providers, or
carriers through its integrated multipurpose network, which allows
the company to provide services to almost all of the homes and
businesses in Israel.


B COMMUNICATIONS: Bezeq Seeks to Settle Suit Over ADSL Fee
----------------------------------------------------------
Bezeq The Israel Telecommunications Corp., Ltd., is pursuing
settlement negotiations with the plaintiff in a suit relating to
Bezeq's charging of its ADSL service, according to B
Communications Ltd.'s June 30, 2010, Form 20-F filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec.
31, 2009.

B Communications, on April 14, 2010, completed its acquisition of
30.44% of Bezeq's outstanding shares and became the controlling
shareholder of Bezeq.

In November 2006, a lawsuit and motion for certification as a
class action were filed in the Tel Aviv District Court against
Bezeq.  The plaintiffs claim that because Bezeq charged customers
who connected to its ADSL service a monthly fee rather than a two-
monthly fee, they incurred financing losses and expenses.

The plaintiff estimates the amount of the claim, if certified as a
class action, at approximately NIS79 million ($20.92 million).

A hearing in the lawsuit is scheduled for July 2010.  The parties
are currently pursuing settlement negotiations.

B Communications Ltd., formerly 012 Smile.Communications Ltd. --
http://www.012smile.com/-- is a communication services provider
in Israel, offering a range of broadband and traditional voice
services. The Company operates in two segments: broadband and
traditional voice services.  The company's broadband services
include broadband Internet access with a suite of value-added
services, specialized data services and server hosting, as well as
services, such as local telephony via voice over broadband and a
wireless fidelity network of hotspots across Israel.  Its
traditional voice services include outgoing and incoming
international telephony, hubbing, roaming and signaling and
calling card services.  The company offers its services to
residential and business customers, as well as to Israeli cellular
operators and international communication services providers, or
carriers through its integrated multipurpose network, which allows
the company to provide services to almost all of the homes and
businesses in Israel.


B COMMUNICATIONS: Trial Bezeq "Disconnection Fee" Suit Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------------
The trial in a lawsuit against Bezeq The Israel Telecommunications
Corp., Ltd., in connection with its collection of a fee in the
event of disconnection, is ongoing, according to B Communications
Ltd.'s June 30, 2010, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

B Communications, on April 14, 2010, completed its acquisition of
30.44% of Bezeq's outstanding shares and became the controlling
shareholder of Bezeq.

In November 2006, a lawsuit and motion for certification as a
class action were filed against Bezeq in the Tel Aviv District
Court, alleging that Bezeq unlawfully collected a fee in the event
of disconnection due to non-payment of customer bills.

The plaintiff estimates the amount of the claim, if certified as a
class action, at approximately NIS189 million if certified as a
class action.

The trial is currently underway and evidence in the lawsuit is
being heard.

B Communications Ltd., formerly 012 Smile.Communications Ltd. --
http://www.012smile.com/-- is a communication services provider
in Israel, offering a range of broadband and traditional voice
services. The Company operates in two segments: broadband and
traditional voice services.  The company's broadband services
include broadband Internet access with a suite of value-added
services, specialized data services and server hosting, as well as
services, such as local telephony via voice over broadband and a
wireless fidelity network of hotspots across Israel.  Its
traditional voice services include outgoing and incoming
international telephony, hubbing, roaming and signaling and
calling card services.  The company offers its services to
residential and business customers, as well as to Israeli cellular
operators and international communication services providers, or
carriers through its integrated multipurpose network, which allows
the company to provide services to almost all of the homes and
businesses in Israel.


B COMMUNICATIONS: Cert. Bid in "Disconnection Delay" Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bezeq The Israel Telecommunications Corp., Ltd., awaits the ruling
of the Tel Aviv District Court on the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification in a suit over delay in sending disconnection
signal, according to B Communications Ltd.'s
June 30, 2010, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

B Communications, on April 14, 2010, completed its acquisition of
30.44% of Bezeq's outstanding shares and became the controlling
shareholder of Bezeq.

In November 2006, a lawsuit and motion for certification as a
class action were filed in the Tel Aviv District Court against
Bezeq, HOT, Cellcom, Partner and Pelephone.

The plaintiffs allege that when completing a call made from a
cellular line to a landline, if the call is disconnected by the
landline call recipient, Bezeq and HOT, both of which are landline
operators, delay sending the disconnection signal for about 60
seconds and as a result, the plaintiffs incur a loss which is
reflected in air-time costs and call fees.

The plaintiffs are the seeking aggregate compensation of
approximately NIS 158 million ($41.85 million) if the lawsuit is
certified as a class action.

In a procedural arrangement reached between the parties, it was
determined that the lawsuit would be heard against Bezeq and HOT,
while the lawsuit against Cellcom, Partner and Pelephone would be
heard as part of a similar lawsuit filed against them in August
2006.

The hearing on the motion to certify the lawsuit as a class action
is underway; the parties have submitted written closing statements
and are awaiting the Court's decision on the motion.

B Communications Ltd., formerly 012 Smile.Communications Ltd. --
http://www.012smile.com/-- is a communication services provider
in Israel, offering a range of broadband and traditional voice
services. The Company operates in two segments: broadband and
traditional voice services.  The company's broadband services
include broadband Internet access with a suite of value-added
services, specialized data services and server hosting, as well as
services, such as local telephony via voice over broadband and a
wireless fidelity network of hotspots across Israel.  Its
traditional voice services include outgoing and incoming
international telephony, hubbing, roaming and signaling and
calling card services.  The company offers its services to
residential and business customers, as well as to Israeli cellular
operators and international communication services providers, or
carriers through its integrated multipurpose network, which allows
the company to provide services to almost all of the homes and
businesses in Israel.


B COMMUNICATIONS: Bezeq Defends Shareholder Suit in Tel Aviv
------------------------------------------------------------
Bezeq The Israel Telecommunications Corp., Ltd., defends a lawsuit
alleging that it included false and misleading material
information in its financial statements, according to
B Communications Ltd.'s June 30, 2010, Form 20-F filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
Dec. 31, 2009.

B Communications, on April 14, 2010, completed its acquisition of
30.44% of Bezeq's outstanding shares and became the controlling
shareholder of Bezeq.

In May 2007, a lawsuit and motion for certification as a class
action were filed in the Tel Aviv District Court against Bezeq,
two former chief executive officers of Bezeq, directors of Bezeq
who served during the period relevant to the lawsuit and against
Ap.Sb.Ar. Holdings Ltd., which at the time was Bezeq's controlling
shareholder.

The plaintiff, who claims that he had purchased shares of Bezeq in
2006, alleges that the financial statements of Bezeq for fiscal
years 2004 and 2005 included false and misleading material
information regarding Bezeq's annual profits, property, plant and
equipment and equity, in view of the retroactive write-down of
NIS320 million of property, plant and equipment which was not
being used by Pelephone.

The total compensation sought in the lawsuit if certified as a
class action amounts to approximately NIS56.5 million ($15.9
million).

The lawsuit is in preliminary stages of document disclosure and
discovery.

B Communications Ltd., formerly 012 Smile.Communications Ltd. --
http://www.012smile.com/-- is a communication services provider
in Israel, offering a range of broadband and traditional voice
services. The Company operates in two segments: broadband and
traditional voice services.  The company's broadband services
include broadband Internet access with a suite of value-added
services, specialized data services and server hosting, as well as
services, such as local telephony via voice over broadband and a
wireless fidelity network of hotspots across Israel.  Its
traditional voice services include outgoing and incoming
international telephony, hubbing, roaming and signaling and
calling card services.  The company offers its services to
residential and business customers, as well as to Israeli cellular
operators and international communication services providers, or
carriers through its integrated multipurpose network, which allows
the company to provide services to almost all of the homes and
businesses in Israel.


B COMMUNICATIONS: Bezeq Defends Suit Over VAT Collected
------------------------------ ------------------------
Bezeq The Israel Telecommunications Corp., Ltd., defends a suit
alleging that it unlawfully collected value-added tax, according
to B Communications Ltd.'s June 30, 2010, Form 20-F filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
Dec. 31, 2009.

B Communications, on April 14, 2010, completed its acquisition of
30.44% of Bezeq's outstanding shares and became the controlling
shareholder of Bezeq.

In September 2007, a lawsuit and motion for certification as a
class action were filed in the Tel Aviv District Court against
Bezeq, alleging that Bezeq unlawfully collected VAT on interest
due to late payments and collection fees.

The total compensation sought in the lawsuit, if certified as a
class action, amounts to approximately NIS114 million ($30.2
million).  The lawsuit is in preliminary stages of document
disclosure and discovery.

B Communications Ltd., formerly 012 Smile.Communications Ltd. --
http://www.012smile.com/-- is a communication services provider
in Israel, offering a range of broadband and traditional voice
services. The Company operates in two segments: broadband and
traditional voice services.  The company's broadband services
include broadband Internet access with a suite of value-added
services, specialized data services and server hosting, as well as
services, such as local telephony via voice over broadband and a
wireless fidelity network of hotspots across Israel.  Its
traditional voice services include outgoing and incoming
international telephony, hubbing, roaming and signaling and
calling card services.  The company offers its services to
residential and business customers, as well as to Israeli cellular
operators and international communication services providers, or
carriers through its integrated multipurpose network, which allows
the company to provide services to almost all of the homes and
businesses in Israel.


B COMMUNICATIONS: Defends Suit Over Tariff for Text Messages
------------------------------------------------------------
B Communications Ltd. remains a defendant in a suit alleging that
it formed a cartel with other cellular operators, according to the
company's June 30, 2010, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

In April 2003, a motion for certification as a class action was
filed in the Tel Aviv District Court against the three principal
Israeli cellular operators.  The plaintiffs allege that the three
cellular companies formed a cartel among themselves for the
collection of a high and unfair tariff for text messages during
the period of March-June 2002.

The total amount sought in the lawsuit, if certified as a class
action, is approximately NIS 90 million ($23.84 million).

The hearing on the motion to certify the lawsuit as a class action
is underway.

B Communications Ltd., formerly 012 Smile.Communications Ltd. --
http://www.012smile.com/-- is a communication services provider
in Israel, offering a range of broadband and traditional voice
services. The Company operates in two segments: broadband and
traditional voice services.  The company's broadband services
include broadband Internet access with a suite of value-added
services, specialized data services and server hosting, as well as
services, such as local telephony via voice over broadband and a
wireless fidelity network of hotspots across Israel.  Its
traditional voice services include outgoing and incoming
international telephony, hubbing, roaming and signaling and
calling card services.  The company offers its services to
residential and business customers, as well as to Israeli cellular
operators and international communication services providers, or
carriers through its integrated multipurpose network, which allows
the company to provide services to almost all of the homes and
businesses in Israel.


B COMMUNICATIONS: Cert. Hearing in Suit vs. Pelephone Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------------
The hearing on the motion to certify a lawsuit as a class action
where Pelephone is a defendant is ongoing, according to B
Communications Ltd.'s June 30, 2010, Form 20-F filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
Dec. 31, 2009.

Pelephone is a subsidiary of Bezeq The Israel Telecommunications
Corp., Ltd.  B Communications, on April 14, 2010, completed its
acquisition of 30.44% of Bezeq's outstanding shares and became the
controlling shareholder of Bezeq.

In August 2006, a lawsuit and motion for certification as a class
action were filed in the Tel Aviv District Court against
Pelephone, Cellcom and Partner.

The plaintiffs allege that when Bezeq or HOT customers initiate
the termination of a call made to the customer from a cellular
network there is an excess charge until the call is actually
disconnected.  The total amount sought in the lawsuit, if
certified as a class action, is approximately NIS 100 million
($26.5 million).  In a procedural arrangement reached between the
parties, it was determined that this lawsuit would be combined
with a similar lawsuit filed against the defendants in November
2006, as described above.  The hearing on the motion to certify
the lawsuit as a class action is underway.

B Communications Ltd., formerly 012 Smile.Communications Ltd. --
http://www.012smile.com/-- is a communication services provider
in Israel, offering a range of broadband and traditional voice
services. The Company operates in two segments: broadband and
traditional voice services.  The company's broadband services
include broadband Internet access with a suite of value-added
services, specialized data services and server hosting, as well as
services, such as local telephony via voice over broadband and a
wireless fidelity network of hotspots across Israel.  Its
traditional voice services include outgoing and incoming
international telephony, hubbing, roaming and signaling and
calling card services.  The company offers its services to
residential and business customers, as well as to Israeli cellular
operators and international communication services providers, or
carriers through its integrated multipurpose network, which allows
the company to provide services to almost all of the homes and
businesses in Israel.


B COMMUNICATIONS: Pelephone Fights Suit Over New Immigrants Plan
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pelephone defends a suit alleging that it misled subscribers of
the New Immigrants Plan with respect to call connection fees,
according to B Communications Ltd.'s June 30, 2010, Form 20-F
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

Pelephone is a subsidiary of Bezeq The Israel Telecommunications
Corp., Ltd.  B Communications, on April 14, 2010, completed its
acquisition of 30.44% of Bezeq's outstanding shares and became the
controlling shareholder of Bezeq.

In June 2007, a lawsuit and motion for certification as a class
action were filed in the Tel Aviv District Court against
Pelephone.  The plaintiffs claim that Pelephone misled the
subscribers of the New Immigrants Plan with respect to call
connection fees.

The total amount sought in the lawsuit, if certified as a class
action, is approximately NIS239 million ($63.3 million).
The hearing on the motion to certify the lawsuit as a class action
is underway.

B Communications Ltd., formerly 012 Smile.Communications Ltd. --
http://www.012smile.com/-- is a communication services provider
in Israel, offering a range of broadband and traditional voice
services. The Company operates in two segments: broadband and
traditional voice services.  The company's broadband services
include broadband Internet access with a suite of value-added
services, specialized data services and server hosting, as well as
services, such as local telephony via voice over broadband and a
wireless fidelity network of hotspots across Israel.  Its
traditional voice services include outgoing and incoming
international telephony, hubbing, roaming and signaling and
calling card services.  The company offers its services to
residential and business customers, as well as to Israeli cellular
operators and international communication services providers, or
carriers through its integrated multipurpose network, which allows
the company to provide services to almost all of the homes and
businesses in Israel.


B COMMUNICATIONS: Pelephone Defends Suit Over "Radiation"
---------------------------------------------------------
Pelephone defends a suit alleging exposure to radiation from
cellular antennae, according to B Communications Ltd.'s June 30,
2010, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

Pelephone is a subsidiary of Bezeq The Israel Telecommunications
Corp., Ltd.  B Communications, on April 14, 2010, completed its
acquisition of 30.44% of Bezeq's outstanding shares and became the
controlling shareholder of Bezeq.

In December 2007, a lawsuit and motion for certification as a
class action were filed in the Tel Aviv District Court against
Pelephone, Cellcom and Partner.  The plaintiffs claim that the
defendants have exposed them to radiation from cellular antennae
which were allegedly unlawfully established and as a result, have
caused damage to their health.

The total amount sought in the lawsuit, if certified as a class
action, is approximately NIS1 billion ($377 million).

The hearing on the motion to certify the lawsuit as a class action
is underway.

B Communications Ltd., formerly 012 Smile.Communications Ltd. --
http://www.012smile.com/-- is a communication services provider
in Israel, offering a range of broadband and traditional voice
services. The Company operates in two segments: broadband and
traditional voice services.  The company's broadband services
include broadband Internet access with a suite of value-added
services, specialized data services and server hosting, as well as
services, such as local telephony via voice over broadband and a
wireless fidelity network of hotspots across Israel.  Its
traditional voice services include outgoing and incoming
international telephony, hubbing, roaming and signaling and
calling card services.  The company offers its services to
residential and business customers, as well as to Israeli cellular
operators and international communication services providers, or
carriers through its integrated multipurpose network, which allows
the company to provide services to almost all of the homes and
businesses in Israel.


B COMMUNICATIONS: Pelephone Fights Service Center Call Fee Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pelephone defends a suit alleging that it unlawfully collected
amounts from its subscribers for calls to its service centers,
according to B Communications Ltd.'s June 30, 2010, Form 20-F
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

Pelephone is a subsidiary of Bezeq The Israel Telecommunications
Corp., Ltd.  B Communications, on April 14, 2010, completed its
acquisition of 30.44% of Bezeq's outstanding shares and became the
controlling shareholder of Bezeq.

In April 2008, a lawsuit and motion for certification as a class
action were filed in the Tel Aviv District Court against
Pelephone.  The plaintiffs claim that Pelephone unlawfully
collected amounts from it subscribers for calls to Pelephone's
service centers in connection with "dial-on" calls from the voice
mail box and in excess of tariff plans.

The total amount sought in the lawsuit, if certified as a class
action, is approximately NIS60 million ($15.9 million).

The hearing on the motion to certify the lawsuit as a class action
is underway.

B Communications Ltd., formerly 012 Smile.Communications Ltd. --
http://www.012smile.com/-- is a communication services provider
in Israel, offering a range of broadband and traditional voice
services. The Company operates in two segments: broadband and
traditional voice services.  The company's broadband services
include broadband Internet access with a suite of value-added
services, specialized data services and server hosting, as well as
services, such as local telephony via voice over broadband and a
wireless fidelity network of hotspots across Israel.  Its
traditional voice services include outgoing and incoming
international telephony, hubbing, roaming and signaling and
calling card services.  The company offers its services to
residential and business customers, as well as to Israeli cellular
operators and international communication services providers, or
carriers through its integrated multipurpose network, which allows
the company to provide services to almost all of the homes and
businesses in Israel.


B COMMUNICATIONS: Pelephone Defends Suit Seeking Refund
-------------------------------------------------------
Pelephone defends a suit seeking the refund of amounts
which, allegedly, was unlawfully collected, according to
B Communications Ltd.'s June 30, 2010, Form 20-F filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
Dec. 31, 2009.

Pelephone is a subsidiary of Bezeq The Israel Telecommunications
Corp., Ltd.  B Communications, on April 14, 2010, completed its
acquisition of 30.44% of Bezeq's outstanding shares and became the
controlling shareholder of Bezeq.

In July 2008, a lawsuit and motion for certification as a class
action were filed in the Tel Aviv District Court.

The plaintiffs are seeking the refund of amounts which they allege
was unlawfully collected from Pelephone's subscribers in
connection with "dial-on" calls from Bezeq's information service,
late payments and for services provided at Pelephone's service
centers, in violation of Pelephone's license.

The total amount sought in the lawsuit, if certified as a class
action, is approximately NIS240 million ($63.57 million).

The hearing on the motion to certify the lawsuit as a class action
is underway.

B Communications Ltd., formerly 012 Smile.Communications Ltd. --
http://www.012smile.com/-- is a communication services provider
in Israel, offering a range of broadband and traditional voice
services. The Company operates in two segments: broadband and
traditional voice services.  The company's broadband services
include broadband Internet access with a suite of value-added
services, specialized data services and server hosting, as well as
services, such as local telephony via voice over broadband and a
wireless fidelity network of hotspots across Israel.  Its
traditional voice services include outgoing and incoming
international telephony, hubbing, roaming and signaling and
calling card services.  The company offers its services to
residential and business customers, as well as to Israeli cellular
operators and international communication services providers, or
carriers through its integrated multipurpose network, which allows
the company to provide services to almost all of the homes and
businesses in Israel.


CANADIAN SOLAR: Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set for August 2
--------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm reminds investors of the August 2, 2010 lead
plaintiff deadline in the class action lawsuits variously filed on
behalf of purchasers of the securities of Canadian Solar Inc.,
including purchasers of common stock, call options, and/or sellers
of put options between May 26, 2009 to June 1, 2010, inclusive.

To join the Canadian Solar class action, go to the Web site at
http://www.rosenlegal.com/or call:

     Laurence Rosen, Esq.
     Phillip Kim, Esq.
     THE ROSEN LAW FIRM
     Empire State Building
     350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5508
     New York, NY 10118
     Telephone: (212) 686-1060
                (866) 767-3653 (Toll-free)
     Facsimile: (212) 202-3827
     E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
             pkim@rosenlegal.com

for information on the class action.

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 CHOOSE TO DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT AND REMAIN AN
ABSENT CLASS MEMBER.

The actions allege that Canadian Solar and certain of its officers
and directors issued materially false and misleading statements
concerning the Company's financial condition, business and
operations. Particularly, the complaints assert that certain of
the Company's revenues may have been improperly recorded from
sales for which the Company had not been paid, and that certain
goods had been returned after the end of the quarter. According to
the complaints, Canadian Solar reported the commencement of an
investigation by the Audit Committee of the Company's Board of
Directors. The Company announced that it may revise its previously
reported revenues for 4Q09 and the 2009 fiscal year. As a result
of the investigation, Canadian Solar postponed both the release of
its 1Q2010 financial results and its quarterly conference call. As
a result of these and related adverse disclosures, Canadian
Solar's share price has dropped substantially, damaging
shareholders.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than August 2, 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

The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation.


CITIMORTGAGE INC: Accused of Extorting $30 "Reconveyance Fee"
-------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Rubin and Elyse Rubin, on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated v. CitiMortgage Inc., Case No. 108507/2010
(N.Y. Sup. Ct. June 28, 2010), asserts claims for extortion,
unjust enrichment, breach of contract and, as to the New York
members of the Class, under Section 349 of the New York General
Business Law.

Plaintiffs Robert Rubin and Elyse Rubin were the owners of a
residential property located at 222 Skillman Avenue, Oceanside,
New York, County of Nassau, State of New York, which property was
mortgaged to CitiMortgage, the lender when the Rubins purchased
their residential property.  The Rubins borrowed money from
CitiMortgage to pay a portion of the purchase price.  On June 15,
2010, the Rubins sold this residential property.  The Rubins
accuse the mortgage lending unit of Citigroup of including a
"reconveyance fee" of $30 in its payoff statement purportedly for
the preparation of a satisfaction of mortgage evidencing repayment
of the mortgage.  The Rubins believe their loan commitment letter,
promissory note and related documents were "silent" with respect
to the payment of this reconveyance fee.

Plaintiffs state that they were compelled to pay the reconveyance
fee for preparing the satisfaction of mortgage because, without
doing so, they would not have been able to close on the sale of
their residential property.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Kenneth A. Elan, Esq.
          217 Broadway, Suite 606
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 619-0261


EDEN SPRINGS: Tel Aviv Suit Alleges Water Contamination
-------------------------------------------------------
Itay Har-Or at Calcalist reports that as class action suit was
filed Thursday with the Tel Aviv District Court against mineral
water companies Neviot and Eden Springs Ltd., better known as "Mey
Eden."  The suit:

     -- seeks NIS 33 million (roughly $8.5 million) in damages
        from each company,

     -- claims that the twos 19.8 liter water containers, which
        are made of plastic, release hazardous phenols into the
        water, including Bisphenol A, making the water dangerous
        to drink;

     -- claims that the companies have knowingly withheld this
        information from the public.

The toxins released by the water containers, claim the plaintiffs,
may cause abnormal sexual development in men, attention deficit
disorder, obesity, Type-2 diabetes and respiratory problems, as
well as being carcinogenic.

The suit is pending the court's approval for its class action
status.

Mey Eden has said it "categorically rejects the fallacious
allegations made in the suit, which are completely baseless. All
of Mey Eden's products are perfectly safe and meet all relevant
quality standards for natural mineral water, and are packaged in
containers that meet all quality standards, according to those
used in the leading water companies in Israel and the world over."

"Studies by various food and health bodies worldwide have
concluded, unequivocally, that the water containers used in the
bottled water industry -- and Mey Eden -- are perfectly safe. We
intend to spare no effort to see this suit quashed."

Neviot has said, "We reject the allegations made in this
groundless suit. Reading it has revealed that many mistakes have
been made in the manner of testing, and in calculating and
presenting the results, thus rendering the lawsuit frivolous and
devoid any professional basis.

"Neviot meets all the standards named in the suit and stresses
that its containers pose no danger -- a fact supported by renowned
Israeli and international experts.  Various bodies worldwide have
determined that drinking from Neviot containers is perfectly
safe."


HARK PARTNERS: Film Crew Members Win $900,000 Judgment
------------------------------------------------------
Harris & Ruble said that after a three day trial, the Honorable
David L. Minning of the Superior Court of the State of California
for the County of Los Angeles, Central District, issued a Decision
on June 3, 2010, finding on behalf of a class of 89 Hollywood
crewmembers who were employed on the motion picture production
Hack.  The Judgment stems from the late and/or non-payment of
wages to the crew members, as well as the failure to issue proper
wage statements.  The production company and two producers of the
motion picture production were found to be liable as employers of
the crewmembers in the amount of $617,000, plus prejudgment
interest of some $300,000, costs, and an award of Plaintiffs'
attorneys' fees.

The case is Harout Zabounian, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, vs. Hack Partners LLC, a Pennsylvania
limited liability company; Brian Hartman, an individual; and Mike
Wittlin, an individual; and Doe One, through and including Doe One
Hundred, case no. BC 343449 (Calif. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty.),
and the plaintiffs are represented by:

     Alan Harris, Esq.
     Matthew E. Kavanaugh, Esq.
     HARRIS & RUBLE
     6424 Santa Monica Boulevard
     Los Angeles, CA 90038
     Telephone: (323) 962-3777
     Facsimile: (323) 962-3004

          - and -

     Maxwell Blecher, Esq.
     Donald Pepperman, Esq.
     BLECHER & COLLINS
     Los Angeles, California
     Telephone: (213) 622-4222
     Facsimile: (213) 622-1656


LOCKHEED MARTIN: Class Certification Sought in Tallevast Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Carl Mario Nudi at Bradenton Herald in Florida reports that
Circuit Court Judge Jannette Dunnigan heard closing arguments
Friday on whether a lawsuit against Lockheed Martin Corp. should
be expanded into a class action.  Judge Dunnigan said she will
rule at a later date on the request of the four plaintiffs who are
asking her to establish a medical monitoring system and to open it
up to a class action lawsuit.

The case heard Thursday is one of several lawsuits filed against
Lockheed claiming personal injury and property damage from the
exposure to the chemical beryllium.  Lockheed purchased the former
Loral American Beryllium plant at 1600 Tallevast Road and the
lawsuits claim the corporation is responsible for damages.

Attorney Ruben Honik, Esq., represented Paul O'Brien, who worked
at the beryllium plant on Tallevast Road that Lockheed purchased;
his wife, Nancy O'Brien, and Tallevast residents Wanda Washington
and Laura Ward.  Although none of them has tested positive for any
negative effects to exposure to the chemical, they are requesting
life-time medical tests to monitor whether they do develop any
exposure-related disease.

Mr. Honik argued his clients form three groups -- employees,
families of employees, and residents of the community -- that
should make up the class in a lawsuit.  He pointed to several
previous cases where the courts established a class of plaintiffs
after taking into consideration their commonality of claims and
the uniformity of their groups.

But Lockheed's attorney, Scott Winkelman, Esq., told the judge it
was precisely because the three groups are different that she
should not permit the lawsuit to become a class action.  Mr.
Winkelman argued that people have various levels of sensitivity to
beryllium exposure, and because of that difference they cannot be
lumped into one class.  He said that creating a class action
lawsuit would be a departure from the norm.

Mr. Honik rebutted Mr. Winkelman's arguments, saying that this is
a civil rights case.  "They didn't ask for the beryllium plant to
come into their community," he said.  "We're just trying to
prevent a civil rights violation by having Lockheed pay for
medical testing."

The plaintiffs' counsel may be reached at:

     Ruben Honik, Esq.
     GOLOMB & HONIK PC
     1515 Market St., Ste. 1100
     Philadelphia, PA 19102
     Telephone: (215) 985-9177
                (800) 355-3300
     Facsimile: (215) 985-4169
     E-mail: rhonik@golombhonik.com

Lockheed is being defended by:

     Scott Winkelman, Esq.
     CROWELL & MORING LLP
     1001 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
     Washington, D.C. 20004-2595
     Telephone: (202) 624-2972
     Facsimile: (202) 628-5116
     E-mail: swinkelman@crowell.com


MATRIX COMMUNICATION: Sued for Violating State Wage and Hour Laws
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Alex Thomas, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Matrix Communication Services, Inc. et al., Case No.
2010-CH-28466 (Ill. Cir. Ct. July 1, 2010), asserts violations of
the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act and the Illinois
Minimum Wage Law, unjust enrichment, breach of implied contract,
improper classification of class members as independent
contractors, and violation of the Fair Labor and Standards Act.
Mr. Thomas explains that Matrix failed to keep accurate time
records for all hours worked, failed to pay employees for all work
performed, made improper deductions from workers' pay, failed to
pay overtime compensation, and failed to comply with state wage
and hour laws.

Mr. Thomas worked as a non-exempt technician for defendants in the
State of Illinois.  Matrix and its co-defendants are in the
business of installing and servicing cable television services in
the state of Illinois.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          James B. Zouras, Esq.
          Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
          STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
          205 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 2560
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 233-1550

               - and -

          Jac A. Cotiguala, Esq.
          Brian D. Massatt, Esq.
          JAC A. COTIGUALA & ASSOCIATES
          431 South Dearborn St., Suite 606
          Chicago, IL 60605
          Telephone: (312) 939-2100


NOBEL BIOCARE: Calif. Dentist Files Suit Over Defective Implant
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sven Nordenstam at Reuters reports that Swiss dental implant maker
Nobel Biocare has been sued by a California dentist seeking class-
action status on behalf of dentists whose patients have suffered
complications such as bone loss from one of its products.

Doctor Jason M. Yamada filed the lawsuit on June 30 before the
U.S. District court in Los Angeles.  The lawsuit:

     -- alleges that Nobel Biocare had knowledge of the defect,
        but marketed the implant as safe and effective;

     -- seeks class action status to cover thousands of dentists
        in the U.S. who have used the NobelDirect implant;

     -- seeks compensation for dentists who have had to perform
        surgery on their patients, or pay for restorative surgery,
        after complications from the implants.

"Because of Nobel's practices, plaintiff and the class members now
face a flood of complaints from injured dental patients who have
needed, and will need, immediate intervention to remove the
defective implants," the lawyers Lopez McHugh and Audet & Partners
wrote in the 26-page complaint.

The Swedish Medical Products Agency investigated the implants in
2005 to 2006 after complaints about bone loss.  Nobel Biocare got
approval to continue sales, but the agency told it to revise
instructions and marketing material.

Nobel Biocare spokesman Nicolas Weidmann told Reuters on Monday
the implant was safe and that Nobel Biocare would fight the
lawsuit.  He also said NobelDirect was probably the most well
documented product in the entire industry as a result of the
Swedish investigation, and that it was safe if correctly used.


ONTARIO: License Issuers' Suit Gets Class Action Status
-------------------------------------------------------
A decision of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice released
June 30, 2010, allows the owner-operators of several hundred
drivers' license and vehicle registration offices to proceed by
way of a class action against the Ontario government over alleged
under-compensation.

Sam Pazzano at The Toronto Sun reports that former
Penetranguishene contractor Michel Mayotte launched the lawsuit in
October 2009 on behalf of some 370 former and current independent
contractors who allege they have been "unreasonably under-
compensated" since 2003.  The suit seeks $75 million against the
province.  Mr. Mayotte was terminated as contractor in January
2010 after more than 21 years in the business.

Privately owned issuing offices carry out much of Ontario's
responsibility for issuing drivers' licenses and vehicle
registrations.  Private issuers are independently-owned businesses
which are paid according to contracts written by Ontario.  Over
the past decade, several reports, including reports of the
province's Auditor General, have called attention to the
inadequacy of the issuers' compensation.

The court found that the lawsuit meets all of the criteria for
class-action status.

Toronto Sun relates that Justice Paul Perell held that the
contractors -- who are not employees of the government -- work as
a network of private issuers who complete approximately 88% of all
vehicles' registrations and 55% of all driver licenses in Ontario.

"This is a major step forward for the issuers in their effort to
obtain their fair compensation for the important job which they
carry out on behalf of the government," according to plaintiffs'
lawyer, Allan D.J. Dick.  Added Mr. Dick: "the private issuers
have no influence over their compensation and do not have any of
the protections of employees. They are totally dependent on the
government for fair compensation."

The issuers seek substantial additions to their compensation going
back to August 2003 and an update of their current compensation
formula in the future.

The decision in Mayotte v. Ontario is available at
http://www.sotosllp.com/class-actions/licence-issuers/

Private issuing offices have operated since 1917 and are an
example of outsourcing of government services in communities
across Ontario.  Background information on the private issuers,
including the reports of the Auditor General, is available at:
http://www.omvlia.com/

The license issuers are represented by Sotos LLP, Canada's leading
franchise law firm.  Plaintiffs' counsel may be reached at:

     Allan Dick, Esq.
     David Sterns, Esq.
     Vukica Djuric, Esq.
     SOTOS LLP
     180 Dundas Street West, Suite 1250
     Toronto, Ontario
     CANADA M5G 1Z8
     Telephone: (416) 977-5333
     Facsimile: (416) 977-0717
     E-mail: adjdick@sotosllp.com
             dsterns@sotosllp.com
             vdjuric@sotosllp.com


RESOURCE LIFE: Appeals Court Allows Class Suit to Proceed
---------------------------------------------------------
Greg Land at Fulton County Daily Report reports that in a
resounding defeat for the defendant insurance company, the Georgia
Court of Appeals has upheld a lower court's decision allowing a
class action to proceed on behalf of potentially hundreds of
thousands of customers who bought credit insurance when financing
their vehicles, but who -- in cases in which the loans were paid
off early or the cars were wrecked and the loans canceled -- were
not provided refunds of those premiums.

The appeals court also upheld a stiff sanction order levied by the
trial court over allegations of discovery abuse, which Chicago-
based Resource Life Insurance Co. had argued could cost it
hundreds of millions of dollars if allowed to stand.

"This was a well-deserved opinion," said plaintiffs attorney
Joel O. Wooten Jr., Esq., at Butler, Wooten & Fryhofer . "The fact
is, Resource Life tried to keep money that didn't belong to it and
it didn't earn."  As to the sanctions, he said, "unfortunately for
the defendants, they got just what they asked for."

The case began with an auto purchase by Dorothy Buckner in 2001.
According to the court's order, that same year Buckner's car was
totaled in a wreck, canceling out the balance of her loan. The
premium for such a credit insurance policy is a one-time, up-front
payment that covers the term of the loan; thus, if the loan is
canceled, the insured is due a return of the prorated balance of
the premium.

Ms. Buckner was owed a refund of $1,213 but, based upon an alleged
mathematical error by the automobile dealer who issued the refund,
did not get the entire amount.

In 2004, Ms. Buckner filed a class action in Muscogee County
Superior Court asserting that Resource Life, although able to
determine when each of its policyholders' accounts had been
cancelled, made no effort to determine when unearned premiums were
owed and to repay the same.  The complaint said that failure
constituted a "breach of contract, unjust enrichment, negligence,
and willful, wanton, and intentional misconduct."  The suit sought
compensation for any Resource Life policyholder whose loans were
terminated early, and an injunction ordering the company to
provide such refunds to those whose loans would be cancelled early
in the future.

Resource Life argued that its insurance certificates contained a
"written notice" section stating that it was the responsibility of
the insured to notify it of any early cancellation, and asked the
court for partial summary judgment and to deny class
certification.

The trial court declined to do so, and during discovery ordered
Resource Life to turn over information on each potential class
member, including "the amount of any unearned premium refunded or
credited to the insured and the date of such refund or credit."

The court also ordered the insurer to turn over the loan
termination date for any potential member, but Resource Life
responded that it had not received any written notice of LTDs for
any such policies and "continued to assert, throughout the course
of the litigation, that it could not obtain LTDs from lenders or
anyone else, including the automobile dealers who acted as its
agents."

In 2008, the plaintiffs learned that Resource Life had obtained
LTDs from at least 82 lenders as far back as 2005, and that the
Texas attorney general had provided the company "with several
thousand LTDs that his office had obtained from lenders."

The defense then claimed the information was privileged and,
facing a plaintiffs' motion for sanctions, asked the court to
appoint a special master to review it privately. The special
master found that, while some of the documents were privileged,
others were subject to discovery; the special master also
recommended sanctions against Resource Life for discovery abuse.

On Oct. 29, 2009, Chattahoochee Circuit Superior Court Judge
Douglas C. Pullen granted the sanctions motion, ruling that the
insurer had provided only 4 percent of the information he had
ordered disclosed, and that its failure to comply "was not
accidental or unavoidable, it was either willful or the result of
a conscious indifference to the consequences."

The sanctions consisted of the trial court's ruling that any
member of the class who, according to Resource Life's records,
could not be shown to have received an unearned premium refund
"'shall be presumed to have terminated early' and be owed such a
refund."

The average payment for such refunds, according to the order, was
$491.

Resource Life appealed on numerous grounds, arguing that the trial
court had erred in its summary judgment ruling and class
certification, and taking issue with its sanctions order, among
others.

A June 30 order by Judge G. Alan Blackburn, in concurrence with
Presiding Judge Anne Elizabeth Barnes and Judge Debra Bernes,
upheld Pullen's rulings in their entirety.

The court was correct to rule that Resource Life's "written
notice" language in its policies does not relieve the insurer of
its obligation to refund unearned premiums, it said, "unless it
expressly states that a failure to provide such notice will result
in a forfeiture of the insured's rights."

"Taken to its logical conclusion, Resource Life's notice argument
is that regardless of its knowledge that it is holding unearned
premiums, it is nevertheless free to retain those funds unless and
until an insured provides the company with written notice of the
fact that it is entitled to a refund."

Such a rule, it said, would be "contrary to public policy, because
it would allow an insurer to avoid the contractual obligations of
good faith and fair dealing owed to its insured."

Blackburn also dismissed Resource Life's arguments that variations
among state laws governing unearned premiums is not sufficient to
bar class certification.

Even assuming that one state's law may impose an "affirmative
duty" on the company to monitor loan terminations while another
does not, he wrote, "we cannot say that any variance among state
laws (if it exists) would, standing alone, be sufficient to
predominate over the common legal questions."

Blackburn's order takes a particularly dim view of Resource Life's
conduct that led to the discovery abuse sanctions.

Given that the company was in possession of some of the material
ordered turned over by the court even as it denied having it, and
"has not done so, despite having in excess of six years to meet
its obligation," the trial court was justified in levying the
sanctions.

Quoting the appeals court's decision in 2008's MARTA v. Doe
opinion, Blackburn wrote: "An interrogatory answer that falsely
denies the existence of discoverable information is not exactly
the equivalent to no response. It is worse than no response."

Mr. Wooten said that, while the potential class size probably will
be in excess of 1.4 million, the number will be substantially less
because many will not be owed a refund.  Even so, he estimated
"hundreds of thousands" of refunds will be due.  He said that he
had not spoken with opposing counsel prior to the appellate order,
but that both sides had been engaged in "some settlement
discussions" prior to its release.

"The more important issue here is that, as far as sanctions, you
had a defendant that was caught concealing evidence and refusing
to comply with the court's orders," Mr. Wooten said. "And as the
trial court said, when a defendant does that, they must face the
consequences of their actions."

The plaintiffs' counsel are:

     Joel O. Wooten Jr., Esq.
     James E. Butler, Esq.
     Kate S. Cook, Esq.
     John C. Morrison, Esq.
     Brandon L. Peak; Esq.
     BUTLER, WOOTEN & FRYHOFER
     105 13th Street
     P.O. Box 2766
     Columbus, GA 31902
     Telephone: (706) 890-4157
                (888) 341-2307 (Toll Free)
     Facsimile: (706) 323-2962

          - and -

     Gregory S. Ellington, Esq.
     COLUMBUS' HATCHER, STUBBS, LAND, HOLLIS & ROTHSCHILD LLP
     233 12th Street, Suite 500
     The Corporate Center
     Columbus, GA 31901
     Telephone: (706) 243-6205
     Facsimile: (706) 243-5205
     E-mail: GSE@hatcherstubbs.com

          - and -

     Samuel W. Oates Jr., Esq.
     OATES & COURVILLE
     1043 First Avenue, Rankin Square, P.O. Box 20
     Columbus, GA 31902
     Telephone: (706) 256-8986
                (888) 578-7606 (Toll free)
     Facsimile: (706) 327-8088

          - and -

     Frank M. Lowrey IV, Esq.
     Michael B. Terry, Esq.
     BONDURANT, MIXSON & ELMORE
     1201 W. Peachtree Street NW, Suite 3900
     Atlanta, GA  30309
     Telephone: (404) 881-4118
     Facsimile: (404) 881-4111
     E-mail: lowrey@bmelaw.com
             terry@bmelaw.com

Resource Life is represented by:

     Joel S. Feldman, Esq.
     SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
     One South Dearborn
     Chicago, Illinois  60603
     Telephone: (312) 853-2030
     Facsimile: (312) 853-7036
     E-mail: jfeldman@sidley.com

          - and -

     Frank C. Jones, Esq.
     JONES, CORK & MILLER LLP
     5th Floor SunTrust Bank Bldg.
     435 Second Street, P.O. Box 6437
     Macon, Georgia 31208
     Telephone: (478) 745-2821
     Facsimile: (478) 743-9609
     E-mail: frank.jones@jonescork.com

          - and -

     Benjamin A. Land, Esq.
     BUCHANAN & LAND LLP
     P.O. Box 2848, 1425 Wynnton Road
     Columbus, GA 31902
     Telephone: (706) 323-2848
     Facsimile: (706) 323-4242
     E-mail: benland@buchananland.com


ST. LOUIS VETERANS: Unsafe Dental Job May Expose Veterans to HIV
----------------------------------------------------------------
Various reports say more than 1,800 veterans may have been exposed
to deadly viruses including Hepatitis and human immunodeficiency
virus after they received dental work at the St. Louis Veterans
Affairs Medical Center in Missouri.  The John Cochran Division of
the facility last week began mailing letters to 1,812 veterans who
were treated at the facility from February 2009 to March 2010.

The issue stems from a failure to clean dental instruments
properly, the hospital told CNN affiliate KSDK.

According to Fox News, the VA said the dental equipment was
sterilized -- but it was "not sterilized to the exact
specifications of the manufacturers guidelines."

Fox News says although the VA concluded that the risk of
"infection was extremely low," the agency decided it was still
necessary to disclose the error to patients who were treated at
the medical center during that 13-month period.  They are now
offering free blood tests to screen for HIV as well as hepatitis B
and C.

"VA leadership recognizes the seriousness of this situation and
has implemented safeguards to prevent a similar situation from
occurring again," the letter said, according to Fox News.

According to St. Louis Post-Dispatch, VA spokeswoman Laurie
Tranter said the problem was discovered during an inspection that
took place in mid March.

The St. Louis Veterans Affairs Medical Center provides health care
to more than 50,000 veterans a year.


TOYOTA MOTOR: To Recall 270,000 Vehicles World Wide
---------------------------------------------------
Toyota Motor Corp. will recall 270,000 vehicles world-wide,
including luxury Lexus sedans, to fix faulty engines, The
Associated Press reports.

According to the report, Toyota spokesman Paul Nolasco said that
the recalled vehicles include seven Lexus models as well as the
popular Crown.  The report relates that of the 270,000 cars, some
180,000 were sold overseas and 90,000 in Japan.

Mr. Nolasco, the report notes, said Toyota Motor will inform
Japan's transport ministry of a recall of 90,000 vehicles.

The report says that the latest quality lapse comes as the world's
largest auto maker scrambles to repair its reputation following
the recall of 8.5 million vehicles around the globe because of
problems with sticking accelerator pedals.

Toyota, the report relates, was slapped with a record $16.4
million fine in the U.S. for acting too slowly to recall vehicles
with defects.  Toyota dealers have repaired millions of vehicles,
but the auto maker still faces more than 200 lawsuits tied to
accidents, the lower resale value of Toyota vehicles, and the drop
in the company's stock, the report adds.

                       About Toyota Motor

Toyota Motor Corporation -- http://toyota.jp/-- primarily
conducts business in the automotive industry.  Toyota also
conducts business in the finance and other industries.  It is
organized in three segments: automotive operations, financial
services operations and all other operations.  Toyota's automotive
operations include the design, manufacture, assembly and sale of
passenger cars, minivans and commercial vehicles, such as trucks
and related parts and accessories.  Toyota's financial services
business consists primarily of providing financing to dealers and
their customers for the purchase or lease of Toyota vehicles.
Toyota's financial services also provide retail leasing through
the purchase of lease contracts originated by Toyota dealers.
Related to Toyota's automotive operations is its development of
intelligent transport systems (ITS). Toyota's all other operations
business segment includes the design and manufacture of
prefabricated housing and information technology related
businesses.


TULSA: Police to Buy Cameras Under Discrimination Suit Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Nicole Marshall at Tulsa World reports that Tulsa police are
moving ahead with plans to purchase digital video recording
systems for squad cars as part of a settlement in a class-action
lawsuit brought by black police officers against the city.

The department put out the bid invitation on June 15, and the
bidders are currently contacting the department to inquire about
the required specifications, Capt. Jonathan Brooks said.

In May, U.S. Senior District Judge Terence Kern approved a
settlement agreement in the racial-discrimination lawsuit.  The
agreement includes a 15-year cap on specialty assignments within
the Police Department and a provision that calls for the city to
pay for, install and maintain cameras in all Tulsa police patrol
and traffic vehicles.

Judge Kern gave the parties until July 30 to submit an agreed-upon
order that will deal with the process of getting the cameras
installed in the squad cars as well as the final termination of
the decree.  Based on the current plan, all of the bids are due by
July 22, and the department hopes to select a vendor by Aug. 5,
Capt. Brooks said.

Cameras were installed in the city's police cars in the mid- to
late-1990s as a result of the public's response to the 1993
killing of Officer Gus Spanos during a traffic stop.  The cameras
were largely paid for by a private fundraising effort.  But
because of a lack of money from the city's general fund and
changes in technology, the cameras were absent from the cars by
around the turn of the millennium.

The previous system that police used had several moving parts that
broke easily, Capt. Brooks said.  He likened it to having a VCR
sitting in the backseat of a car that would be compromised by the
typical wear and tear of police work and extreme temperatures.
"That's why we made sure that a five-year maintenance agreement
was mandatory as part of the bid," Capt. Brooks said.

In contrast, the new system will have no moving parts and will be
more resistant to the extreme temperatures.  Each car will likely
have one or more cameras and one or more microphones. The video
will be automatically uploaded wirelessly, Capt. Brooks said.

The department is waiting on the bids before it says how much the
systems will cost the city.  The amount also includes the cost of
the equipment needed to store the video.

"There is much more than the cameras in the cars to consider,"
Capt. Brooks said.

City lawsuit settlements are typically paid for from the city's
sinking fund, which is funded with property taxes.

After entering into a contract with a vender, the department hopes
to start testing the system at the first of November. To put them
in every patrol car could take about a year, he said.

"So, for example, if our goal is to install the systems in two
cars a day, we have about 550 or so cars to be outfitted," Capt.
Brooks said.


WEATHERFORD INT'L: Sued in Texas for Breach of Fiduciary Duty
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that shareholders claim directors
of Weatherford International, an oil and natural gas company, cost
the firm $108 million in SEC and Justice Department Foreign
Corrupt Practices Act investigations and sanctions, in Harris
County Court, Houston.

A copy of the Complaint in Neff v. Brady, et al., Case No.
2010-40764 (Tex. Dist. Ct., Harris Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/07/02/SCA.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joe Kendall, Esq.
          Jamie J. McKey, Esq.
          Scott Kendall, Esq.
          Daniel Hill, Esq.
          KENDALL LAW GROUP, LLP
          3232 McKinney Ave., Suite 700
          Dallas, TX 75204
          Telephone: (214) 744-3000

               - and -

          Darren J. Robbins, Esq.
          Travis E. Downs III, Esq.
          Benny C. Goodman III, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (6190 231-1058


* Analysis in Aussie Class Suits Show Low Recovery for Plaintiffs
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Gluyas, writing for The Australian, reports that an
analysis of six shareholder class actions in Australia concludes
that returns have varied from a lowly 1c to 17c in the dollar.

The report also notes the Australian Bankers Association -- whose
members face a series of class actions over penalty fees -- seized
on the data.

"This shows the real beneficiaries in these cases are lawyers and
litigation funders, not customers," ABA chief executive Steven
Munchenberg said.

"Bank customers have benefited a lot more from the $550 million in
exception fees that the banks have cut over the last 12 months."

The study has been circulating among large corporates, which are
increasingly under attack by plaintiff law firms and litigation
funders.

Class action law firms Maurice Blackburn and Slater & Gordon said
the analysis was "grossly misleading" and a "slur" on their
professional integrity.  Hugh McLernon, head of litigation funder
IMF Australia, said it was "hopelessly wrong".

Maurice Blackburn, which is handling class actions against 12
banks, is expected to launch the first case in about a month,
alleging the lenders acted illegally in claiming penalty fees for
late payments or overdrawn accounts.  The fees are said to be
illegal because they are excessive and bear no relationship to the
costs incurred by the lenders.

Commonwealth Bank was targeted last week, with Sydney law firm
Levitt Robinson lodging a Federal Court class action over the
collapse of Storm Financial.  Lawyer Stewart Levitt said hundreds
of Storm investors represented by the firm had lost their life
savings in 2008 after Commonwealth sold them out of the
sharemarket without making margin calls.  Mr. Levitt said a
resolution scheme set up by Slater & Gordon and the bank to settle
claims by Storm investors was "a shelter for the bank, with too
many investors left heavily exposed".

In the initial stages of a class action, the claimed loss is at
the high end. It often assumes participation by all potential
claimants, and according to Andrew Watson, Esq., the principal of
Maurice Blackburn's class action department, there is no
acknowledgement of any downside risk.

"Calculation of the claimed loss is done in an environment where
the (class action) solicitor doesn't make any concessions about
the strength of the case," Mr. Watson said.

"No solicitor in any public commentary will acknowledge any
weakness in relation to assessment of damages, particularly at the
outset.

"In a trial or leading up to it, the assessment becomes more
realistic."

Also, higher initial claimed losses led to greater media attention
and higher levels of participation.

The problem with this was that final returns -- measured in cents
per dollar claimed -- were depressed by an artificially high
starting figure.

In the Aristocrat Leisure case, for example, the initial claimed
loss was A396 million, but the assessment of damages for the trial
was about A$200 million, Mr. Watson said.

On a similar basis, he said, the typical class action settlement
involved a return of 40c-60c in the dollar -- "probably towards
the higher end".

Slater & Gordon commercial and project litigation head James
Higgins, Esq., was more combative.  "The information (in the
table) concerning those cases in which Slater & Gordon are
involved is grossly misleading and a slur on the professional
integrity of our lawyers," Mr. Higgins said.

"They have clearly been prepared by anonymous people with an
agenda to frighten off Australians from pursuing their legal
rights."

The Slater & Gordon chief said shareholder class actions regularly
resulted in claimants obtaining between 40% and 100% of their
alleged losses.

Defendants, however, often required "draconian" confidentiality
agreements, preventing wider publication of the results.

In the global settlement of the Opes Prime case, there were no
such restrictive agreements.  Customers of the collapsed broking
firm got A$253 million, or 37c in the dollar.

The settlement, which roped in a Slater & Gordon class action, was
not included in the table because it was negotiated by the
administrator, John Lindholm of Ferrier Hodgson.

For such a high-profile area of the law, it is surprising there is
little non-partisan research on the success or otherwise of class
actions in dispute resolution.

This should change by the end of next year, when Monash University
academic Vince Morabito is scheduled to complete a A$200,000,
three-year research project after securing selective access to
Maurice Blackburn and Slater & Gordon litigation files.

Professor Morabito said the research should arrive at an average
payment received by a class action litigant, either as part of a
settlement or a court award of damages. The figure was still
likely to be thousands of dollars.

"But that should increase as older cases involving such things as
food poisoning are replaced by larger shareholder settlements,"
Professor Morabito said.

                            *********

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  * * *