CAR_Public/100708.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Thursday, July 8, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 133

                            Headlines

APPLE INC: Offers Free Software Upgrade for iPhone 4
ARIZONA: American Bar Assoc. Files Amicus Brief on Immigration Law
B COMMUNICATIONS: Pelephone Defends "Saved Text Messages" Suit
B COMMUNICATIONS: Pelephone Defends Suit Over "Data Services"
B COMMUNICATIONS: Pelephone Defends "License Violation" Suit

B COMMUNICATIONS: Pelephone Defends Suit Over "Exit Fee"
B COMMUNICATIONS: Pelephone Faces Suit Over Full Exit Fees
B COMMUNICATIONS: Suit Seeks Radiation Exposure Insurance
B COMMUNICATIONS: Pelephone Faces Suit Over Antenna Sites
B COMMUNICATIONS: Pelephone Faces Suit in Central District Court

B COMMUNICATIONS: Bezeq Defends Four Suits Over Call Cards
B COMMUNICATIONS: Bezeq Int'l Defends Suit Over Dollar Billing
B COMMUNICATIONS: Bezeq Int'l Defends Suit Over Services Fees
B COMMUNICATIONS: Defends Suit Over Technical Support Fees
B COMMUNICATIONS: DBS Defends Suit Over Television Broadcasts

BANK OF AMERICA: Accused of Forcible Entry and Deceptive Practices
BANK OF NEW YORK: NY Court Dismisses Suit Over Lost Backup Tapes
CANADA: Class Suit Mulled Against Police Over G20 Summit Arrests
CASEY'S GENERAL: 2nd Takeover Class Suit Filed in Iowa
COMPANHIA ENERGETICA: Defends Suits Over Electricity Rates

COMPANHIA ENERGETICA: Defends Suits by Minas Gerais Public Atty.
COMPANHIA ENERGETICA: Defends Suit Over Conduct Adjustment Pact
ELDERS LIMITED: Talks to Lawyers as ASIC Begins Probe
ENERGY TRANSFER: 5th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Traders' Suit
FLORIDA: Class Suit Mulled Over Law Banning Sale of Bongs

KILLINGTON LTD: Pass Holders Appeal Ruling Dismissing Class Suit
KOREAN AIR: Cargo Firms Mull Class Suit vs. Airlines Over Cartel
L'OREAL USA: Accused of False Advertising and Unfair Competition
MAIN ROADS: Trilby Misso Prepares Suit to Clear Roads of Trees
MOTRICITY INC: 9th Cir. Reverses Notice Sanction in Walker Suit

SIGNATURE MANAGEMENT: Tex. Sup. Ct. Allows Quixtar Suit to Proceed
SK ENERGY: Kim & Kims Firm to Sue LPG Firms Over Price-Fixing


                            *********

APPLE INC: Offers Free Software Upgrade for iPhone 4
----------------------------------------------------
As reported by the Class Action Reporter on Monday, at least five
class actions have been filed over Apple Inc.'s iPhone 4 reception
problems.  The suits seek damages for negligence, breach of
warranty, defective design, intentional misrepresentation,
negligent misrepresentation, fraud and deceptive trade.

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

On July 2, 2010, Apple issued a open letter to users of iPhone 4:

Dear iPhone 4 Users,

The iPhone 4 has been the most successful product launch in
Apple's history. It has been judged by reviewers around the world
to be the best smartphone ever, and users have told us that they
love it. So we were surprised when we read reports of reception
problems, and we immediately began investigating them. Here is
what we have learned.

To start with, gripping almost any mobile phone in certain ways
will reduce its reception by 1 or more bars. This is true of
iPhone 4, iPhone 3GS, as well as many Droid, Nokia and RIM phones.
But some users have reported that iPhone 4 can drop 4 or 5 bars
when tightly held in a way which covers the black strip in the
lower left corner of the metal band. This is a far bigger drop
than normal, and as a result some have accused the iPhone 4 of
having a faulty antenna design.

At the same time, we continue to read articles and receive
hundreds of emails from users saying that iPhone 4 reception is
better than the iPhone 3GS. They are delighted. This matches our
own experience and testing. What can explain all of this?

We have discovered the cause of this dramatic drop in bars, and it
is both simple and surprising.

Upon investigation, we were stunned to find that the formula we
use to calculate how many bars of signal strength to display is
totally wrong. Our formula, in many instances, mistakenly displays
2 more bars than it should for a given signal strength. For
example, we sometimes display 4 bars when we should be displaying
as few as 2 bars. Users observing a drop of several bars when they
grip their iPhone in a certain way are most likely in an area with
very weak signal strength, but they don't know it because we are
erroneously displaying 4 or 5 bars. Their big drop in bars is
because their high bars were never real in the first place.

To fix this, we are adopting AT&T's recently recommended formula
for calculating how many bars to display for a given signal
strength. The real signal strength remains the same, but the
iPhone's bars will report it far more accurately, providing users
a much better indication of the reception they will get in a given
area. We are also making bars 1, 2 and 3 a bit taller so they will
be easier to see.

We will issue a free software update within a few weeks that
incorporates the corrected formula. Since this mistake has been
present since the original iPhone, this software update will also
be available for the iPhone 3GS and iPhone 3G.

We have gone back to our labs and retested everything, and the
results are the same -- the iPhone 4's wireless performance is the
best we have ever shipped. For the vast majority of users who have
not been troubled by this issue, this software update will only
make your bars more accurate. For those who have had concerns, we
apologize for any anxiety we may have caused.

As a reminder, if you are not fully satisfied, you can return your
undamaged iPhone to any Apple Retail Store or the online Apple
Store within 30 days of purchase for a full refund.

We hope you love the iPhone 4 as much as we do.

Thank you for your patience and support.

Apple


Press Contacts:

     Natalie Harrison
     Apple
     E-mail: harri@apple.com
     Telephone: (408) 862-0565

     Steve Dowling
     Apple
     E-mail: dowling@apple.com
     Telephone: (408) 974-1896

According to intomobile.com, Apple is waiving 10% restocking fee
for returned iPhones.


ARIZONA: American Bar Assoc. Files Amicus Brief on Immigration Law
------------------------------------------------------------------
The American Bar Association on June 30 filed a friend-of-the-
court brief urging the federal district court in Arizona to bar
enforcement of the state's recently enacted law authorizing police
to stop individuals who they suspect are in the United States
illegally and to detain them if they are unable to produce proof
of citizenship or legal immigration status.

ABA President Carolyn B. Lamm said it is "extraordinary" for the
association to file an amicus brief in a case at the district
court level, rather than waiting for it to reach an appellate
court, but "an extraordinary law . . . requires extraordinary
action." She vowed the association will "oppose, very strongly,
any incursion on equal protection [or] substantive due process, by
such things as racial profiling and segmenting groups out."  The
law runs afoul of fundamental ABA positions opposing racial
profiling and supporting federal preemption of immigration law,
she added.

The brief was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Arizona in the case of Friendly House v. Michael B. Whiting.  The
brief lists four reasons to block enforcement of the state law.

By requiring that police officers with a "reasonable suspicion"
that an individual is unlawfully present in the United States
verify the person's immigration status, the law will increase use
of racial profiling, according to the brief.  A qualification
purporting to limit use of race, color or national origin in
applying the law "will not inhibit the use of racial profiling in
apprehension and detention," it says, noting that "racial
profiling undermines respect for the rule of law and the criminal
justice system."

By mandating detention of suspect individuals until their
immigration status can be verified, the law will cause unlawful
and unreasonable detentions, according to the brief.  "[T]he ABA
is deeply concerned that these detentions will take place without
the basic due process protections and the checks and balances that
should be taken for granted under our legal system," it says.
Also, because U.S. citizens are not required to carry
identification, the law "will necessarily result in the detention
of citizens who have committed no criminal offense but do not have
identification on their persons when stopped."

Because "Arizona will not -- and cannot claim that it will -- be
operating under a delegation of authority from the federal
government," the state will be required to appoint defense counsel
at state expense for individuals who cannot afford to hire their
own.  This "will necessarily result in an increased burden on
Arizona's defense attorneys and indigent defense system," as well
as on courts and prosecutors, says the brief.

Finally, "[t]he U.S. Constitution has vested exclusive power over
naturalization matters with the federal government," and the
Arizona law represents a state attempt to usurp that authority,
the brief argues.

Drew Singer, writing for JURIST, reports that the Mexican
government last month filed an amicus curiae brief supporting the
ACLU suit, claiming a substantial interest in ensuring its
"bilateral diplomatic relations" with the US remain "transparent,
consistent and reliable, and not frustrated by the actions of
individual US states."  The government also claims an interest in
ensuring that its citizens are "accorded human and civil rights
when present in the US in accordance with federal immigration
law."

The Arizona immigration bill requires that police seek proof of a
person's immigration status if they have a reasonable suspicion
that the person is in the country illegally.  The law is set to go
into effect in January 2011.


B COMMUNICATIONS: Pelephone Defends "Saved Text Messages" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pelephone defends a suit alleging that it unlawfully saves text
messages sent via its network, 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 2009, a lawsuit and motion for certification as a class
action were filed in the Central Region District Court.

The plaintiffs are seeking declaratory relief that Pelephone
unlawfully saves text messages sent via its network, an order that
Pelephone delete the information, an injunction to prevent
Pelephone from saving text messages in the future and monetary
relief in an amount to be determined by the Court.

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 "Data Services"
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pelephone defends a suit seeking the refund of amounts allegedly
unlawfully collected by the respondents for data services provided
by Shamir Systems Ltd., and Unicell Advanced Cellular Solutions
Ltd., and Unicell, 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 2009, a lawsuit and motion for certification as a class
action were filed in the Tel Aviv District Court against
Pelephone, Shamir, and Unicell.

The plaintiffs are seeking the refund of amounts allegedly
unlawfully collected by the respondents (which are charged through
the cellular bill issued by Pelephone) for data services provided
by Shamir and Unicell.

The total amount sought in the lawsuit, if certified as a class
action, is approximately NIS200 million ($53 million).

The plaintiffs are also seeking an order instructing the
respondents to discontinue the collection of such amount.

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 "License Violation" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Pelephone defends a suit alleging violation of its license,
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 October 2009, a lawsuit and motion for certification as a class
action were filed in the Tel Aviv District Court against
Pelephone.

The plaintiff claims that Pelephone is in violation of its license
in connection with benefits offered to customers and customer
commitment periods.

The plaintiff is seeking compensation in a total amount, if the
lawsuit if certified as a class action, of approximately NIS331
million ($87.7 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 "Exit Fee"
--------------------------------------------------------
Pelephone defends a suit seeking cancellation and a refund of the
exit fee 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 December 2009, a lawsuit and motion for certification as a
class action were filed in the Tel Aviv District Court against
Pelephone.

The plaintiffs are seeking cancellation and a refund of the exit
fee which Pelephone charges subscribers who wish to disconnect
from the service during the commitment period.

The total amount sought in the lawsuit, if certified as a class
action, is approximately NIS50 million ($13.25 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 Faces Suit Over Full Exit Fees
----------------------------------------------------------
Pelephone faces a suit alleging that it unlawfully collected a
full exit fee from customers who terminated their agreement during
the commitment period instead of a proportionate exit fee,
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 February 2010, a lawsuit and motion for certification as a
class action were filed in the Jerusalem District Court against
Pelephone.

The plaintiffs are seeking the refund of amounts that Pelephone
allegedly unlawfully collected as a full exit fee from customers
who terminated their agreement during the commitment period
instead of a proportionate exit fee.

In addition, the plaintiffs are seeking the refund of amounts that
Pelephone allegedly unlawfully collected for an exit fee for a
basic television package over cellular despite the fact that the
package was given to the plaintiff free of charge.
The total amount sought in the lawsuit, if certified as a class
action, is approximately NIS50 million ($13.25 million).

The plaintiffs are also seeking an order instructing Bezeq to
cease collecting such charges.

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: Suit Seeks Radiation Exposure Insurance
---------------------------------------------------------
Pelephone faces a suit alleging that it failed to procure
insurance covering liability for bodily harm caused by exposure to
cellular radiation, 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 March 2010, a lawsuit and motion for certification as a class
action were filed in the Tel Aviv District Court against Pelephone
and Cellcom.

The plaintiffs have asserted an adjust enrichment claim against
Pelephone on the basis that in alleged violation of its license,
Pelephone has allegedly failed to procure insurance covering
liability for bodily harm caused by exposure to cellular
radiation.

The total amount sought in the lawsuit, if certified as a class
action, is approximately NIS4.2 billion ($1.11 billion), of which
NIS2.1 billion is sought from Pelephone.

The plaintiffs are also seeking an order instructing Pelephone to
obtain such insurance.  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 Faces Suit Over Antenna Sites
---------------------------------------------------------
Pelephone faces a suit alleging violation of duty to establish
cellular antenna sites in the required amount and spread,
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 May 2010, a lawsuit and motion for certification as a class
action were filed in the Central District Court against Pelephone
and three other cellular operators.  The plaintiffs claim that the
defendants violated their duty to establish cellular antenna sites
in the required amount and spread, that they violated their duty
to test, repair and provide notice regarding levels of non-
ionizing radiation emitted from cellular phones after they have
been repaired, and also violated their duty to provide a warning
with respect to the hazard involved in the holding of cellular
phones.

The plaintiffs are seeking aggregate compensation from Pelephone
of approximately NIS3.68 billion ($0.97 billion) and aggregate
compensation from the defendants of approximately NIS12 billion
($3.17 billion).

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 Faces Suit in Central District Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pelephone faces a suit alleging that it unlawfully charges its
customers for several services that were not requested by the
customers, 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 2010, a lawsuit and motion for certification as a class
action were filed in the Central District Court against Pelephone.

The plaintiff claims that Pelephone unlawfully charges its
customers for several services that were not requested by the
customers and transferred customers' details to third party
suppliers without their consent.  The plaintiff is seeking
compensation for personal damages in the amount of NIS958
(approximately $252).

The total amount of the lawsuit if certified as a class action was
not indicated in the lawsuit, but the lawsuit estimates it would
be hundreds of millions of NIS.  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: Bezeq Defends Four Suits Over Call Cards
----------------------------------------------------------
Bezeq International defends four lawsuits in connection with its
international calling cards, 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.

These four lawsuits and motions for certification as a class
action were filed against Bezeq International by plaintiffs who
claim that Bezeq International's international calling cards to
certain foreign destinations provide less than the amount of time
indicated on the cards.  The plaintiffs in each of the lawsuits
also allege that Bezeq International unlawfully deducted the time
spent when unsuccessfully attempting to call someone from the card
and formed a cartel with other international communication
companies that raised the prices of calling cards.

The plaintiffs in each of the lawsuits also petitioned the Court
to order Bezeq International to cease the foregoing acts.
The hearing in the motions to certify the lawsuits as a class
action is underway.

The lawsuits are being heard together in the Tel Aviv District
Court, although their proceedings have not formally been
consolidated.  The four suits are:

     -- a suit filed in April 2008 with respect to international
        calling cards to Nepal.  The plaintiffs' are seeking
        compensation in the aggregate amount of NIS115 million
        ($30.5 million), if the lawsuit is certified as a class
        action;

     -- a suit filed in April 2008 with respect to international
        calling cards to the Philippines.  The plaintiffs' are
        seeking compensation in the aggregate amount of
        NIS566 million ($151 million), if the lawsuit is
        certified as a class action;

     -- a suit filed originally in the Central Region District
        Court in April 2008 with respect to international
        calling cards to Thailand.  The lawsuit was subsequently
        transferred to the Tel Aviv District Court.  The
        plaintiffs are seeking compensation in the aggregate
        amount of NIS478 million ($127 million), if the lawsuit
        is certified as a class action; and

     -- a suit filed in June 2008 with respect to international
        calling cards to Thailand.  The plaintiffs are seeking
        compensation in the aggregate amount of NIS478 million
        ($127 million), if the lawsuit is certified as a class
        action.

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 Int'l Defends Suit Over Dollar Billing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bezeq International defends a suit alleging that it unlawfully
charged customers who were being billed based on a dollar tariff,
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.

In July 2008, two lawsuits and motions for certification as a
class action were filed in the Tel Aviv District Court against
Bezeq International by customers of Bezeq International.

The plaintiffs claim that Bezeq International unlawfully charged
customers who were being billed based on a dollar tariff on the
basis of a higher dollar exchange rate than the representative
dollar exchange rate.  Since the facts and legal arguments in both
cases are similar, with the consent of the parties, one of the
lawsuits was withdrawn and the first lawsuit filed will be heard.

The lawsuit does not specify the amount claimed, but the
plaintiffs estimate the damages to be tens of millions of NIS.
Following a preliminary hearing, the plaintiffs asked the Court to
reduce the class action group to those customers of Bezeq
International who were originally customers of "Bezeq Zahav."  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: Bezeq Int'l Defends Suit Over Services Fees
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bezeq International defends a suit seeking reimbursement of excess
amounts allegedly 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.

On May 4, 2009, a lawsuit and motion for certification as a class
action were filed in the Tel Aviv District Court against Bezeq
International.

The plaintiff is seeking reimbursement of excess amounts allegedly
unlawfully collected by Bezeq International for services that the
plaintiff claims he did not order and for the increase of the rate
for Internet access after the first year.

The plaintiff is seeking personal compensation in the amount of
NIS2,800 ($745) and if certified as a class action, in the amount
of NIS216 million ($58 million) for the entire class.

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: Defends Suit Over Technical Support Fees
----------------------------------------------------------
Bezeq International defends a suit seeking reimbursement of the
amounts allegedly unlawfully collection for call made to the
technical support call 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.

On Jan. 24, 2010, a lawsuit and motion for certification as a
class action were filed in the Central Region District Court
against Bezeq International and four other communication
licensees.

The plaintiffs are seeking reimbursement of the amounts allegedly
unlawfully collection for call made to the technical support call
centers.

The total amount of the claim against Bezeq International, if
certified as a class action, is NIS105 million ($28 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: DBS Defends Suit Over Television Broadcasts
-------------------------------------------------------------
DBS Satellite Service (1998) Ltd., defends a suit relating to its
television broadcasts, 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.

On Oct. 3, 2007, a lawsuit and motion for certification as a class
action were filed in the Tel Aviv District Court against DBS.

The plaintiff claims that due to reception disturbances in DBS's
broadcasts in September 2007, daily malfunctions and long
interruptions in television broadcasts were caused to DBS's
subscribers and that DBS's service center was not operational
during such time.

The plaintiffs are seeking aggregate compensation of approximately
NIS121 million ($32 million) in the lawsuit, if certified as a
class action.

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.


BANK OF AMERICA: Accused of Forcible Entry and Deceptive Practices
------------------------------------------------------------------
Asif Altaf, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Bank of America National Association, et al., Case No.
2010-CH-28476 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty. July 1, 2010), accuses the
bank holding company of employing unlawful actions to collect from
its home loan borrowers, in violation of the Illinois Forcible
Entry and Detainer Act, the common law of trespass and negligence,
the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act,
and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Mr. Altaf narrates that on multiple occasions in March and April
2009, Bank of America by its agents including Doe defendants
operating at its direction, without his knowledge or consent,
forcibly entered or attempted to enter his home located at 5045 W
Roscoe St., Chicago, IL 60641, broke down his door, attempted to
change his locks, forcing him and his family to move to a new
address in May 2009.

Mr. Altaf seeks to prevent defendants from continuing to forcibly
and unlawfully enter the homes of borrowers, whose home loans are
in default, without first securing entry of a judgment of
foreclosure.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          THE CHICAGOLAND & SUBURBAN LAW FIRM, P.C.
          248 S. Marion St., Suite 104
          Oak Park, IL 60302
          Telephone: (815) 501-1345

               - and -

          THE LAW OFFICE OF KELLI DUDLEY
          9130 S. Houston Ave., 1st Floor
          Chicago, IL 60617-4319

               - and -

          Ilan Chorowsky, Esq.
          PROGRESSIVE LAW GROUP, LLC
          505 N. LaSalle, Suite 350
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 787-2717


BANK OF NEW YORK: NY Court Dismisses Suit Over Lost Backup Tapes
----------------------------------------------------------------
Brendon M. Tavelli, Esq., at Proskauer Rose LLP, writes that Judge
Richard Berman of the U.S. District Court of the Southern District
of New York on June 25, 2010, granted summary judgment to The Bank
of New York Mellon Corp., dismissing in its entirety a putative
class action lawsuit arising from the loss of backup tapes
containing personal information in the spring of 2008.  Judge
Berman rejected the plaintiffs' arguments that they had standing
to pursue their claims for negligence, negligence per se, breach
of implied contract, breach of fiduciary duty as well as for
violations of certain state consumer protection laws.  He held
that "Plaintiffs lack standing because their claims are future-
oriented, hypothetical and conjectural."  The court also held that
even assuming, arguendo, that plaintiffs could be said to have
standing to pursue such claims, each of their claims would fail
because the plaintiffs failed to show that they suffered any
actual harm as a result of the tape loss incident.

The case is Tom Hammond, William H. Wicks, Linda Young, Lois
Giordano, Debbie Bernstein, Alyson Kanney, and Ken Witek, on
behalf of themselves and al others similarly situated, v. The Bank
of New York Mellon Corp., case no. 08-cv-06060 (S.D.N.Y.)., and a
copy of the decision is available at:

                        http://is.gd/dhaF2


CANADA: Class Suit Mulled Against Police Over G20 Summit Arrests
----------------------------------------------------------------
Colin Perkel, writing for The Canadian Press, reports that various
individuals and groups have said they are considering a class-
action lawsuit or other civil action against police over the mass
detention of people and widespread use of police force during the
G20 summit.

The report says groups such as Amnesty International and the
Canadian Civil Liberties Association have condemned police tactics
and called for an independent inquiry.

According to the report, Mark Calzavara, of the Council of
Canadians, said police detained more than 1,000 people after some
protesters broke windows and burned a few police cruisers.  "When
the police are the ones that are breaking the law, that's when all
of society has to really start to pay attention," Mr. Calzavara
said.

The report says the police have defended their actions as
necessary in light of the brief orgy of vandalism that occurred on
the Saturday afternoon.  Toronto police Chief Bill Blair has said
as many as 1,000 anarchists came to "attack" the summit but were
stymied by the potent security.

"When they couldn't attack the summit, they attacked the city, and
they became a mob," Mr. Blair said last week. "A mob is policed a
little differently than a lawful, peaceful protest."

While the vast majority of those detained were released without
charge within 24 hours, about 250 people still face charges and
more than a dozen remained in custody Monday, according to the
Movement Defence Committee.


CASEY'S GENERAL: 2nd Takeover Class Suit Filed in Iowa
------------------------------------------------------
A purported class action complaint was filed on June 29, 2010, in
the Iowa District Court in and for Polk County on behalf of a
putative class of Casey's General Stores, Inc., shareholders
against Casey's and its Board of Directors.

The Company said in a regulatory filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission that the plaintiff asserts a claim for
breach of fiduciary duty in connection with Alimentation Couche-
Tard Inc.'s unsolicited offer for the Company, and seeks, among
other things:

     -- an order requiring the Board to undertake an evaluation of
        alternative transactions and to redeem the Rights;

     -- an injunction preventing any material transactions or
        changes to Casey's business and assets other than under
        court supervision; and

     -- an award of damages as well as fees, expenses and costs.

The action is the second purported class action complaint filed in
the Iowa State Court with respect to the Offer.

Jeff Eckhoff at The Des Moines Register reports that West Des
Moines attorney J. Barton Goplerud, Esq., sued Casey's on behalf
of veterinarian Richard Howie and all other similarly situated
Casey's shareholders.   Counsel may be reached at:

     J. Barton Goplerud, Esq.
     HUDSON, MALLANEY, SHINDLER & ANDERSON, P.C.
     5015 Grand Ridge Dr., Suite 100
     West Des Moines, IA 50265
     Telephone: (515) 223-4567
     Facsimile: (515) 223-8887

Documents in the newest case allege that Casey's chief executive
and board members have breached their fiduciary duty to
shareholders by refusing to negotiate with Couche-Tard.

Couche-Tard in Quebec, Canada, has made an unsolicited offer
through its indirect wholly owned subsidiary, ACT Acquisition Sub,
Inc., an Iowa corporation, to purchase all outstanding shares of
common stock, no par value per share, of Casey's, together with
the associated Rights, for $36.00 per Casey's Common Share in
cash.

According to the Register, Casey's leaders contend the $36-per-
share, $1.9 billion offer made public April 9 is too low.

"A fully negotiated transaction will likely deliver higher value
for Casey's stockholders than a hostile acquisition," the lawsuit
says, according to the Register.  "The board is obligated to
negotiate and explore Couche-Tard's offer in order to define what
course is in the best interests of Casey's public stockholders."

The Register notes the lawsuit comes one day after ClearBridge
Advisors, a longtime Casey's shareholder, sent a letter urging
Casey's to open talks with Couche-Tard.

On April 28, 2010, a complaint was filed asserting a claim for
breach of fiduciary duty in connection with the Offer; however,
pursuant to a stipulation between Casey's and the plaintiff in
such action, Casey's need not answer or otherwise respond to the
complaint until such time as the plaintiff either files an amended
complaint or informs Casey's that it does not intend to amend its
initial complaint.  In the initial complaint, the plaintiff in
that action seeks an order requiring the Board to place Casey's up
for auction and/or to conduct a market check and requiring Casey's
to make full and fair disclosure of all material facts to the
class before the completion of an acquisition; a declaration that
the Board has breached its fiduciary duties to plaintiff and the
class; and an award of fees, expenses and costs.  Casey's and the
Board believe the claims in both actions are without merit and
intend to defend against them vigorously.

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


COMPANHIA ENERGETICA: Defends Suits Over Electricity Rates
----------------------------------------------------------
Companhia Energetica de Minas Gerais, a/k/a CEMIG, defends
lawsuits in connection with the rates it charges its customers.

The company is a defendant in lawsuits and class actions brought
by consumers, consumer rights groups and the office of the public
prosecutor of Minas Gerais contesting the rates the company
charges its consumers, the application of the rate increases
determined by Agencia Nacional de Energia Eletrica (ANEEL), the
inflationary index used to increase the company's rates and the
rate subsidies granted to low income consumers.

These lawsuits involve claims for the suspension of the rate
increases and for the reimbursement to the company's consumers of
twice the amount of any additional rates the company collected.

The company relates that all of its rate increases are granted
based on ANEEL's prior authorization.

No additional details were disclosed in 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.

Companhia Energetica de Minas Gerais a.k.a. Cemig --
http://www.cemig.com.br/-- is an electric energy utility in
Brazil.  Cemig's concession area extends throughout nearly 96.7%
of Minas Gerais.  Cemig owns and operates 52 power plants, of
which six are in partnership with private enterprises, relying on
a predominantly hydroelectric energy matrix.  Electric energy
is produced to supply more than 17 million people living in the
state's 774 municipalities.  In addition to those 52 plants,
another three are currently under construction.


COMPANHIA ENERGETICA: Defends Suits by Minas Gerais Public Atty.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Companhia Energetica de Minas Gerais, a/k/a CEMIG, defends four
class actions filed by the Minas Gerais Public Attorney.

The suits seek an order against the company to invest at least
0.5% of the total operational revenue of the business year prior
to that of the investment on the protection and environmental
preservation of the water tables of municipalities related to
CEMIG's generation plants, since 1997.

This claim is based on the State of Minas Gerais Law No. 12,503,
issued on May 31, 1997, and its likelihood of loss is assessed as
"possible".

CEMIG has not yet assessed the amount involved in such lawsuits,
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.

Companhia Energetica de Minas Gerais a.k.a. Cemig --
http://www.cemig.com.br/-- is an electric energy utility in
Brazil.  Cemig's concession area extends throughout nearly 96.7%
of Minas Gerais.  Cemig owns and operates 52 power plants, of
which six are in partnership with private enterprises, relying on
a predominantly hydroelectric energy matrix.  Electric energy
is produced to supply more than 17 million people living in the
state's 774 municipalities.  In addition to those 52 plants,
another three are currently under construction.


COMPANHIA ENERGETICA: Defends Suit Over Conduct Adjustment Pact
---------------------------------------------------------------
Companhia Energetica de Minas Gerais, a/k/a CEMIG, defends a class
action in connection with the Conduct Adjustment Undertaking
signed between the company and the Public Attorneys' Office.

A class action was brought against CEMIG and nine other defendants
requesting nullification of the Conduct Adjustment Undertaking
(TAC) signed between the Public Attorneys' Office and the company,
ordering the restitution to public funds of the amounts
transferred to the defendant companies for implementation of the
Light for All (Luz para Todos) program.

The application for interim remedy was refused, and the plaintiff
appealed to the Regional Federal Appeals Court (Tribunal Regional
Federal).

The updated amount involved, of BRL1.654 billion, as of Dec. 31,
2009, refers to the request for restitution of the amounts
received by the companies that carried out the services contracted
by CEMIG in order to comply with such governmental program, and
fees of counsel.

The class action has been sent to the State Court, after the
Federal Court decided that it did not have jurisdiction to hear
the case.  The chance of loss is assessed as "possible," 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.

Companhia Energetica de Minas Gerais a.k.a. Cemig --
http://www.cemig.com.br/-- is an electric energy utility in
Brazil.  Cemig's concession area extends throughout nearly 96.7%
of Minas Gerais.  Cemig owns and operates 52 power plants, of
which six are in partnership with private enterprises, relying on
a predominantly hydroelectric energy matrix.  Electric energy is
produced to supply more than 17 million people living in the
state's 774 municipalities.  In addition to those 52 plants,
another three are currently under construction.


ELDERS LIMITED: Talks to Lawyers as ASIC Begins Probe
-----------------------------------------------------
Elders Limited said it has been advised by the Australian
Securities & Investments Commission that ASIC is conducting
enquiries in relation to compliance by the Company with its
continuous disclosure obligations concerning the Company's recent
profit downgrade announcement relating to the September 30, 2010
financial year.  ASIC has specifically confirmed with the Company
that its enquiries should not be construed as an indication by
ASIC that a contravention of the law has occurred, and nor should
it be considered a reflection upon any person or entity.

Elders is co-operating with ASIC in its inquiries.  Elders is
committed to its continuous disclosure and governance obligations
and is of the view it has complied with these obligations in full.

Rebecca Urban at The Australian reports that Elders surprised
investors on Monday by admitting the ASIC probe.  Ms. Urban
relates that Elders chief executive Malcolm Jackman said a letter
had been received late on Friday, prompting the company to seek
legal advice over the weekend.

"We took a view that when ASIC is making inquiries around your
continuous disclosure, it's a sensible thing to disclose that,"
Mr. Jackman said of his decision to advise the market of the
matter.  "And given the fact that we're under a high degree of
public scrutiny at the moment, we decided that it was the right
thing to do."

Mr. Jackman said the company believed that it had complied fully
with its continuous disclosure obligations.  He also stressed that
the commission had advised that its interest did not imply a
criticism of the company or that any wrongdoing had occurred on
the part of the company or any of its employees.  "We're working
co-operatively with ASIC and we think that they will quickly come
to the conclusion that we have done everything by the book," he
said.

ASIC declined to comment on the matter.

According to the Class Action Reporter on June 28, 2010, Ray
Brindal at Dow Jones Newswires said shareholders of Elders have
approached law firm Slater & Gordon asking it to investigate a
possible class action against the agribusiness.  The shareholders
are to cite poor disclosure and big falls in Elders' share price.
Litigation funder Comprehensive Legal Funding LLC will fund the
investigation by Slater & Gordon, the law firm said in a
statement.


ENERGY TRANSFER: 5th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Traders' Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Steven Shiffman, Esq., and Jonathan Rotenberg, Esq., at
Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP write that the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit affirmed a district court's dismissal of a
putative class action brought by a group of natural gas futures
and options contract traders under the Commodities Exchange Act.

Plaintiffs alleged that defendants manipulated the natural gas
futures and options prices in violation of the CEA by selling
large quantities of natural gas for delivery at one delivery hub,
the Houston Ship Channel, to depress the price of the natural gas
at that hub to an artificial level.  The defendants allegedly
intended to profit from the difference in price at that hub and
the Henry Hub, the hub where delivery was to be made for all
natural gas contracts on the New York Mercantile Exchange.
Plaintiffs further alleged that the defendants' price manipulation
caused the NYMEX price to decrease, resulting in a loss to
plaintiffs, who traded futures and options on NYMEX.

Defendants moved to dismiss plaintiff's securities fraud claim
before the district court.

In granting the motion to dismiss, the district court reasoned
that plaintiffs failed to allege that defendants specifically
intended to manipulate the price of natural gas at Henry Hub, as
required for a private right of action under the CEA.  The
plaintiffs argued that they had sufficiently alleged a CEA claim
by alleging that the defendants intended to manipulate the price
of the underlying commodity, natural gas, knowing that their
manipulation would result in a decrease in the price at the Henry
Hub and thereby affect the commodity contracts traded on NYMEX.
In affirming the district court's dismissal, the Fifth Circuit
rejected plaintiffs' contention that defendants' purported
knowledge that their actions would ultimately affect prices on the
Henry Hub was sufficient to state a claim under the CEA.  In so
holding, the court noted that the "effect on the Henry Hub, and
NYMEX futures contracts, was merely an unintended consequence of
the defendants' manipulative trading" and, as a result, the
defendants lacked the requisite specific intent.

The case is Richard Hershey; Roberto E. Calle Gracey, v. Energy
Transfer Partners, L.P.; Energy Transfer Company; ETC Marketing,
Ltd.; Houston Pipeline Company, case no. 09-20651 (5th Cir.), and
a copy of the decision is available at:

                        http://is.gd/dhbIH


FLORIDA: Class Suit Mulled Over Law Banning Sale of Bongs
---------------------------------------------------------
The Broward-Palm Beach New Times reports that a class-action
lawsuit is underway challenging the constitutionality of a new
Florida law banning sales of bongs, pipes and other devices that
could be used for smoking marijuana -- but only by stores that
receive 25% of their annual revenue from the sale of such items.

Alexander Klausner, writing for The Independent Florida Alligator,
says local attorney Ed Garvin, Esq., questioned the
constitutionality in the bill.  "You're not basically
criminalizing behavior, per se," he said. "You're criminalizing
behavior if it represents too large a portion of what you do,
which is a bit odd."

Alligator also reports that Robert Rush, Esq., lawyer for Modern
Age Tobacco and Gift Shop Inc., said he thinks the law would be
upheld because of legal precedents set by regulations of tobacco
and alcohol products.  Mr. Rush also said the shop he represents
will not be affected because its bong and pipe sales are less than
25% of its total inventory and sales.


KILLINGTON LTD: Pass Holders Appeal Ruling Dismissing Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce Edwards, writing for Rutland Herald in Vermont, reports that
holders of so-called "lifetime" ski passes at Killington Resort
have taken an appeal from Judge Christina Reiss' order dismissing
a class action lawsuit against the Resort to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit.

The passes were issued in the early years of the ski area as an
incentive to attract investors.  Over the years, the season passes
were sold for thousands of dollars with subsequent owners of the
resort honoring the passes.  However, that practice stopped when
SP Land Co. and Powdr Corp. purchased the resort's assets from
American Skiing Company in May 2007 for $83.5 million.

In November 2007, four investor pass holders sued SP Land Co. and
the resort's operating company, Killington/Pico Ski Resort
Partners, and former owners of the resort to have the passes
reinstated.  Powdr Corp. was not named in the lawsuit.

The suit argues that based on the wording of the investor passes,
owners of the resort are bound to honor the passes which entitled
the holder "to the free use of all ski lifts operated by
(Sherburne) Killington Ltd. at (Killington Basin) Killington Ski
Area so long as the corporation shall operate in that area under
an agreement with the state of Vermont."

Two types of investor passes were issued.  Between 1956 and 1961,
an investor received a season pass for each $1,000 invested.  The
so-called AT pass could be transferred or sold once a year.
Investments made between 1961 and 1968, entitled the investor/pass
holder to transfer what was known as a P pass only once while the
pass remained in effect.

Judge Reiss in May held that the resort owner was under no legal
obligation to honor the investor season passes when it purchased
Killington Resort in 2007.

"We're very, very disappointed," Killington resident Martin Post
said Monday.  "Our attorneys feel that there were a number of
issues which are appealable and consequently we have made the
decision, along with our attorneys, to go to the 2nd Circuit Court
and appeal Judge Reiss' decision."

Mr. Post and his wife, Jill, paid approximately $3,500 each for
their passes 20 years ago.  Mr. Post said their case may have been
hurt when it was transferred from Judge William Sessions to Reiss,
who took her seat on the federal bench in January.  Mr. Post said
that Judge Sessions was more familiar with the case.

The Posts and the other plaintiffs are represented by the
Middlebury law firm of Langrock Sperry & Wool.

The litigation includes 1,243 pass holders -- 342 yearly
transferable passes and 901 passes that could be transferred a
single time.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs argued that the "corporation" refers to
any subsequent operator of the ski area.

Sherburne Corp. and its successor, Killington Ltd., continued to
operate as entities under S-K-I Ltd. and later American Skiing
Company.  But when SP Land Co. and Powdr Corp. teamed up to buy
the resort's assets from American Skiing Co., Killington Ltd.
ceased to exist.

In granting defendants' motion for summary judgment, Judge Reiss
found that the language contained in the investor pass
certificates "is clear and unambiguous."  "The only reasonable
interpretation of that language is that it requires Killington
Ltd. to provide the designated passholder free use of all ski
lifts operated by Killington Ltd. at the Killington Ski Area so
long as it operates in that area . . . ," Judge Reiss wrote in her
31-page decision.

Judge Reiss continued that the term corporation "clearly refers to
the named corporations, Sherburne and Killington Ltd." and that
the deal was structured as an asset sale and not a transfer of
stock.

"The plain language of the AT and P passes reveals no intention to
bind Killington Ltd's successors . . . To the contrary, Killington
Ltd.'s obligations under the passes clearly terminate with its
cessation of operations in the area."

She also noted that in its purchase agreement with American Skiing
Co., SP Land agreed to honor 37 'lifetime' passes, which did not
include the names of the plaintiffs or the names of any class
members. (A number of those lifetime passes were issued over the
years to former employees).

Judge Reiss went on to say that in an asset sale, "the buyer does
not ordinarily assume responsibility for the debts of the seller."

Karen McAndrew, Esq., who represents Killington/Pico Ski Resort
Partners, said the summary judgment in the resort's favor did not
come as a surprise.  "We thought she analyzed the legal issues
very carefully and we thought she reached the right result," said
Ms. McAndrew, a partner in the Burlington law firm of Dinse, Knapp
& McAndrew.  She said the investor pass certificates stated very
clearly that the passes were valid "so long as the Sherburne
Corp., and that became Killington Ltd., continued to operate the
lifts there" and that neither corporation exists today.

Ms. McAndrew may be reached at:

     Karen McAndrew, Esq.
     DINSE, KNAPP & MCANDREW, P.C.
     P.O. Box 988
     209 Battery Street
     Burlington, VT  05402
     Telephone: (802) 864-5751
     Facsimile: (802) 864-1967
     E-mail: kmcandrew@DINSE.COM


KOREAN AIR: Cargo Firms Mull Class Suit vs. Airlines Over Cartel
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cho Chung-un, writing for The Korea Herald, reports that a group
of cargo transport companies in Korea is to file a class-action
lawsuit against 21 international carriers recently blamed for
fixing the price of foreign freight services over the years.

The Korea Fair Trade Commission issued in May a combined KRW120
billion in fines on 19 local and foreign freight service providers
from 16 different countries -- which newly introduced or changed
their fuel surcharges between 1999 and 2007 -- for their
association in years-long price fixing practices.  Two
international air carriers received a warning.

According to the Korea Herald, the 19 airlines fined are: Korean
Air, Asiana Airlines, Lufthansa, Malaysia Airlines, Swiss
International Air Lines, Singapore Airlines, Air France, Air
France-KLM, Air Hong Kong, British Airways, Japan Airlines, Nippon
Cargo Airlines, All Nippon Airways, Cargolux Airlines, Cathay
Pacific, KLM Airlines, Qantas Airways, Thai Airlines and Polar
Airlines.

Kim Tong-hyung at The Korea Times says the FTC probe was an
extension of investigations pushed by anti-trust regulators from
the United States and the European Union.

The Korea Times further reports that local carriers Korean Air and
Asiana were hit with the heaviest penalties of KRW48.74 billion
and KRW20.66 billion, respectively, although Korean Air's fine was
discounted to KRW22.19 billion after it was granted leniency for
providing crucial evidence to the investigation.

The Korea Herald says two transport companies in Busan, which
claim they are cartel victims, are looking for more companies hurt
by price-fixing practices by global air carriers and are willing
to take legal action.

The Korea Times reports that Lee Dae-soon, Esq., at the Chon & Lee
Law Corporation, a law firm preparing for the class action suits
against the airlines, said, "Freight companies sustained the most
obvious damage in the price-fixing schemes of the airlines and we
believe more companies will join.  We are also considering pushing
the class action jointly with companies under the Korea Shippers'
Council (KCS)."

The KCS, a sub-organization of the Korea International Trade
Association, is a leading industry lobby of freight companies.

"Usually, the fines set by anti-trust regulators are equivalent to
2 to 3 percent of the illicit earnings cumulated by the companies.
So naturally, it would be reasonable to claim for a level of
compensation about 30 times larger than the fines," said Lee,
suggesting that his law firm would be chasing a max 3.58 trillion
won payday, according to Korea Times.

According to the Korea Herald, the country's antitrust watchdog
said it will cooperate with the consumer groups so that they can
get compensation from the cartel organizers.  The Herald says the
FTC projected two months ago that the cartel participants
illegally earned KRW6.7 trillion over the seven-year period.

The Herald also reports that a separate class-action case is being
prepared by a progressive civil group and 27 individuals against
LPG companies accused of colluding to keep LPG prices unfairly
high between 2003 and 2008, according to officials from legal and
retail industries.

The Herald says both cases are grabbing attention because they are
the first two class-action lawsuits brought by consumer groups
against cartel participants in Korea.  However, experts raise
concern whether the consumer groups can come out victors because
Korean law currently recognizes only securities-related class-
action lawsuits.


L'OREAL USA: Accused of False Advertising and Unfair Competition
----------------------------------------------------------------
Salon FAD, et al., on behalf of themselves and others similarly
situated v. L'Oreal USA, Inc., et al., Case No. 10-cv-05063 (S.D.
N.Y. July 1, 2010), accuses the manufacturer of professional hair
care products of false advertising and unfair competition, in
violation of the Lanham Act.

Salon FAD is a nonprofit organization formed in 2008 to advance
the interests of salons in the face of the large-scale diversion
of professional products into non-professional retail channels.
FAD stands for "Fight Against Diversion" and Salon FAD is the
assignee of Bobbi Sordelet's and Daily Trends Salon's interest in
the case.  L'Oreal produces and advertises professional products
under several brands, including Matrix, Redken, Pureology,
Kerastase, and L'Oreal Professional.

Salon FAD explains that, despite labeling their products, and
advertising and promoting their professional brands as available
only in salons, L'Oreal and the other defendants sell their
professional brands throughout the country in drug stores, grocery
stores, and other mass merchandise retail stores.  This, Salon FAD
asserts, constitutes false advertising, is intentionally deceptive
and misleading, and was undertaken by defendants to increase
revenues and profits, at the expense of professional salons who,
as a result of defendants' misrepresentations, suffered lost
revenue, lost profits, lower business value, and lost goodwill and
reputation.  Salon FAD adds that despite their public statements
opposing diversion, the defendants have done nothing to stop it.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          James T. Southwick, Esq.
          Richard W. Hess, Esq.
          SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
          1000 Louisiana St., Suite 5100
          Houston, TX 77002-5096
          Telephone: (713) 651-9366


MAIN ROADS: Trilby Misso Prepares Suit to Clear Roads of Trees
--------------------------------------------------------------
Louise O'Keeffe at The Toowoomba Chronicle in Australia reports
that personal injury law firm Trilby Misso is forming a case
against the Main Roads State Government department and looking for
other people injured on the road.

Despite a road upgrade to start later this year, Trilby Misso
lawyer Michael Andersen, Esq., said Main Roads had shirked calls
to upgrade the section where trees sit within the clearway zone
and branches regularly fall on the road.

"There are parts of the highway which have become very dangerous
because the necessary upgrades of narrow, tree-lined sections
haven't been undertaken," he said.

"Local lobby groups successfully reduced the number of trees to be
removed from 1400 to 486.

"But we feel that Main Roads is ultimately responsible and have
final say on the clearing for safety of motorists."

Mr. Andersen said there had been more than 300 accidents on a 43km
stretch of the highway between Toowoomba and Crows Nest over the
past decade.  He said people who had experienced similar accidents
could also come forward and possibly a class action could take
place.


MOTRICITY INC: 9th Cir. Reverses Notice Sanction in Walker Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the cases Camellia Walker, individually and on behalf of a
class of similarly situated individuals, v. Russell B. Morgan;
Scott K. Haynes, Motricity, Inc., David F. Gross; Stephen A.
Chiari; DLA Piper LLP (US), case no. 09-16532; and Camellia
Walker, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly
situated individuals, v. Motricity, Inc., David F. Gross; Stephen
A. Chiari; DLA Piper LLP (US), case no. 09-16535 (9th Cir. July 2,
2010), Motricity and its counsel in the district court appeal a
portion of the sanctions imposed in conjunction with the district
court's order granting the motion of plaintiff Camellia Walker to
remand Walker's putative class action to state court.  The
sanctions were imposed sua sponte without notice or hearing.  The
sanctions were imposed assertedly because Motricity removed the
case for a second time without new evidence.  The district court
imposed monetary sanctions, as well as what the parties refer to
as a "notice sanction," which provided:

     "Finally, in view of this repetitive and contemptuous
     conduct, the court orders that in all future cases where
     this defendant or these attorneys have removed or remove an
     action under CAFA defendant and/or counsel shall file a copy
     of this order with the court and serve it upon opposing
     counsel.

Appellants took an appeal from the notice sanction.

The Ninth Circuit held that the notice sanction portion of the
district court's order remanding the case to state court is
reversed.  Each party will bear his, her, or its own costs on
appeal.

According to the Ninth Circuit, "it is long-established law in
this circuit that a district court abuses its discretion when it
imposes sanctions without first giving notice and an opportunity
to be heard.  See Weissman v. Quail Lodge, Inc., 179 F.3d 1194,
1198 (9th Cir. 1999) ('Whenever the district court imposes
sanctions on an attorney, it must at a minimum, afford the
attorney notice and an opportunity to be heard.').  Here, it is
undisputed that such notice and an opportunity to be heard were
not afforded to Appellants."

A copy of the decision is available at:

     http://www.leagle.com/unsecure/page.htm?shortname=infco20100702139


SIGNATURE MANAGEMENT: Tex. Sup. Ct. Allows Quixtar Suit to Proceed
------------------------------------------------------------------
In Quixtar Inc., v. Signature Management Team, LLC, D/B/A Team,
case no. 09-0345 (Tex. Sup. Ct. July 2, 2010), the trial court
dismissed a lawsuit filed in Collin County, Texas between two
Michigan businesses based on common law forum non conveniens.  The
court of appeals reversed the dismissal, holding that the trial
court abused its discretion.  It agreed that the proposed forum,
Michigan, was available and adequate for the lawsuit, but held
that the defendant did not meet its burden to show that the
private and public interest factors of the forum non conveniens
analysis strongly weighed in favor of dismissal.  The defendant
appealed to the Texas Supreme Court.  Because the trial court did
not abuse its discretion, the Texas Supreme Court reversed the
court of appeals' judgment.

Justice Nathan L. Hecht and Justice Debra Lehrmann did not
participate in the decision.  A copy of the decision is available
at:

     http://www.leagle.com/unsecure/page.htm?shortname=intxco20100702526


SK ENERGY: Kim & Kims Firm to Sue LPG Firms Over Price-Fixing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Cho Chung-un, writing for The Korea Herald, reports that a class-
action case is being prepared by a progressive civil group and 27
individuals against LPG companies accused of colluding to keep LPG
prices unfairly high between 2003 and 2008, according to officials
from legal and retail industries.  People's Solidarity for
Participatory Democracy, an activists group, is to bring a lawsuit
for damages against LPG cartel participants.

The Fair Trade Commission found that six LPG suppliers -- E1, GS
Caltex, Hyundai Oil Bank, S-Oil, SK Energy and SK Gas -- to have
colluded to keep LPG prices high for six years between 2003 and
2008, and fined them a total of KRW668.9 billion.  This was the
largest fine ever levied by the watchdog, although the amount fell
far short of the KRW1.3 trillion estimated earlier.

Kim Tong-hyung at The Korea Times reports that the first class
action suit against the gas companies will be filed by the end of
the month, according to Kim & Kims, the law firm that is preparing
it.

The Korea Herald also reports that a group of cargo transport
companies in Korea is to file a class-action lawsuit against 21
international carriers recently blamed for fixing the price of
foreign freight services over the years.

According to the Herald, both cases are grabbing attention because
they are the first two class-action lawsuits brought by consumer
groups against cartel participants in Korea.  However, experts
raise concern whether the consumer groups can come out victors
because Korean law currently recognizes only securities-related
class-action lawsuits.

                            *********

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  * * *