CAR_Public/100712.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, July 12, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 135

                             Headlines

ADOBE SYSTEMS: Motion to Dismiss Consolidated Complaint Pending
AIG INC: La. Supreme Court Stays Orrill Case Pending Briefing
AMERICAN ITALIAN: Shareholder Sues Over Ralcorp Merger
ARGON ST: Being Sold to Boeing for Too Little, Va. Suit Claims
AT&T MOBILITY: Calif. Suit Complains About "Air Card" Charges

CALIFORNIA: Accused of Violating California Prompt Payment Act
CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS: Removes "Smylie" Lawsuit to N.D. Calif.
CAMPUS CRUISERS: Recalls 100 Eastside Fix Bicycle Forks
CANADIAN SOLAR: Hagens Berman Files Securities Fraud Suit
CANON BUSINESS: App. Ct. Says Statute of Limitations Bars UCL Suit

CITY NATIONAL BANK: Sued in West Virginia on Overdraft Fees
EBAY INC: Balestriere Firm Eyes RICO Class Suit v. Live Auctions
EV3 INC: Settles Stockholder Suit on Covidien Acquisition Deal
FAMILY DOLLAR: Pays $35.6 Million Judgment in "Morgan" Lawsuit
FAMILY DOLLAR: Defends Various Suits in North Carolina

FAMILY DOLLAR: Defends Two-FLSA Violations Suit in Kentcuky
FAMILY DOLLAR: Continues to Defend "Walters" Suit
FAMILY DOLLAR: Defends Wage & Hour Violations Suit
FAMILY DOLLAR: Defends Suit Over Alleged Pay Discrimination
FREEDOM STRATEGIC: Class Counsel Wins $3,250,000 in Atty. Fees

HERLEY INDUSTRIES: Reaches Agreement to Settle Securities' Suit
HOLY CROSS: Court Dismisses Former Workers' Class Suit
HSBC BANK: Sued Over Credit-Card "Payment Protection" Plans
IHOP FRANCHISING: Accused in Calif. of Overcharging Franchisees
INTERACTIVE DATA: Inks MOU to Settle Consolidated Suit in Del.

JABIL CIRCUIT: Second Amended Class Action Suit Concluded
MOBIL: Court Dismisses Price-Fixing Suit in Saipan
MONSANTO CO: Defends Suit Over Chemical Plant Contamination
MONSANTO CO: Plaintiffs' Appeal on Summary Judgment Pending
MONSANTO CO: Agrees to Settle Missouri Consolidated Suit

NOVARTIS PHARMA: 2nd Cir. Says Claims for Overtime Pay Valid
NUTRACEA INC: Settlement Fairness Hearing Set for October 1
OKLAHOMA: Trial Date in Foster-Care Suit Set for Oct. 2011
QUEENSLAND: Patel Patients Meet to Plot Class Action
RITE AID: Defends "Craig" Suit in Pennsylvania

RITE AID: Defends "Indergit" FLSA-Violations Suit in New York
RITE AID: Remains a Defendant in California Wage & Hour Suits
ROCKY MOUNTAIN: Giant Food Alerts Customers on Firm's Recall
ROCKY MOUNTAIN: Stop & Shop Alerts Customers on Firm's Recall
TRAVELERS COS: Fairness Hearing in Katrina Suit on Oct. 27

UNITED STATES: Court Certifies Class in Veterans Dept. Pay Suit
WORLDSPACE: Class Suit Slows Down Asset Transfer to New Owner
YUKON-NEVADA: Settlement Talks Held Over Back Pay Case vs. Unit

* KPMG Says Canadian Banks Attractive Targets for Class Suits

                            *********

ADOBE SYSTEMS: Motion to Dismiss Consolidated Complaint Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Adobe Systems Inc.'s motion to dismiss a consolidated amended
complaint relating to its proposed acquisition of Omniture, Inc.,
remains pending, according to the company's July 2, 2010, Form 10-
Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 4, 2010.

On Sept. 23, 2009, Richard Miner, on behalf of himself and all
similarly situated stockholders of Omniture, Inc., filed a class
action lawsuit captioned Miner v. Omniture, Inc., et al., Case No.
090403559 against Omniture, the members of Omniture's board of
directors and Adobe in the U.S. Fourth Judicial District Court for
Utah County, Provo Department, State of Utah seeking to enjoin the
proposed acquisition between Omniture and Adobe.

In the event the acquisition is consummated, the plaintiff seeks
to recover an unspecified amount of damages.  The plaintiff
alleges that the members of Omniture's board of directors breached
their fiduciary duties to Omniture's stockholders by failing to
seek the highest possible price for Omniture and that Adobe
induced or aided and abetted in the alleged breach of such
fiduciary duties.

Also on Sept. 23, 2009, Christopher R. Barrell filed a
substantially similar lawsuit to the Miner Lawsuit in the U.S.
Fourth Judicial District Court for Utah County, Provo Department,
State of Utah, captioned Barrell v. Omniture, Inc. et al., Case
No. 090403560.

The Barrell Lawsuit names the same defendants as the Miner
Lawsuit, and also names Snowbird Acquisition Corporation as an
additional defendant.  Subsequently, on Sept. 24, 2009, the
plaintiff in the Barrell Lawsuit filed an amended complaint, which
added allegations that the Schedule 14D-9 Solicitation/
Recommendation Statement filed by Omniture on Sept. 24, 2009
contained inadequate disclosures and was materially misleading.

On Sept. 25, 2009, the Omniture Defendants filed a motion
requesting that the court consolidate the Barrell Lawsuit, Miner
Lawsuit and a substantially similar lawsuit captioned Lodhia v.
Omniture, Inc. et al., Case No. 090403499 in which the Omniture
Defendants, but not Adobe, were named.

Additionally, on Sept. 30, 2009, the plaintiff in the Lodhia
Lawsuit filed a response to defendants' motion to consolidate,
agreeing consolidation is appropriate, and also filed a motion
seeking appointment as lead plaintiff in the consolidated action.
Omniture moved for an order consolidating all three lawsuits.

The plaintiffs in the three lawsuits filed a joint motion seeking
preliminary injunction barring the consummation of the proposed
acquisition and requiring additional disclosures by Omniture in
its Schedule 14D-9.

At a hearing on Oct. 20, 2009, the court consolidated the Miner,
Barrell, and Lodhia cases into a single case under the Lodhia
caption and denied the plaintiffs' motion to preliminarily enjoin
the closing of the transaction.

On Dec. 30, 2009, the plaintiffs served the defendants with a
consolidated amended complaint for damages arising out of the
closing of the transaction.

In the consolidated amended complaint, plaintiffs allege that the
members of Omniture's board of directors breached their fiduciary
duties to Omniture's stockholders by failing to seek the highest
possible price for Omniture and that both Adobe and Omniture
induced or aided and abetted in the alleged breach.  The
plaintiffs also allege that the Schedule 14D-9
Solicitation/Recommendation Statement filed by Omniture on Sept.
24, 2009 in connection with the transaction contained inadequate
disclosures and was materially misleading.

Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages on behalf of the former public
stockholders of Omniture.

On March 8, 2010, Adobe and the other defendants moved to dismiss
the complaint for failure to state a claim.

Adobe Systems Incorporated -- http://www.adobe.com/-- is a
diversified software companies.  The company offers a line of
creative, business and mobile software and services used by
creative professionals, knowledge workers, consumers, original
equipment manufacturer (OEM) partners, developers and enterprises
for creating, managing, delivering and engaging with content and
experiences across multiple operating systems, devices and media.
It distributes its products through a network of distributors,
value-added resellers (VARs), systems integrators, independent
software vendors (ISVs) and OEMs, direct to end users and through
its own Web site at www.adobe.com.  It also licenses its
technology to hardware manufacturers, software developers and
service providers, and offer integrated software solutions to
businesses of all sizes.  Adobe has operations in the Americas,
Europe, Middle East and Africa (EMEA) and Asia.


AIG INC: La. Supreme Court Stays Orrill Case Pending Briefing
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of Louisiana, pursuant to its plenary
supervisory jurisdiction, stayed all court proceedings in the
cases Toni Swain Orrill, Individually and on Behalf of the Class
v. AIG, Inc., et al., pending in Civil District Court for the
Parish of Orleans; and Geraldine Oubre, et al. v. Louisiana
Citizens Fair Plan, docket no. 625-567, pending in the 24th
Judicial District Court for the Parish of Jefferson, pending the
Supreme Court's review of supplemental briefing.

Plaintiffs in Orrill and Louisiana Citizens Insurance Corporation
seek review of a judgment of the court of appeal vacating the
parties' proposed settlement.  The Supreme Court says central to
the resolution of this issue is whether the redefinition of the
Orrill class and the ensuing settlement adversely impacted the
vested, substantive rights of persons who were actual or potential
members of the Oubre class action.

To assist the court in determining whether certiorari should be
granted in this matter, the Supreme Court directed the Orrill
plaintiffs and Citizens to provide supplemental briefing
addressing this issue:

In the event the court grants certiorari in the Orrill case,
whether it should also exercise its plenary supervisory authority
to assume jurisdiction over the Oubre matter for purposes of
determining the impact of proceedings in Orrill on the Oubre
class, including resolution of the question of which action may be
considered to be the firstfiled action for purposes of lis pendens
and/or res judicata.

The objectors and other parties in Orrill shall be permitted to
file responsive briefs on this issue should they wish to do so.
The clerk of court is also directed to send a copy of this order
to the lead counsel for the parties in Oubre.  Should they wish to
do so, these parties may file amici briefs addressing whether this
court should assume jurisdiction over the Oubre matter.

The supplemental briefs of the Orrill plaintiffs and Citizens
shall be filed no later than July 22, 2010.  Any responsive briefs
by the other Orrill parties or amici briefs by the Oubre parties
shall be filed in this court no later than 15 days after the
deadline for filing of briefs by the Orrill plaintiffs and
Citizens.


AMERICAN ITALIAN: Shareholder Sues Over Ralcorp Merger
------------------------------------------------------
Adriana Apolito-Bevis on June 29, 2010, filed a class action
complaint in the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri, at
Independence against American Italian Pasta Company, its
directors, and Ralcorp Holdings, Inc., alleging, among other
things, that (i) the Company's directors breached their fiduciary
duties of care and loyalty to the Company's stockholders and (ii)
the Company and Ralcorp aided and abetted the Company's directors'
alleged breaches of their fiduciary duties.  The plaintiffs seek
injunctive relief preventing the defendants from consummating the
transactions contemplated by the parties' merger agreement and
attorney's fees and expenses.

On June 21, 2010 Ralcorp announced it will acquire AIPC in a cash
tender offer and subsequent merger for approximately $1.2 billion
on a fully diluted basis.  On June 24, 2010, Ralcorp, through its
wholly owned subsidiary Excelsior Acquisition Co., commenced a
cash tender offer to purchase all outstanding shares of AIPC
common stock for $53.00 in cash for each share of AIPC common
stock, without interest and less any required withholding taxes.
The tender offer will expire at midnight on July 22, 2010, unless
extended in accordance with the terms of the merger agreement and
the applicable rules and regulations of the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.

On July 6, 2010, Ralcorp and AIPC said the U.S. Federal Trade
Commission has granted early termination of the waiting period
under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976, as
amended, in connection with the definitive merger agreement
between the two companies.

Ralcorp and the other defendants have not yet responded to the
complaint.  Ralcorp intends to defend the claims raised in this
lawsuit.

The case is Adriana Apolito-Bevis, On Behalf of Herself and all
Others Similarly Situated, vs. John P. Kelly, William R.
Patterson, David W. Allen, Jonathan E. Baum, Cathleen S. Curless,
Robert J. Druten, James A. Heeter, Ronald C. Kesselman, Tim M.
Pollack, American Italian Pasta Company, Ralcorp Holdings, Inc.,
case no. 1016-cv-19517 (Mo. Cir. Ct., Jackson Cty., June 29,
2010).

The plaintiff is represented by:

     David M.Mayer, Esq.
     MONSEES, MILLER, MAYER, PRESLEY & AMICK, P.C.
     4717 Grand Ave., Ste. 820
     Kansas City, MO 64112
     Telephone: (816) 361-5550
     Facsimile: (816) 361-5577

          - and -

     Charles W. Branham, III, Esq.
     Hamilton Lindley, Esq.
     GOLDFARB BRANHAM LLP
     Saint Ann Court
     2501 N. Harwood Street, Suite 1801
     Dallas, TX 75201
     Telephone: (214) 583-2333
     Facsimile: (214) 583-2234
     E-mail: tbranham@goldfarbbranham.com
             hlindley@goldfarbbranham.com

A copy of the complaint is available at:

                        http://is.gd/dmvAc


ARGON ST: Being Sold to Boeing for Too Little, Va. Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that directors of Argon, a defense
contractor, are selling the company too cheaply to Boeing, through
an unfair process, for $34.50 a share or $775 million,
shareholders claim in Alexandria, Va., Federal Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Sullivan v. Argon St, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 10-cv-00750 (E.D. Va.), is available at:

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Francis J. Martorana, Esq.
          O'DONOGHUE & O'DONOGHUE LLP
          4748 Wisconsin Avenue, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20016
          Telephone: 202-362-0041

               - and -

          Randall J. Baron, Esq.
          A. Rick Atwood, Jr., Esq.
          David T. Wissbroecker, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: 619-231-1058

               - and -

          David A. Rosenfeld, Esq.
          Mark S. Reich, Esq.
          Joseph Russello, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          58 South Service Rd., Suite 200
          Melville, NY 11747
          Telephone: 631-367-7100

               - and -

          Brian P. Murray, Esq.
          MURRAY, FRANK & SAILER LLP
          275 Madison Ave., Suite 801
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: 212-682-1818


AT&T MOBILITY: Calif. Suit Complains About "Air Card" Charges
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that AT&T Mobility charges
customers for incoming "air card" text messages that their
wireless phones are incapable of receiving, a class action claims
in Los Angeles Federal Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Creasman v. AT&T Mobility, LLC, Case
No. 10-cv-01017 (C.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/07/07/AT&T.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ian D. Berg, Esq.
          ABRAHAM, FRUCHTER & TWERSKY, LLP
          12526 High Bluff Dr., Suite 300
          San Diego, CA 92130
          Telephone: 858-792-3448
          E-mail: iberg@aftlaw.com

               - and -

          Mitchell MZ Twersky, Esq.
          ABRAHAM, FRUCHTER & TWERSKY, LLP
          One Penn Plaza, Suite 2805
          New York, NY 10119
          E-mail: mtwerskly@aftlaw.com

               - and -

          J. Allen Carney, Esq.
          James L. Kauffman, Esq.
          CARNEY WILLIAMS BATES BOZEMAN & PULLIAM, PLLC
          11311 Arcade Dr., Suite 200
          Little Rock, AR 72212
          Telephone: 501-312-8500
          E-mail: acarney@carneywilliams.com
                  jkauffman@carneywilliams.com


CALIFORNIA: Accused of Violating California Prompt Payment Act
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that the State of California
cheated small businesses by paying debts with IOUs at 3.75%
interest, though the California Prompt Payment Act requires 0.25%
daily penalties, a class action claims in Sacramento Superior
Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Baird v. Chiang, et al., Case No.
34-2010-00081797 (Calif. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/07/07/CalBudget.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William M. Audet, Esq.
          Jonas P. Mann, Esq.
          AUDET & PARTNERS, LLP
          221 Main St., Suite 1460
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: 415-568-2555
          E-mail: waudet@audetlaw.com
                  jmann@audetlaw.com

               - and -

          Mark J. Tamblyn, Esq.
          Ian J. Barlow, Esq.
          WEXLER WALLACE LLP
          455 Capitol Mall, Suite 231
          Sacramento, CA 95814
          Telephone: 916-492-1100
          E-mail: mjt@wexlerwallace.com
                  ijb@wexlerwallace.com


CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS: Removes "Smylie" Lawsuit to N.D. Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Olga S. Smylie, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated
v. California Physicians' Service, Inc. d/b/a Blue Shield of
California, et al., Case No. 10-500234 (Calif. Super. Ct., San
Francisco Cty., May 27, 2010), alleges violations of California's
Unfair Business Practices Act and false advertising law.  Ms.
Smylie further seeks injunctive relief pursuant to the California
Legal Remedies Act, and relief for constructive trust and
conversion.  Ms. Smylie's causes of action all arise directly from
her allegations regarding Blue Shield's amendment of her Health
Plan (Blue Shield Spectrum PPO Savings Plan 2400/4800)'s
"Copayment Maximum".

Because this case presents a federal question in that it arises
under the laws of the United States, namely the Employee
Retirement Act, and because state court claims are completely
preempted by ERISA, on July 6, 2010, California Physicians'
Service removed the lawsuit to the Northern District of
California, and the Clerk assigned Case No. 10-cv-02962 to the
proceeding.

The Defendant is represented by:

          Robert A. Zeavin, Esq.
          Gregory N. Pimstone, Esq.
          MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP
          11355 West Olympic Boulevard
          Los Angeles, CA 90064-1614
          Telephone: (310) 312-4000
          E-mail: rzeavin@manatt.com
                  gpimstone@manatt.com

               - and -

          Amy B. Briggs, Esq.
          Amanda M. Knudsen, Esq.
          MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP
          One Embarcadero Center, 30th Floor
          Telephone: (415) 291-7400
          E-mail: abriggs@manatt.com
                  aknudsen@manatt.com


CAMPUS CRUISERS: Recalls 100 Eastside Fix Bicycle Forks
-------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Campus Cruisers LLC, of Boulder, Colo., announced a voluntary
recall of about 100 Eastside Fix Bicycle Forks.  Consumers should
stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise
instructed.

The bicycle's front fork can crack or break, causing a sudden loss
of steering control and posing a fall hazard to bicyclists.

The firm has received four reports of lateral cracks beneath the
front fork's crown.  No injuries have been reported.

This recall involves Campus Cruisers' Eastside Fix model bicycles.
The single speed bicycle has an aluminum frame and fork.  The
bicycles were sold in royal blue with a white leather seat and
white gel grips on the handlebars.  Pictures of the recalled
products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10293.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold through
Independent bicycle dealers nationwide from March 2010 through May
2010 for about $450.

Consumers should immediately stop riding bicycles with the
recalled front forks.  Consumers can contact their local Campus
Cruisers dealer to schedule a free repair.  Consumers who are not
near an authorized dealer should contact Campus Cruisers for
assistance.  For additional information, contact Campus Cruisers
toll-free at (877) 260-2721 between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.,
Mountain Time, Monday through Friday or visit the firm's Website
at http://www.campuscruisers.com/ Consumers can also e-mail the
firm at info@campuscruisers.com


CANADIAN SOLAR: Hagens Berman Files Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman filed a new class-action lawsuit on behalf of
shareholders against Canadian Solar, Inc. in California, where the
company's sole U.S. operations exist and where most witnesses
reside.  The lawsuit identified new claims and new classes based
on an independent investigation undertaken by the law firm.

The complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California last week, alleged Canadian Solar
overstated its revenues and concealed necessary information about
the company's business operations ahead of the $100 million plus
October 2009 offering of common stock.  Defendants include
Canadian Solar senior officers, Arthur Chien and Shawn Qu, who
allegedly authorized recorded revenues from fictitious sales
transactions and failed to properly account for product returns in
2009, in the registration statements, prospectus and other
documents. As a result, the company sold CSIQ shares to investors
at inflated prices.

The new complaint, which can be found at
http://www.hbsslaw.com/canadian-solarseeks to represent three
classes of investors who purchased CSIQ shares during the revised
Class Period from October 13, 2009 to June 1, 2010.  The three
classes of investors include:

     -- A class for all investors who acquired CSIQ shares
        traceable to the company's false and misleading October
        2009 registration statement form (strict liability);

     -- A class for all investors who acquired CSIQ shares
        traceable to the company's false and misleading October
        2009 prospectus (negligence); and

     -- A class of all investors who purchased CSIQ shares on or
        after October 13, 2009 (fraud).

Investors who fall within one of these classes may be eligible to
participate in the class-action lawsuit as a lead plaintiff.  To
serve as a lead plaintiff in this class-action lawsuit, you must
move the Court no later than August 2, 2010.  Any investor who
purchased CSIQ shares during the Class Period may move the Court
to serve as lead plaintiff through the counsel of their choice.
Investors also may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class
member.

If you have significant losses from the October offerings or would
like to discuss your legal rights and move to be a lead plaintiff,
you may contact Reed Kathrein, Managing Partner of the Hagens
Berman San Francisco office, without obligation or cost to you, at
510-725-3000, or by e-mail at csiq@hbsslaw.com  Hagens Berman also
welcomes any information you may have that would advance the
investigation.

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


CANON BUSINESS: App. Ct. Says Statute of Limitations Bars UCL Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Suzanna Winslow and Sascha Henry at Sheppard Mullin Richter &
Hampton LLP write that the Second District of California Court of
Appeal recently refused to extend the continuing violations
doctrine to causes of action brought under the Unfair Competition
Law.  The Court of Appeal held that the trial court properly
sustained the defendant's demurrer on the ground that the UCL
cause of action was barred by the statute of limitations.

In Aryeh v. Canon Business Solutions, Inc., B213104 (June 22,
2010), the plaintiff brought a class action for violation of the
UCL, claiming Canon overcharged him for copies under his copier
rental agreements.  Shortly after he entered into the rental
agreements, the plaintiff noticed that the meter readings taken by
Canon's field service personnel differed from the number of copies
actually made on the leased copiers.  The plaintiff asked Canon
numerous times, orally and in writing, to repair the copiers and
take accurate readings. When Canon took no action, the plaintiff
began keeping his own records and determined that he was being
charged for "test" copies that were made when Canon service
personnel repaired or serviced the machines. Despite the
plaintiff's requests, Canon did not fix the "excessive" copying
charges. Additionally, Canon failed to reimburse the plaintiff for
the overcharges and charged him late fees.

After two attempts at amending the complaint, the trial court
sustained the demurrer without leave to amend on four grounds,
including that the causes of action accrued almost six years
before the plaintiff filed the complaint.

On appeal, the plaintiff argued that the statutory clock started
at the time of the first overcharge, and then re-started each time
Canon "invade[d] the plaintiff's rights and cause[d] injury."  The
plaintiff also argued that the doctrine of continuing violations
should apply to violations of the UCL.  The Court of Appeal
rejected both contentions.

The discovery rule, which delays accrual of certain causes of
action until the plaintiff has actual or constructive knowledge of
facts giving rise to the claim, does not apply to causes of action
brought under California Business & Professions Code section
17200, et seq. Therefore this cause of action accrued when the
defendant's conduct occurred, not when the plaintiff learned about
the conduct.  Further, when the allegations regarding a
defendant's conduct cover a period of time, the cause of action
accrues at the time of the initial conduct. The plaintiff admitted
in the initial complaint that he knew of the alleged inaccurate
readings and overcharges in or around February 2002.

As to the continuing violations doctrine, the Court of Appeal
reasoned that "routinely billing and collecting for 'test' copies
is not the type of harassing and egregious conduct the continuing
violations doctrine is designed to deter." The court was not
compelled by any policy considerations to extend the continuing
violations doctrine to violations of the UCL. Rather, it
underlined the legislative intent for the UCL to be a "streamlined
procedure for the prevention of ongoing or threatened acts of
unfair competition."  The court stated, "a claim for recovery of
past damages is not within the contemplation of the UCL."


CITY NATIONAL BANK: Sued in West Virginia on Overdraft Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------
George Hohmann at The Charleston (W.Va.) Daily Mail reports that a
South Charleston resident who claims he was unfairly assessed
hundreds of dollars of overdraft fees has filed a class-action
lawsuit against City National Bank.  Thomas Casto claims he and
other customers were charged overdraft fees because City National
manipulated the way debit card transactions were posted.

Mr. Casto claims that City National:

     -- Engages in a systematic policy of re-ordering debit card
transactions from the highest to lowest dollar amount so as to
deplete the customer's available funds as quickly as possible
while maximizing the number of overdraft fees.

     -- Charges overdraft fees even in situations where in fact a
customer has not overdrawn his checking account.

     -- Charges overdraft fees even in situations where City
National in fact did not pay out more funds than were in the
customer's checking account.

     -- Fails to provide accurate account balance information on
the bank's Web site or at the point of sale.

Craig Stilwell, City's executive vice president of marketing,
human resources and retail banking, said, "City National Bank has
not received nor had an opportunity to review the complaint, and
we cannot comment on it specifically. However, the bank treats its
customers fairly, and its actions comply with applicable law.

"Further, we meet or exceed the industry joint agency guidance on
overdraft protection programs set forth by the Office of the
Comptroller of the Currency, the Federal Reserve Board, the FDIC
and the NCUA, and any allegations in the press release to the
contrary are false," Mr. Stilwell said. "When we are served with
any such complaint, we will mount a vigorous defense."

The lawsuit was filed in Kanawha Circuit Court on June 17.   The
Charleston law firm Bailey & Glasser represents Mr. Casto.  The
firm said it is teaming with the Washington, D.C.-based law firm
of Tycko & Zavareei in the lawsuit.

Tycko & Zavareei represents clients who have filed what appear to
be similar lawsuits against Fifth Third Bank, headquartered in
Cincinnati, Ohio, and Citizens Bank, a unit of Providence, R.I.-
based Citizens Financial Group Inc.


EBAY INC: Balestriere Firm Eyes RICO Class Suit v. Live Auctions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ina Steiner, writing for AuctionBytes.com, reports that law firm
Balestriere Fariello is resurrecting investigations that preceded
its filing of a RICO lawsuit against eBay and several auction
companies in 2007 in which plaintiffs charged eBay with
racketeering involving shill bidding.

The parties in Michele Mazur vs. eBay, Inc., et al., had settled
the case individually, but the plaintiffs' law firm, now going by
the name Balestriere Fariello, may file another class action
lawsuit over eBay Live Auctions, eBay's Internet-bidding service
for live auction houses that it closed in 2008.

eBay launched eBay Live Auctions to provide an Internet-bidding
platform for auction houses such as Sotheby's, which already
accepted phone bidding for its physical auctions.  But eBay also
allowed companies that did not hold physical auctions to
participate in eBay Live Auctions -- specifically named as "seller
defendants" in the 2007 lawsuit were Hot Jewelry Auctions.com,
GoAntiques.com, Inc., and Neimans Jewelry.

Bidding on eBay Live Auctions was different from bidding on
eBay.com.  eBay identified Live Auctions bidding as either
Internet bids or Floor bids for participants watching the auction
on their computers.  Because the seller defendants had no actual
physical auctions taking place, plaintiffs characterized eBay
Floor bids as fake or "shill" bidding since it was the auction
house itself making the Floor bids.  Plaintiffs said as a result,
they paid more for the items.

In a hearing last year, plaintiffs' attorney John Balestriere,
Esq., explained the plaintiffs' position to the Court, saying
bidders "spent as much as they did looking at a grainy image,
thinking, "Well, there's a floor bidder there who just bid $132 on
that. If I just looked at this online, I'm not sure I would be
willing to pay 132. But if it's that good, if someone else bid on
it, well, I will bid now $142.""

In a 2008 hearing, an attorney for the firm of what is now
Balestriere Fariello told the Court, "We think this is a classic
RICO claim. It's a classic hub-and-spoke conspiracy."  Congress
passed the RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations)
Act in an effort to combat the Mafia.  The attorney said, "There
are certain instances where there are floor bids taking place on
eBay Live that are not shill bids.  For example, when Sotheby's
has an auction on eBay Live, our understanding is that there are
genuine floor bids taking place there. But virtually every floor
bid, as it were, in the case of Hot Jewelry Auctions, is a shill
bid. Because there is no floor. There is no auction taking place.
There's just individuals working for Hot Jewelry Auctions, making
these floor bids."

In 2004, AuctionBytes published an article about GoAntiques'
participation in eBay Live Auctions.  Then-president Jim Kamnikar
freely acknowledged there were no "real-life" physical auctions
and said consignors kept possession of the items being auctioned
and were responsible for shipping them to winning bidders. He
described the process, including an explanation of the fee
structure.

In August 2007, Balestriere's firm sent letters to the defendants,
including a letter to eBay CEO at the time, Meg Whitman, now
running for governor of California.  The letter demanded that eBay
cease representing that all eBay Live auctions were safe and
consisted of carefully-screened international auction houses and
immediately refund to their client and all users of eBay Live
Auctions all moneys made through their participation in the eBay
Live Auctions service.

In its motion to dismiss the case in October 2007, eBay used
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act in its defense; it
is often used to protect ISPs and Internet publishers from
liability from user-generated content, such as comments left on a
discussion board.  The Court ruled that eBay's alleged
misrepresentations that the auction houses were "carefully
screened" and were "reputable" were indeed protected by section
230 of the CDA and therefore not actionable, though it was not
enough to warrant dismissal of the case.

eBay also argued in its Motion to Dismiss that all of the
Plaintiffs' claims were barred by eBay's User Agreements and wrote
that "each of the causes of action fails to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted."

eBay spokesperson John Pluhowski told AuctionBytes on Monday, "We
prevailed in the matter.  We defeated class certification, the
judge found no evidence of any damages, and after several years of
litigation plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the non-class claims
with no payment by eBay."

As far as damages, the Judge ruled it would be difficult to set
damages for all class members given the individual nature of each
class member's transaction on the platform -- in a hearing, she
said she had not heard "anything that comes close to a method for
proving up damages" for a class.  In her ruling denying class
certification, she wrote:

"In sum, plaintiffs have failed to show that common issues
predominate over individual issues. The court finds that
individual questions of damages predominate and therefore the
proposed class is not sufficiently cohesive to warrant
adjudication by representation. The court notes that many of these
factors could well be unprovable on a class-wide basis and
therefore fatal to any class certification. The court hereby
DENIES plaintiffs' motion for class certification."

Balestriere said plaintiffs settled the case when the Court denied
the plaintiffs' motion for class certification, a decision with
which the firm respectfully disagrees, he said, and believes there
are many people who were affected by eBay Live Auctions.

Balestriere's resume reads like a character out of a TV crime
drama.  Before joining a private practice, he worked in the
Manhattan District Attorney's Office in the Rackets Bureau and
then for the New York State Attorney General's Office where he
directed teams of former police detective investigators, financial
auditors, and investigative analysts into long term investigations
of organized crime, insurance fraud, human trafficking and large
identity theft rings.

Asked if he would again go after the auction companies in addition
to eBay, Balestriere said it was like organized crime -- "you have
one big family group, and smaller gangs helping them. You go after
the big group and anyone who helped perpetrate the fraud."

As to why he is pursuing the investigation, he said, "because the
fraud happened and there are many victims," and said he believed
that he could provide sufficient basis for a new court to certify
a class."  And, he stated, "Any RICO allegations we believe would
be essentially the same as before: eBay provides the platform
through which the seller co-conspirators are able to perpetrate
their fraud."

To learn more about Balestriere Fariello's current investigation,
buyers who used eBay Live Auctions can e-mail
laura.sayler@balestriere.net


EV3 INC: Settles Stockholder Suit on Covidien Acquisition Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
ev3 Inc. has reached an agreement with the plaintiffs to settle
the claims asserted in the purported stockholder class action
lawsuits related to Dublin, Ireland-based Covidien's proposed
acquisition of ev3.

The cases are being heard in the District Court for the State of
Minnesota, Hennepin County and the Court of Chancery of the State
of Delaware.

On July 2, 2010, ev3 and the other defendants and the plaintiffs
in the lawsuits executed a memorandum of understanding to settle
all claims asserted in the lawsuits, subject to, among other
things, confirmation from plaintiffs' counsel following
confirmatory discovery, that the proposed settlement is fair,
adequate and reasonable, the execution of a stipulation of
settlement, and approval by the Chancery Court of the State of
Delaware.  The memorandum of understanding provides, among other
things, that ev3 will make supplemental disclosures to its
Solicitation/Recommendation Statement on Schedule 14D-9 and make
certain amendments to the merger agreement related to Covidien's
proposed acquisition of ev3.

On June 11, 2010, Covidien commenced its tender offer to acquire
all the outstanding shares of common stock of ev3 at a price of
$22.50 per share in cash.  The tender offer is scheduled to expire
at 12:00 midnight, New York City time, at the end of the day on
Friday, July 9, 2010, unless it is extended.  The ev3 board of
directors has unanimously recommended that ev3 stockholders accept
the tender offer, tender their shares of ev3 common stock in the
tender offer, and if necessary, adopt the merger agreement.

Complete terms and conditions of the tender offer are set forth in
the offer to purchase, letter of transmittal and other related
materials filed with the SEC by Covidien Group S.a.r.l. and COV
Delaware Corporation on June 11, 2010 with the tender offer
statement on Schedule TO, as amended.

Since its founding in 2000, ev3 Inc. (Nasdaq:EVVV) --
http://www.ev3.net/-- has been dedicated to developing
breakthrough and clinically proven technologies for the
endovascular treatment of peripheral vascular and neurovascular
diseases.  The company offers a comprehensive portfolio of
treatment options, including the primary interventional
technologies used today -- plaque excision systems, peripheral
angioplasty balloons, stents, embolic protection devices, liquid
embolics, embolization coils, flow diversion, thrombectomy
catheters and occlusion balloons.


FAMILY DOLLAR: Pays $35.6 Million Judgment in "Morgan" Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Family Dollar Stores, Inc., has paid judgment of $35.6 million,
plus interest, attorney's fees and other related costs, thus
concluding the litigation filed by Janice Morgan and Barbara
Richardson, according to the company's July 7, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended May 29, 2010.

On Jan. 30, 2001, Janice Morgan and Barbara Richardson, two
individuals who have held the position of Store Manager for
subsidiaries of the company, filed a Complaint against Family
Dollar in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Alabama.

The Complaint alleged that the company violated the FLSA by
classifying the named plaintiffs and other similarly situated
current and former Store Managers as "exempt" employees who are
not entitled to overtime compensation.

The court allowed the case to proceed as a "collective action" and
notice of the pendency of the lawsuit was sent to approximately
13,000 current and former Store Managers holding the position on
or after July 1, 1999.

Approximately 2,550 of those receiving such notice filed consent
forms and joined the lawsuit as plaintiffs, including
approximately 2,300 former Store Managers and approximately 250
then current employees.

After rulings by the Court on motions to dismiss certain
plaintiffs filed by the company, 1,424 plaintiffs remained in
the case at the commencement of trial.

A jury trial was held in June 2005, in Tuscaloosa, Alabama, and
ended with the judge declaring a mistrial after the jury was
unable to reach a unanimous decision in the matter.

The case was subsequently retried before another Tuscaloosa jury,
which found that the company should have classified the
Store Manager plaintiffs as hourly employees entitled to overtime
pay, rather than as salaried exempt managers, and awarded damages.

Subsequently, the Court ruled that the company did not act in good
faith in classifying the plaintiffs as exempt, and after
making adjustments to the damages award based upon the filing of
personal bankruptcy by certain plaintiffs, the Court entered a
final modified judgment for approximately $35.6 million.

The District Court advised that it would consider the plaintiffs'
motion for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses
at the conclusion of the appellate process.

The company appealed this final judgment to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the 11th Circuit.  On Dec. 16, 2008, the Court of
Appeals issued a ruling affirming the judgment of the District
Court.  The company filed a petition the U.S. Supreme Court to
grant certiorari for review of this ruling.

On Oct. 5, 2009, the Supreme Court decided not to hear the
company's appeal of the store manager classification litigation
known as the Morgan case.

During the first quarter of fiscal 2010, the company paid the
judgment of $35.6 million, plus interest, attorney's fees and
other related costs, thus concluding the Morgan litigation.

Family Dollar Stores, Inc. -- http://www.familydollar.com/--
operates a chain of more than 6,500 general merchandise retail
discount stores in 44 states, providing consumers with a selection
of merchandise in neighborhood stores.  the company's
merchandise assortment includes consumables, home products,
apparel and accessories, and seasonal and electronics.  The
company's products include apparel, food, cleaning and paper
products, home decor, beauty and health aids, toys, pet
products, automotive products, domestics, seasonal goods and
electronics.


FAMILY DOLLAR: Defends Various Suits in North Carolina
-------------------------------------------------------
Family Dollar Stores, Inc., remains a defendant in various suits
pending in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
North Carolina, Charlotte Division, according to the company's
July 7, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended May 29, 2010.

Since 2004, individuals who have held the position of Store
Manager for subsidiaries of the company have filed lawsuits
alleging that the company violated the Fair Labor Standards Act,
and/or similar state laws, by classifying them as "exempt"
employees who are not entitled to overtime compensation.  The
majority of the Complaints in each action also request that the
cases proceed as collective actions under the FLSA or as class
actions under state law and request recovery of overtime pay,
liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and court costs.  The
company currently has 22 such cases pending against it.

A total of 19 of these cases are now pending before the N.C.
Federal Court.  All of these cases have been either transferred by
U.S. District Courts in various states to the N.C. Federal Court
or were the subject of an order entered by the United States
Judicial Panel on MultiDistrict Litigation transferring the cases
that were originally filed in the United States District Courts in
various states to the N.C. Federal Court for coordination of
discovery with the other pending cases.  The district court has
stayed all discovery in these cases pending the outcome of the
appeal in the suits Grace v. Family Dollar Stores, Inc. and Ward
v. Family Dollar, Inc.

Presently, there are a total of 68 named plaintiffs and/or opt-ins
in these cases.

Family Dollar Stores, Inc. -- http://www.familydollar.com/--
operates a chain of more than 6,500 general merchandise retail
discount stores in 44 states, providing consumers with a selection
of merchandise in neighborhood stores.  the company's
merchandise assortment includes consumables, home products,
apparel and accessories, and seasonal and electronics.  The
company's products include apparel, food, cleaning and paper
products, home decor, beauty and health aids, toys, pet
products, automotive products, domestics, seasonal goods and
electronics.


FAMILY DOLLAR: Defends Two-FLSA Violations Suit in Kentcuky
-----------------------------------------------------------
Family Dollar Stores, Inc., defends two suits alleging violations
of the Fair Labor Standards Act, according to the company's July
7, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended May 29, 2010.

Two Store Manager misclassification class/collective action cases
have been filed and are presently subject to motions to have them
transferred as tag-alongs to the MultiDistrict Litigation.

The cases are Friedman v. Family Dollar Stores, Inc. and Family
Dollar Stores of Connecticut, Inc., which was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Connecticut on Jan. 15, 2010,
and Barker v. Family Dollar, Inc., which was filed in Circuit
Court in Jefferson County, Kentucky on Feb. 17, 2010, and removed
to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky.

The MDL Panel is likely to rule within the next two months.

Family Dollar Stores, Inc. -- http://www.familydollar.com/--
operates a chain of more than 6,500 general merchandise retail
discount stores in 44 states, providing consumers with a selection
of merchandise in neighborhood stores.  the company's
merchandise assortment includes consumables, home products,
apparel and accessories, and seasonal and electronics.  The
company's products include apparel, food, cleaning and paper
products, home decor, beauty and health aids, toys, pet
products, automotive products, domestics, seasonal goods and
electronics.


FAMILY DOLLAR: Continues to Defend "Walters" Suit
-------------------------------------------------
Family Dollar Stores, Inc., continues to defend the matter Twila
Walters et al. v. Family Dollar Stores of Missouri, Inc.,
according to the company's July 7, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
May 29, 2010.

The company received a class action lawsuit regarding the exempt
status of Store Managers under Missouri law,

This case was originally filed on Jan. 26, 2010, in the Circuit
Court of Jackson County, Missouri.

The company removed it to federal court, and the plaintiff
voluntarily dismissed.  The plaintiff later re-filed the case in
the Circuit Court of Jackson County, and it has not been subject
to removal.

Therefore, the company does not expect this case to become part of
the MDL.

Family Dollar Stores, Inc. -- http://www.familydollar.com/--
operates a chain of more than 6,500 general merchandise retail
discount stores in 44 states, providing consumers with a selection
of merchandise in neighborhood stores.  the company's
merchandise assortment includes consumables, home products,
apparel and accessories, and seasonal and electronics.  The
company's products include apparel, food, cleaning and paper
products, home decor, beauty and health aids, toys, pet
products, automotive products, domestics, seasonal goods and
electronics.


FAMILY DOLLAR: Defends Wage & Hour Violations Suit
--------------------------------------------------
Family Dollar Stores, Inc., continues to defend a wages and hours
violations suit pending in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Kentucky, according to the company's July 7, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended May 29, 2010.

A putative class action was also filed on behalf of store Team
Members, who are paid on an hourly basis, on April 27, 2010.
This case, McCauley et al. v. Family Dollar, Inc., was filed in
Circuit Court in Jefferson County, Kentucky, and was removed to
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky.

The plaintiffs allege that they and a putative class of similarly
situated store Team Members throughout Kentucky were required to
work off the clock and without breaks in violation of the Kentucky
Wages and Hours law.  The plaintiffs seek the value of their
unpaid wages (off-the-clock time and statutory breaks), liquidated
damages in an equal amount, attorneys' fees and costs, and pre-
and post-judgment interest.  The company discloses it maintains
strict policies prohibiting off-the-clock work and requiring
employees to take all breaks required by applicable law.

Family Dollar Stores, Inc. -- http://www.familydollar.com/--
operates a chain of more than 6,500 general merchandise retail
discount stores in 44 states, providing consumers with a selection
of merchandise in neighborhood stores.  the company's
merchandise assortment includes consumables, home products,
apparel and accessories, and seasonal and electronics.  The
company's products include apparel, food, cleaning and paper
products, home decor, beauty and health aids, toys, pet
products, automotive products, domestics, seasonal goods and
electronics.


FAMILY DOLLAR: Defends Suit Over Alleged Pay Discrimination
-----------------------------------------------------------
Family Dollar Stores, Inc., defends a putative class action,
alleging discriminatory pay practices with respect to the
company's female store managers, according to the company's
July 7, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended May 29, 2010.

On Oct. 14, 2008, a complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court
in Birmingham, Alabama captioned Scott, et al. v. Family Dollar
Stores, Inc. alleging discriminatory pay practices with respect to
the company's female store managers.

This case was pled as a putative class action or collective action
under applicable statutes on behalf of all Family Dollar female
store managers.  The plaintiffs seek recovery of compensatory and
punitive money damages, recovery of attorneys' fees and equitable
relief.

The case has been transferred to the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of North Carolina.

Family Dollar Stores, Inc. -- http://www.familydollar.com/--
operates a chain of more than 6,500 general merchandise retail
discount stores in 44 states, providing consumers with a selection
of merchandise in neighborhood stores.  the company's
merchandise assortment includes consumables, home products,
apparel and accessories, and seasonal and electronics.  The
company's products include apparel, food, cleaning and paper
products, home decor, beauty and health aids, toys, pet
products, automotive products, domestics, seasonal goods and
electronics.


FREEDOM STRATEGIC: Class Counsel Wins $3,250,000 in Atty. Fees
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Philip M. Pro issued a final order approving the Stipulation
of Settlement in Steven Klein, William J. Brooksbank, Donavon
Johnson, Kevin Burk, and Joseph F. Mannix, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly, v. Freedom Strategic Partners,
LLC, Jovan Vercel, Jr., Kenneth M. Widner, Freedom Wireless, Inc.,
Douglas V. Fougnies, and Larry L. Day, case no. 08-cv-1369 (D.
Nev., July 6, 2010).

The Court finds the Settlement Agreement fair, reasonable and
adequate, and in the best interests of, the Class.  The Court also
approves the Plan of Allocation.

The Court awards the Class Counsel $3,250,000 in attorneys fees
and expenses.  Payment is to be made to Class Counsel -- Bonnett,
Fairbourn, Friedman & Balint, P.C. and Tiffany & Bosco, PA -- from
the Settlement Fund on the Effective Date.  Bonnett, Fairbourn,
Friedman & Balint, P.C. and Tiffany & Bosco, PA, in their sole
discretion, are to allocate and distribute the Class Counsel
Payment among all counsel for the Plaintiffs.

The Court awards each person current and former named Plaintiff
who was deposed in the action $7,500 as a service award reflecting
their personal time and effort committed to the prosecution of the
Action, inuring to the benefit of the entire Class.  The service
awards are to be paid from the Settlement Fund on the Effective
Date.

The Court awards the Defendants, in reimbursement for the cost of
providing notice to the Class, $4,119.90, to be paid from the
Settlement Fund on the Effective Date.

A copy of the order is available at no charge at:

     http://www.leagle.com/unsecure/page.htm?shortname=infdco20100706a67


HERLEY INDUSTRIES: Reaches Agreement to Settle Securities' Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
John A. Thonet, Chairman of the Board for Herley Industries, Inc.,
disclosed that an agreement has been reached and preliminarily
approved by the Court, to settle all securities class actions
originally filed in 2006 in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania, consolidated at In re Herley
Industries, Inc. Securities Litigation, Docket No. 06-cv-2596
(JRS), according to the company's July 7, 2010, Form 8-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, according to the
company's July 7, 2010, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission.

The proposed settlement resolves any and all lawsuits filed
against the company as a result of the indictment brought in June
2006.  The company and certain of its current and former officers
and directors were named as defendants in a class action under
which the lead plaintiff sought damages in excess of $80 million
on behalf of a class of purchasers of the company's securities
between October 1, 2001 and June 14, 2006 for alleged violations
of the federal securities laws.   The company and the individual
defendants have steadfastly maintained that the claims raised in
the securities class action were without merit, and have
vigorously contested those claims.

As part of the settlement, the company and the individual
defendants continue to deny any wrongdoing or any other improper
actions.

The terms of the settlement provide for the dismissal of the
litigation against all defendants, including the company, and the
creation by the company of a $10 million settlement fund.  The
fund will be allocated, after deduction of court-ordered expenses
and counsel fees, among members of the settlement class who submit
valid proofs of claims.

The settlement remains subject to the final approval of the Court,
which will convene a hearing to address this issue on Sept. 13,
2010.  Terms for distribution of the settlement fund to class
members, less fees awarded by the Court to class counsel, will be
contained in a notice to be sent to class members.

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

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

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

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

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


HOLY CROSS: Court Dismisses Former Workers' Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------
The Calgary Herald reports that a class-action lawsuit launched on
behalf of former workers at Calgary's Holy Cross Centre alleging
they were exposed to dangerous levels of asbestos has been
dismissed by a Court of Queen's Bench justice.

In court documents filed in 2008, Jim Stewart -- who worked as a
registered nurse at the Holy Cross between March 6, 2001, and
April 17, 2001 -- claimed that asbestos in the facility wasn't
safely removed during renovations, putting staff at risk.

The action had been commenced as a class proceeding but hadn't
been certified.  The lawsuit named Dr. Peter Huang, his brothers,
Dr. Ian Huang and Dr. John Huang, and their company, Enterprise
Universal, as the defendants.

At the time, Holy Cross officials argued the allegations were
baseless, and called the lawsuit a personal attack against the
facility's owners.  Holy Cross, once a major public hospital in
Mission, has been a source of controversy since it was sold for
C$4.57 million to Enterprise Universal in 1997.

In 2005, Enterprise Universal paid a fine for failing to comply
with a stop-work order from Occupational Health and Safety during
an asbestos investigation.

In the decision on the class action lawsuit, Court of Queen's
Bench Justice Sheilah Martin wrote that the Workers' Compensation
Act "operates to stay the action" of Stewart against Enterprise.
Further, "there is also no genuine issue concerning the personal
liability of Dr. Peter Huang and Dr. Ian Huang and the action
against them is dismissed," she wrote.  "In the absence of
exceptional circumstances, Mr. Stewart cannot continue this action
and it is dismissed in its entirety."


HSBC BANK: Sued Over Credit-Card "Payment Protection" Plans
-----------------------------------------------------------
Becky Yerak at Chicago Breaking Business reports that two HSBC
units -- HSBC Bank USA and HSBC Card Services Inc. -- have been
hit with two federal class-action lawsuits claiming they've sold
confusing credit-card "payment protection" plans to senior
citizens, the unemployed and disabled residents in New Jersey and
Pennsylvania who might not be eligible for the coverage plans.

The lawsuits were filed July 2 in U.S. district courts in
Pennsylvania and New Jersey, and seek class-action status.  The
lead plaintiffs are Marilyn Rizera, a 54-year-old disabled
resident of Magnolia, N.J., and Philadelphia residents Edward
Esslinger, 63, who is also disabled; Gloria Glover, 68, who is
retired and therefore allegedly excluded from receiving most or
all of the benefits; and Ardath Rogers, 75, a part-time worker.

According to the report, the suits claim that HSBC marketed such
"payment protection" products called "Personal Account
Protection," "Personal Account Protection Elite" and "Account
Secure Plus" to credit-card customers.

"Although HSBC's Payment Protection is indistinguishable from a
contract of credit insurance, Payment Protection is not marketed
or sold as insurance," the suits said, according to the report.
"HSBC does not register Payment Protection with" Pennsylvania or
New Jersey insurance regulators, "thereby avoiding state
regulation."

Not only that, the lawsuits say, but HSBC sells the product in a
"deceptive and misleading manner" through direct mail and
telemarketing.

It represents Payment Protection as a service that suspends the
required minimum monthly payment on a credit card and excuses the
monthly interest for a limited period of time, preventing the
account from becoming delinquent, the suits said. The marketing
says, "In good times and bad, we've got you covered."

But the Payment Protection plan is a "dense maze of limitations,
exclusions and restrictions, making it impossible for customers to
determine what Payment Protection covers and whether it's a sound
financial choice," the suits say.

The lawsuits further allege that HSBC makes no effort to determine
whether a subscriber is even eligible at the time of sale.  "As a
consequence, the company bills thousands of retired persons, many
of whom are senior citizens, along with the unemployed, self-
employed, part-time or seasonal residents, as well as disabled
individuals, for payment protection coverage, even though their
employment or health status prevents them from receiving benefits
under the plan," the suits said.

HSBC knows that few of those subscribers will ever receive
benefits and for those who do the premiums will exceed benefits,
the suits said, noting that HSBC has increased profits by "many
millions of dollars" through the Payment Protection sales.

The cost of Payment Protection is a monthly charge of $1.35 per
$100 of a credit-card balance. For example, a credit-card customer
with a $10,000 balance who has subscribed for Payment Protection
owes HSBC $135 that month just for coverage.

"Benefits are unavailable or limited for disabled persons," the
lawsuits say, adding that HSBC fails to ask if consumers are
disabled. In some cases, "Payment Protection has been unilaterally
imposed upon consumers," the lawsuits say.

Telephone marketing scripts are "incomplete, indecipherable,
misleading and obfuscatory," the suits say. The lawsuits'
allegations include breach of contract and breach of the covenant
of good faith and fair dealing, and unjust enrichment. Both
lawsuits were filed by Golomb & Honik of Philadelphia, and the
plaintiffs are seeking refunds of Payment Protection payments made
to HSBC.

HSBC declined to comment.


IHOP FRANCHISING: Accused in Calif. of Overcharging Franchisees
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that IHOP Franchising aka
International House of Pancakes overcharges franchisees for
equipment leases, and charges rent for equipment the franchisees
own outright, according to a class action in Sacramento Superior
Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Hameed v. IHOP Franchising, LLC, et
al., Case No. 34-2010-00081392 (Calif. Super. Ct., Sacramento
Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/07/07/IHOP.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark E. Ellis, Esq.
          Daniel D. McGee, Esq.
          Maria S. Rosenfeld, Esq.
          ELLIS, LA VOIE, POIRIER, STEINHEIMER & MCGEE LLP
          555 University Ave., Suite 200 East
          Sacramento, CA 95825
          Telephone: 916-283-8820


INTERACTIVE DATA: Inks MOU to Settle Consolidated Suit in Del.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Interactive Data Corporation has entered into a memorandum of
understanding to settle a consolidated suit pending in the Court
of Chancery of the State of Delaware arising out of the planned
acquisition of the company by Hg Investors LLC, according to the
company's July 6, 2010, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission.

On May 3, 2010, the company, Hg Investors and Igloo Merger
Corporation, entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger pursuant
to which Hg Investors and Igloo, affiliates of Silver Lake
Technology Management L.L.C. and Warburg Pincus LLC, have agreed
to purchase the company.

Two putative stockholder class action lawsuits have been filed in
connection with the Proposed Transaction.

                         Page Action

On May 4, 2010, a putative stockholder class action lawsuit was
filed in Middlesex County Superior Court Department in the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts against the company, the members of
the Board of Directors of the company, Warburg Pincus, Silver
Lake, Hg Investors, Igloo and Pearson DBC Holdings Inc.

The complaint in the lawsuit, Kenneth M. Page v. Rona Fairhead et
al., C.A. No. 2010-1712, asserts that the members of the Board of
Directors breached their fiduciary duties by causing the company
to enter into the Merger Agreement and further asserts that the
company and certain entities affiliated with Silver Lake and
Warburg Pincus aided and abetted those alleged breaches of duty.
The complaint seeks, among other relief, an order enjoining the
Proposed Transaction, rescission of the Merger Agreement, damages
and plaintiff's counsel's fees and experts' fees.

On June 10, 2010, the plaintiff in the Massachusetts action filed
a complaint in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware
captioned Page v. Interactive Data Corporation et al., C.A. No.
5554-CC.

                          Marques Action

On May 14, 2010, a putative stockholder class action lawsuit was
filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against
the company, the members of the Board of Directors, Pearson,
Igloo, Silver Lake and Warburg Pincus.  The complaint in the
lawsuit, Brad Marques v. Rona Fairhead, et al., C.A. No. 5498-CC,
asserts that the members of the Board of Directors and Pearson
breached their fiduciary duties by causing the company to enter
into the Merger Agreement and further asserts that the company, Hg
Investors, Silver Lake and Warburg Pincus aided and abetted those
alleged breaches of duty.

The complaint seeks, among other relief, an order enjoining the
Proposed Transaction, rescission of the Merger Agreement, damages
and plaintiff's counsel's fees and experts' fees.

On June 18, 2010, the plaintiff in the Marques action and the
plaintiff in the Page action moved to consolidate the two Delaware
into a single action under the caption, In re Interactive Data
Shareholders Litigation, Consolidated C.A. No. 5498-CC.  On June
23, 2010, the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware granted
the plaintiffs' motion to consolidate.  The verified amended class
action complaint filed in the Marques action is the operative
complaint in the consolidated action.

On June 29, 2010, the company and the defendants in the
consolidated action entered into a memorandum of understanding
with the plaintiffs providing for the settlement and dismissal
with prejudice of this action, subject to customary conditions,
including completion of appropriate settlement documentation,
confirmatory discovery, consummation of the Proposed Transaction
and all necessary court approvals.

Although the company and the defendants in the consolidated action
deny any wrongdoing and believe that the action is without merit,
and the company believes that no further supplemental disclosure
was required under applicable laws, to avoid the risk of the
consolidated action adversely affecting the Proposed Transaction
and to minimize the expense of defending such actions, the company
agreed, pursuant to the terms of the memorandum of understanding,
to include certain additional disclosures in the Definitive
Information Statement that were not included in the Preliminary
Information Statement.

The settlement and dismissal with prejudice, if completed and
approved by the court, will resolve all of the claims that were or
could have been brought in the action, including all claims
relating to the Proposed Transaction (other than claims for
appraisal under Section 262 of the Delaware General Corporation
Law).  In connection with the settlement and dismissal with
prejudice, the company has agreed, subject to court approval, that
it will pay plaintiffs' counsel the amount of $612,500 for its
fees and expenses in the action.  The settlement will not affect
the merger consideration to be paid to the Company's stockholders
pursuant to the Proposed Transaction.

Interactive Data Corporation -- http://www.interactivedata.com/--
is a trusted leader in financial information.  Thousands of
financial institutions and active traders, as well as hundreds of
software and service providers, subscribe to the company's fixed
income evaluations, reference data, real-time market data, trading
infrastructure services, fixed income analytics, desktop solutions
and web-based solutions.  Interactive Data's offerings can help
clients around the world with mission-critical functions,
including portfolio valuation, regulatory compliance, risk
management, electronic trading and wealth management.  Interactive
Data is headquartered in Bedford, Massachusetts and has more than
2,400 employees in offices worldwide.  Pearson plc (NYSE: PSO;
LSE: PSON), an international media company, is Interactive Data's
majority stockholder.


JABIL CIRCUIT: Second Amended Class Action Suit Concluded
---------------------------------------------------------
A second amended class action complaint against Jabil Circuit,
Inc., has concluded after the plaintiffs did not file a petition
the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari by the May 24,
2010, deadline, according to the company's July 2, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended May 31, 2010.

The plaintiffs did not petition the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ
of certiorari by May 24, 2010 (which was the deadline for such
petition). Accordingly, the company considers this litigation to
be concluded.

On Sept. 18, 2006, a putative shareholder class action was filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida,
Tampa Division against the company and various present and former
officers and directors, including:

    1. Forbes I.J. Alexander,
    2. Scott D. Brown,
    3. Laurence S. Grafstein,
    4. Mel S. Lavitt,
    5. Chris Lewis,
    6. Timothy Main,
    7. Mark T. Mondello,
    8. William D. Morean,
    9. Lawrence J. Murphy,
   10. Frank A. Newman,
   11. Steven A. Raymund,
   12. Thomas A. Sansone, and
   13. Kathleen A. Walters,

on behalf of a proposed class of plaintiffs comprised of persons
that purchased the company's shares between Sept. 19, 2001 and
June 21, 2006.

A second putative class action, containing virtually identical
legal claims and allegations of fact was filed on Oct. 12, 2006.

The two actions were consolidated into a single proceeding and on
Jan. 18, 2007, the Court appointed The Laborers Pension Trust Fund
for Northern California and Pension Trust Fund for Operating
Engineers as lead plaintiffs in the action.

On March 5, 2007, the lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated class
action complaint.

The Consolidated Class Action Complaint is purported to be brought
on behalf of all persons who purchased the company's
publicly traded securities between Sept. 19, 2001 and Dec. 21,
2006, and names the company and certain of its current and former
officers, including Forbes I.J. Alexander, Scott D. Brown, Wesley
B. Edwards, Chris A. Lewis, Mark T. Mondello, Robert L. Paver and
Ronald J. Rapp, as well as certain of our directors, Mel S.
Lavitt, William D. Morean, Frank A. Newman, Laurence S. Grafstein,
Steven A. Raymund, Lawrence J. Murphy, Kathleen A. Walters and
Thomas A. Sansone, as defendants.

The Consolidated Class Action Complaint alleged violations of
Sections 10(b), 20(a), and 14(a) of the Exchange Act and the rules
promulgated thereunder.

The Consolidated Class Action Complaint alleged that the
defendants engaged in a scheme to fraudulently backdate the grant
dates of options for various senior officers and directors,
causing the company's consolidated financial statements to
understate management compensation and overstate net earnings,
thereby inflating the stock price.

In addition, the complaint alleged that the company's proxy
statements falsely stated that the company had adhered to its
option grant policy of granting options at the closing price of
the company's shares on the trading date immediately prior to the
date of the grant.  Also, the complaint alleged that the
defendants failed to timely disclose the facts and circumstances
that led the company, on June 12, 2006, to announce that it was
lowering its prior guidance for net earnings for the third quarter
of fiscal year 2006.

On April 30, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a First Amended
Consolidated Class Action Complaint asserting claims substantially
similar to the Consolidated Class Action Complaint it replaced but
adding additional allegations relating to the restatement of
earnings previously announced in connection with the correction of
errors in the calculation of compensation expense for certain
stock option grants.

The company filed a motion to dismiss the First Amended
Consolidated Class Action Complaint on June 29, 2007.

The plaintiffs filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss, and
the company then filed a reply memorandum in further support of
its motion to dismiss on Sept. 28, 2007.

On April 9, 2008, the Court dismissed the First Amended
Consolidated Class Action Complaint without prejudice and with
leave to amend such complaint on or before May 12, 2008.

On May 12, 2008, plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Class Action
Complaint.

The Second Amended Class Action Complaint asserts substantially
the same causes of action against the same defendants, predicated
largely on the same allegations of fact as in the First Amended
Consolidated Class Action Complaint except insofar as the
plaintiffs added KPMG LLP, the company's independent registered
public accounting firm, as a defendant and added additional
allegations with respect to:

    (a) pre-class period option grants,

    (b) the professional background of certain defendants,

    (c) option grants to non-executive employees,

    (d) the restatement of our financial results for certain
        periods between 1996 and 2005, and

    (e) trading by the named plaintiffs and certain of the
        defendants during the class period.

The Second Amended Class Action Complaint also includes an
additional claim for insider trading against certain defendants
pursuant to Rules 10b-5 and 10b5-1 promulgated pursuant to the
Exchange Act.  The company filed a motion to dismiss the Second
Amended Class Action Complaint.

On Jan. 26, 2009, the Court dismissed the Second Amended Class
Action Complaint with prejudice.

The plaintiffs appealed this dismissal on Feb. 20, 2009, and oral
arguments occurred in December 2009.

On Jan. 19, 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh
Circuit affirmed the Court's prior dismissal with prejudice of
the Second Amended Class Action Complaint.  The plaintiffs
subsequently moved for a re-hearing on the matter, which motion
was denied.

The plaintiffs did not petition the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ
of certiorari by May 24, 2010 (which was the deadline for such
petition). Accordingly, the company considers this litigation to
be concluded.

The suit is Edward J. Goodman Life Income Trust v. Jabil Circuit,
Inc. et al., Case No. 06-cv-01716 (M.D. Fla.) (Merryday, J.).

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         William E. Hoese
         KOHN, SWIFT & GRAF, P.C.
         1101 Market St., Suite 2400
         Philadelphia, PA 19107-3389
         Telephone: (215) 238-1700
         E-mail: whoese@kohnswift.com

Representing the defendants is:

         Michael L. Chapman, Esq.
         HOLLAND & KNIGHT, LLP
         100 N. Tampa St., Ste. 4100, PO Box 1288
         Tampa, FL 33601-1288
         Telephone: (813) 227-8500
         Facsimile: (813) 229-0134
         E-mail: michael.chapman@hklaw.com


MOBIL: Court Dismisses Price-Fixing Suit in Saipan
--------------------------------------------------
Ferdie de la Torre at Saipan Tribune reports that Superior Court
Associate Judge Perry B. Inos dismissed all claims in a class
action suit that accused Mobil and Shell of colluding to fix fuel
prices in the Commonwealth.  Judge Inos, however, allowed Jose P.
Kiyoshi, Felipe Q. Atalig, and Rabby F. Syed 20 days to amend
their complaint of price fixing.  Three other complaints -- that
Mobil and Shell engaged in false advertising, unfair or deceptive
practices, and fraud -- were "denied as futile."

According to Saipan Tribune, in dismissing the price fixing claim,
Judge Inos noted that the plaintiffs have not alleged a factual
basis to support their allegation that the prices Mobil and Shell
charged their consumers bore no reasonable relationship to the
cost of bringing gasoline to market in the CNMI during the
relevant time period.

The report says, with regard to false advertising and unfair or
deceptive practices issue, Judge Inos said the plaintiffs based
the claims on the practice of pricing gasoline in 9/10 of a cent
and rounding the final price to the nearest whole cent.  Judge
Inos said the plaintiffs' causes of action fail as a matter of law
because gasoline is pumped in a continuous stream, which almost
always requires the final price to be rounded to a whole cent, and
that the two oil companies follow the CNMI's rules and regulations
for rounding their prices.

On the fraud claim, the report continues, Judge Inos said the
plaintiffs have not sufficiently alleged the elements of fraud.

Messrs. Syed, Kiyoshi, and Atalig had asked the court to stop
Mobil and Shell and their agents from allegedly engaging in anti-
competitive and price-fixing activities.


MONSANTO CO: Defends Suit Over Chemical Plant Contamination
-----------------------------------------------------------
Monsanto Company defends a class action suit alleging
contamination in Nitro, West Virginia caused by a chemical plant
formerly owned and operated by Pharmacia.  Monsanto is named as
the successor in interest to the liabilities of Pharmacia,
according to the company's July 2, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended May
31, 2010.

Fifteen plaintiffs filed a purported class action lawsuit, styled
Virdie Allen, et al. v. Monsanto, et al., in the Putnam County,
West Virginia, state court against Monsanto, Pharmacia and seven
other defendants.  Monsanto is named as the successor in interest
to the liabilities of Pharmacia.

The alleged class consists of all current and former residents,
workers, and students who, between 1949 and the present, were
allegedly exposed to dioxins/furans contamination in counties
surrounding Nitro, West Virginia.  The complaint alleges that the
source of the contamination is a chemical plant in Nitro, formerly
owned and operated by Pharmacia and later by Flexsys, a joint
venture between Solutia and Akzo Nobel Chemicals, Inc.

Akzo Nobel and Flexsys were named defendants in the case but
Solutia was not, due to its then pending bankruptcy proceeding.
The suit seeks damages for property cleanup costs, loss of real
estate value, funds to test property for contamination levels,
funds to test for human exposure, and future medical monitoring
costs.  The complaint also seeks an injunction against further
contamination and punitive damages.

Monsanto has agreed to indemnify and defend Akzo Nobel and the
Flexsys defendant group.

The class action certification hearing was held on Oct. 29, 2007.
On Jan. 8, 2008, the trial court issued an order certifying the
Allen (now Zina G. Bibb et al. v. Monsanto et al., because Bibb
replaced Allen as class representative) case as a class action.

The court set a trial date of April 4, 2011, for the Bibb class
action.

Monsanto Company -- http://www.monsanto.com/-- is a leading
global provider of technology-based solutions and agricultural
products that improve farm productivity and food quality.
Monsanto remains focused on enabling both small-holder and large-
scale farmers to produce more from their land while conserving
more of our world's natural resources such as water and energy.


MONSANTO CO: Plaintiffs' Appeal on Summary Judgment Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
The appeal of the plaintiffs on the summary judgment order of the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois in favor
of Monsanto Company remains pending in the Seventh Circuit Court
of Appeals, according to the company's July 2, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended May 31, 2010.

Two former employees of Monsanto and Pharmacia filed a purported
class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Illinois against Monsanto and the Monsanto Company
Pension Plan.

The suit claims that the Pension Plan has violated the age
discrimination and other rules under the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974 from Jan. 1, 1997 (when the Pension
Plan was sponsored by Pharmacia, then known as Monsanto Company)
and continuing to the present.

In January 2006, a separate group of former employees of Pharmacia
filed a similar purported class action lawsuit in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Illinois against
Pharmacia, the Pharmacia Cash Balance Plan, and other defendants.
On July 7, 2006, the plaintiffs amended their lawsuit to add
Monsanto and the Pension Plan as additional defendants.

On Sept. 1, 2006, the Court consolidated these lawsuits with two
purported class action lawsuits also pending in the same Court
against the Solutia Company Pension Plan, under Walker v.
Monsanto, the first filed case.

The court conducted a class certification hearing on Sept. 12,
2007.  Prior to the hearing, all parties agreed the case should
proceed as a class action and also agreed on a definition of the
respective classes.  The classes were certified by court order on
May 22, 2008.

On July 11, 2008, all parties filed dispositive motions on the
issue of liability, which motions were heard by the court on
May 6, 2009.

On June 11, 2009, the Court granted summary judgment in favor of
Monsanto and the other defendants on the age discrimination
claims.  The Court granted summary judgment in favor of the
plaintiffs on a separate claim regarding post-termination
interest, which was subsequently settled for an immaterial amount.

The Court entered judgment on the entire case on Sept. 29, 2009.

On Oct. 27, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the
summary judgment order on the age discrimination claims.
The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral argument in the
case on April 20, 2010; a decision is expected by the fall of
2010.

Monsanto Company -- http://www.monsanto.com/-- is a leading
global provider of technology-based solutions and agricultural
products that improve farm productivity and food quality.
Monsanto remains focused on enabling both small-holder and large-
scale farmers to produce more from their land while conserving
more of our world's natural resources such as water and energy.


MONSANTO CO: Agrees to Settle Missouri Consolidated Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Monsanto Company has entered into a settlement agreement to
resolve a consolidated suit pending in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Missouri, according to the company's July
2, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended May 31, 2010.

Starting the week of March 7, 2004, a series of purported class
action cases were filed in 14 different state courts against
Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc., and the company.

The suits allege that the company conspired with Pioneer to
violate various state competition and consumer protection laws by
fixing and artificially inflating the prices and fees for the
company's various biotechnology traits and seeds containing those
traits and imposing certain use restrictions.  All of these cases
have been transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri and consolidated, except for one case that
was pending in state court in Tennessee, which has been dismissed.

The Court set a Nov. 15, 2010, date for hearing to determine class
certification.  Pioneer has entered a stipulated settlement
agreement with individual plaintiffs with no settlement class
being certified.

In April 2010, the company entered a stipulated settlement for an
immaterial amount with individual plaintiffs with no settlement
class being certified.

Monsanto Company -- http://www.monsanto.com/-- is a leading
global provider of technology-based solutions and agricultural
products that improve farm productivity and food quality.
Monsanto remains focused on enabling both small-holder and large-
scale farmers to produce more from their land while conserving
more of our world's natural resources such as water and energy.


NOVARTIS PHARMA: 2nd Cir. Says Claims for Overtime Pay Valid
------------------------------------------------------------
In re Novartis Wage and Hour Litigation case no. 09-cv-0437 (2nd
Cir., July 6, 2010), pharmaceutical sales representatives employed
by Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation appeal from a judgment of
Judge Paul A. Crotty of the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, denying their claims under the Fair
Labor Standards Act of 1938, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 201 et seq., and state
law, for overtime pay with respect to time worked in excess of 40
hours per week.  The district court granted Novartis' motion for
summary judgment on the ground that plaintiffs are outside
salesmen and/or administrative employees who are exempted from the
FLSA's overtime pay requirements.  On appeal, plaintiffs contend
that the district court did not properly apply the exemption
standards set out in regulations promulgated under the FLSA by the
United States Secretary of Labor.  The Secretary, appearing as
amicus curiae, endorses that contention.

Circuit Judges Amalya L. Kearse and Peter W. Hall, and District
Judge Jed S. Rakoff considered all of Novartis' arguments in
support of the judgment and found in them no merit.  The Second
Circuit vacated the district court's judgment and remanded the
case for further proceedings.

A copy of the decision is available at no charge at:

     http://www.leagle.com/unsecure/page.htm?shortname=infco20100706067


NUTRACEA INC: Settlement Fairness Hearing Set for October 1
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. Announces the Notice of Pendency and
Settlement of Class Action Involving NutraCea, Inc.

    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

    JENNIFER BURRITT, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
     ALL OTHERS  SIMILARLY SITUATED,
    Plaintiff,

    vs.

    NUTRACEA, BRADLEY D. EDSON, TODD C. CROW, AND DAVID BENSOL,
    Defendants.

    No.  CV-09-00406-PHX-FJM (Consolidated)

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND HEARING
THEREON

TO: ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED THE PUBLICLY TRADED COMMON STOCK OF
NUTRACEA, INC. DURING THE PERIOD FROM APRIL 2, 2007 THROUGH
FEBRUARY 23, 2009, INCLUSIVE.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United States
District Court for the District of Arizona, that a hearing will be
held on October 1, 2010 at 2:00 p.m. before the Honorable
Frederick J. Martone, United States District Judge of the District
of Arizona, Sandra Day O'Connor U.S. Courthouse, 401 W. Washington
Street, Suite 130, SPC 1, Phoenix, AZ 85003-2118 (the "Settlement
Hearing") for the purpose of determining: (1) whether the proposed
Settlement consisting of the sum of $1,500,000, plus fifty percent
(50%) of any funds remaining in the insurance policy issued by
Defendants' directors and officers liability insurer, Carolina
Casualty Insurance Company, to NutraCea, Inc. ("NutraCea") and its
officers and directors ("Insurance Policy") after payment of all
valid claims under the Insurance Policy and payment of all legal
fees related to such valid claims, as long as there is $150,000 or
more of funds remaining in the Insurance, plus interest, should be
approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2)
whether the proposed plan to distribute the settlement proceeds is
fair, reasonable and adequate; (3) whether the application for an
award of attorneys' fees of twenty-five percent of the Settlement
Amount and reimbursement of expenses of not more than $150,000
should be approved; and (4) whether the Litigation should be
dismissed with prejudice.

If you purchased shares of NutraCea securities during the class
period from April 2, 2007 through February 23, 2009, inclusive,
your rights may be affected by the Settlement of this action. If
you have not received a detailed Notice of Pendency and Settlement
of Class Action and a copy of the Proof of Claim and Release, you
may obtain copies by writing to NutraCea, Inc. Securities
Litigation, c/o Strategic Claims Services, Claims Administrator,
P.O. Box 230, 600 N. Jackson Street, Suite 3, Media, PA 19063, or
going to the Web site, http://www.rosenlegal.com/ If you are a
member of the Class, in order to share in the distribution of the
Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof of Claim and Release
no later than September 10, 2010, establishing that you are
entitled to recovery. You will be bound by any judgment rendered
in the Litigation whether or not you make a claim.

Any objection to the Settlement, Plan of Allocation, or the
Request for Award of Attorneys' Fees and Reimbursement of Expenses
must be mailed or delivered such that it is received by each of
the following no later than September 10, 2010:

    Clerk of the Court
    U.S. District Court
    District of Arizona
    Sandra Day O'Connor U.S. Courthouse
    401 W. Washington St., Suite 130, SPC 1
    Phoenix, AZ 85003-2118

    Laurence M. Rosen
    Phillip Kim
    Timothy W. Brown
    THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
    350 Fifth Avenue,
    Suite 5508
    New York, NY 10118
    Lead Plaintiff's Counsel in the Litigation

    Sara B. Brody
    SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
    555 California Street
    San Francisco, CA 94104
    Counsel for Defendant NutraCea

If you have any questions about the Settlement, you may call or
write to Plaintiff's Lead Counsel:

    Laurence M. Rosen, Phillip Kim, Timothy W. Brown
    THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
    350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5508
    New York, NY 10118
    (212) 686-1060

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING
THIS NOTICE.

    DATED:  JUNE 3, 2010

    BY ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES
    DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA


OKLAHOMA: Trial Date in Foster-Care Suit Set for Oct. 2011
----------------------------------------------------------
David Harper at Tulsa World reports that U.S. District Judge
Gregory Frizzell set a trial for Oct. 17, 2011, in a class action
lawsuit that seeks changes in Oklahoma state's foster-care system.
However, Tulsa World relates, the judge said the date "may be a
bit ambitious" in light of the scope of the case.  He told
attorneys that "it will require all of your efforts" to attain the
goal.

The report notes Marcia Robinson Lowry, Esq., one of the attorneys
for the plaintiffs, had asked that the non-jury trial be scheduled
for next summer.  However, Judge Frizzell said a setting some 15
months in the future is more realistic.

The report notes the lawsuit was filed against various officials
of the Oklahoma Department of Human Services in Tulsa federal
court in February 2008.  The lawsuit alleges deficiencies in
Oklahoma's foster-care system.  The plaintiffs ask for
improvements in these areas:

     -- Caseloads for DHS workers and supervisors.
     -- Education and training for agency employees, foster
        parents and adoptive parents.
     -- Monitoring of the safety of children in state custody.

According to Tulsa World's Mr. Harper, the original plaintiffs
were nine children who are alleged to have suffered in DHS
placements.  The case has since become a class-action lawsuit with
thousands of children in DHS custody as plaintiffs.

According to the report, Judge Frizzell said even though the
lawsuit was filed in February 2008, it essentially became a new
case earlier this year after the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals upheld Judge Frizzell's 2009 decision to grant the
plaintiffs' request for class-action status.

The report notes DHS has denied stalling after case files were
shared with plaintiffs at a slower pace than expected.

The report also relates that, on behalf of the Oklahoma Department
of Human Services, attorney Donald Bingham, Esq., apologized for
the slower-than-anticipated pace of providing pretrial "discovery"
materials to the plaintiffs.  His apology reiterated that made
last Thursday by co-counsel David Page at a hearing before U.S.
Magistrate Frank McCarthy.  Judge McCarthy had expressed his
dissatisfaction with the number of case files that had been shared
with the plaintiffs, and he said that if improvements are not
made, the court could issue orders that DHS might consider
"draconian."

In the meantime, the report says, Judge McCarthy has asked for
written updates on the discovery issues from each side by Aug. 6,
with a hearing set for Aug. 10.


QUEENSLAND: Patel Patients Meet to Plot Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
Kallee Buchanan, writing for ABC News, reports that some former
patients of convicted former Bundaberg-based surgeon Jayant Patel
met with the Member for Burnett, Rob Messenger, and a Brisbane
barrister Thursday night to discuss a potential class action for
more compensation.  About 35 people attended the meeting in
Bundaberg.

Anna Caldwell at The Courier-Mail in Queensland, reports that the
meeting was held to plot a class action against the Queensland
state government over inadequate and missing compensation to them.
The group will pursue compensation for a range of dissatisfied
patients, including those who have been refused a payout from the
Government.

Dr. Patel, 60, was found guilty of the manslaughter of three men
including Gerry Kemps and the grievous bodily harm of a fourth
man, while working as a surgeon at Bundaberg hospital.

According to The Courier-Mail, the State Government has so far
refused to reveal how much money has been paid in compensation.
Premier Anna Bligh has said that of 388 claims lodged during the
Government's mediation process, 296 had been settled, 89 had been
rejected and three were still outstanding.

ABC News reports that Mr. Kemps' widow, Judy, said a class action
against Queensland Health would be a waste of money.  She said a
lawsuit would only make it harder for people to move on and she is
not interested in more compensation from the Queensland
Government.  She said she is angry some patients will not let the
issue rest.

ABC News further relates Mr. Messenger said he is surprised and
disappointed at Ms. Kemps' comments.  He said the group is aware
that a class action would be a difficult process but they have
voted unanimously to look into it further.

ABC News also relates Mr. Messenger said the group agreed previous
compensation payouts were not adequate and the application process
was intrusive and inappropriate.  He said the group have decided
to seek further legal advice and that the group has formed a four-
person steering committee.

"A class action would not come about if we don't take this step
but we don't want to build up people's expectations," ABC News
quotes Mr. Messenger as saying.  "Neither do we want to sit back
and not let people get medical treatment and sit back and allow
the state to pay widows less than $8,000."

According to The Courier-Mail, following the meeting, non-
practicing barrister Greg Williams, Esq., plans to shop the
group's issues around to solicitors to determine the possibility
of a class action.


RITE AID: Defends "Craig" Suit in Pennsylvania
----------------------------------------------
Rite Aid Corporation defends a class suit styled Craig et al. v.
Rite Aid Corporation et al, pending in the U.S. District Court for
the Middle District of Pennsylvania, according to the company's
July 6, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended May 29, 2010.

The company is currently a defendant in several putative
collective or class action lawsuits filed in federal or state
courts in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, Maryland, Ohio and
Oregon, purportedly on behalf of, in some cases (i) current and
former assistant store managers, or (ii) current and former store
managers and assistant store managers, respectively, working in
the company's stores at various locations.  The lawsuits allege
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and of certain state
wage and hour statutes.  The lawsuits seek various combinations of
unpaid compensation (including overtime compensation), liquidated
damages, exemplary damages, pre- and post-judgment interest as
well as attorneys' fees and costs.

The Craig action was brought on behalf of current and former
assistant store managers.  The Court, on Dec. 9, 2009,
conditionally certified a nationwide collective group of
individuals who worked for the company as assistant store managers
since Dec. 9, 2006.

Notice of the Craig action has been sent to the purported members
of the collective group.  The number of persons who will opt into
the Craig action has not been determined.

Rite Aid Corporation -- http://www.riteaid.com/-- is the largest
drugstore chain on the East Coast and the third largest drugstore
chain in the U.S.  The company operates more than 4,900 stores in
31 states and the District of Columbia.


RITE AID: Defends "Indergit" FLSA-Violations Suit in New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rite Aid Corporation defends a class suit styled Indergit v. Rite
Aid Corporation et al., pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, according to the company's July 6,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended May 29, 2010.

The company is currently a defendant in several putative
collective or class action lawsuits filed in federal or state
courts in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, Maryland, Ohio and
Oregon, purportedly on behalf of, in some cases (i) current and
former assistant store managers, or (ii) current and former store
managers and assistant store managers, respectively, working in
the company's stores at various locations.  The lawsuits allege
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and of certain state
wage and hour statutes.  The lawsuits seek various combinations of
unpaid compensation (including overtime compensation), liquidated
damages, exemplary damages, pre- and post-judgment interest as
well as attorneys' fees and costs.

The Indergit action was brought on behalf of current and former
store managers and assistant store managers. The Court, on April
2, 2010, conditionally certified a nationwide collective group of
individuals who worked for the company as store managers since
March 31, 2007.

The Court ordered that Notice of the Indergit action be sent to
the purported members of the collective group.  Neither the actual
date on which the Notice will be sent nor the number of persons
who will opt into the Indergit action has been determined.

Rite Aid Corporation -- http://www.riteaid.com/-- is the largest
drugstore chain on the East Coast and the third largest drugstore
chain in the U.S.  The company operates more than 4,900 stores in
31 states and the District of Columbia.


RITE AID: Remains a Defendant in California Wage & Hour Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rite Aid Corporation remains a defendant in several putative class
action lawsuits filed in state courts in California alleging
violations by the company of California wage and hour laws
pertaining primarily to pay for missed meals and rest periods.

The suits purport to be class actions and seek substantial
damages.

No further details were disclosed in the company's July 6, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended May 29, 2010.

Rite Aid Corporation -- http://www.riteaid.com/-- is the largest
drugstore chain on the East Coast and the third largest drugstore
chain in the U.S.  The company operates more than 4,900 stores in
31 states and the District of Columbia.


ROCKY MOUNTAIN: Giant Food Alerts Customers on Firm's Recall
------------------------------------------------------------
Giant Food of Landover, Md. is alerting customers to a voluntary
recall by Rocky Mountain Natural Meats of its Great Range Brand
All Natural Ground Bison.  The product was recalled due to
possible E. coli O157:H7 contamination.

The following product was recalled:

    * 16-ounce packages of Great Range Brand All Natural Ground
      Bison.  This product has "sell by or freeze by" dates of
      June 21, June 22, June 24, 2010 and a UPC Code 00-16447-
      10090

E. coli O157:H7 is a potentially deadly bacterium that can cause
bloody diarrhea, dehydration and in the most severe cases, kidney
failure.  The very young, seniors and persons with weak immune
systems are the most susceptible to food borne illness.
Individuals concerned about illness should contact a physician.

To date, Giant Food has received no confirmed reports of illness
due to consumption of these products.  Customers who have
purchased the affected products should discard any unused portions
and bring their purchase receipt to Giant for a full refund.
Customers looking for additional information are encouraged to
call Giant Customer Service at (888) 469-4426 Monday through
Friday from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. for more information or visit
the Giant Food Web site at http://www.giantfood.com/

                    About Giant Food of Landover

Giant Food LLC -- http://www.GiantFood.com/-- headquartered in
Landover, Md., operates 180 supermarkets in Virginia, Maryland,
Delaware, and the District of Columbia, and employs approximately
22,000 associates.  Included within the 180 stores are 163 full-
service pharmacies.


ROCKY MOUNTAIN: Stop & Shop Alerts Customers on Firm's Recall
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Stop & Shop Supermarket Company is alerting customers to a
voluntary recall by Rocky Mountain Natural Meats of its Great
Range Brand All Natural Ground Bison.  The product was recalled
due to possible E. coli O157:H7 contamination.

The following product was recalled:

    * 16-ounce packages of Great Range Brand All Natural Ground
      Bison.  This product has "sell by or freeze by" dates of
      June 21, June 22, June 24, 2010 and a UPC Code 00-16447-
      10090

E. coli O157:H7 is a potentially deadly bacterium that can cause
bloody diarrhea, dehydration and in the most severe cases, kidney
failure.  The very young, seniors and persons with weak immune
systems are the most susceptible to food borne illness.
Individuals concerned about illness should contact a physician.

To date, Stop & Shop has received no confirmed reports of illness
due to consumption of these products.  Customers who have
purchased the affected products should discard any unused portions
and bring their purchase receipt to Stop & Shop for a full refund.
Customers looking for additional information are encouraged to
call Stop & Shop Customer Service at (800) 767-7772 Monday through
Friday from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. for more information or visit
the Stop & Shop Web site at http://www.stopandshop.com/

                        About Stop & Shop

The Stop & Shop Supermarket Company employs more than 59,000
associates and operates stores throughout Massachusetts,
Connecticut, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, New York, and New
Jersey.  The company is a member of the US Green Building Council
and has been awarded LEED (EB) certifications for 50 of its
existing stores.  Stop & Shop has been recognized by the EPA for
the superior energy management of its stores and is also a member
of the EPA's Smart Way program.


TRAVELERS COS: Fairness Hearing in Katrina Suit on Oct. 27
----------------------------------------------------------
A proposed class action Settlement has been preliminarily approved
by the court in Arthur v. Travelers, No. 09-7332 in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.

The lawsuit alleges that property owners who had Travelers
insurance received fewer benefits than they were entitled to under
their policy.  Travelers denies the allegations, but agreed to a
settlement to avoid the expense of litigation.

Class Members do not need to do anything to remain in the class.
They give up the right to sue and will be bound by all Court
orders.

Class Members who do not wish to be included in the Settlement
must submit a written request for exclusion postmarked by
September 3, 2010.  They keep the right to sue at their own
expense.  They will not receive a payment from the Settlement.

Class Members who want to object but remain in the Settlement must
submit a written objection postmarked by September 27, 2010.  If
the Settlement is approved and the objection is rejected, they
will be bound by all Court orders.

Class Members may attend or speak at the Fairness Hearing that
will be held on October 27, 2010, at 9:30 a.m. at the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, 500
Poydras Street, New Orleans, LA 70130.  In order to speak at the
hearing, Class Members must submit a written request postmarked by
September 27, 2010.

For more information regarding the Settlement and Class Member
rights, please visit http://www.KatrinaInsuranceSettlement.com/,
call 1-866-665-8475, or write to: Notice Administrator, c/o Rust
Consulting, Inc., P.O. Box 361, Minneapolis, MN 55440-0361. Please
do not contact the court or the clerk's office.


UNITED STATES: Court Certifies Class in Veterans Dept. Pay Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that more than 10,000 current and
former employees of the Department of Veterans Affairs can proceed
with a class action accusing the VA of stiffing them on weekend
pay, the U.S. Court of Federal Claims ruled.

Civil service employees who work weekends typically earn what's
called "additional pay," or their regular hourly wage plus 25
percent of that rate.

A group of employees said they did not receive additional pay when
they took paid leave for weekend shifts.

The claims court allowed the case to proceed as a class action,
saying class certification "will serve the interest of judicial
economy."

A copy of the Memorandum Opinion and Order Regarding Class
Certification in Adams, et al. v. The United States, No. 10-60C
(Fed. Cl. Ct.), is available at:

     http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?6610

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Ira M. Lechner, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF IRA M. LECHNER
          Escondido, CA 92029

The United States Government is represented by:

          Hillary A. Stern, Esq.
          United States Department of Justice, Civil Division
          950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20530-0001


WORLDSPACE: Class Suit Slows Down Asset Transfer to New Owner
-------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Forrester at Rapid TV News reports that the Class Action
against Worldspace and some former directors and advisors looks
like slowing down the final asset transfer to new owner Noah
Samara.  A filing on July 7 to the Delaware Bankruptcy Court
stated politely but bluntly that "[Worldspace's] arguments have no
merit".

The report relates that the Class Action against Worldspace has
been running for a number of years and alleges that Worldspace
inflated ["misrepresented"] their subscriber numbers in their IPO
prospectus back in August 2005.  Worldspace is attempting to deny
lawyers for the Class Action further access to its past
documentation at this time.

Worldspace is arguing that it has already allowed the Class Action
lawyers access to 13,000 pages of documents.  The Class Action
lawyers argue that all the required documents are easily available
on an existing disc, and should now be handed over for
examination.

The Delaware Bankruptcy Court has slipped the date of the upcoming
'Omnibus Hearing' on Worldspace from July 12 to July 16.


YUKON-NEVADA: Settlement Talks Held Over Back Pay Case vs. Unit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Adella Harding at Elko Daily Free Press reports that parties to
the lawsuit over back severance pay for former Queenstake
Resources USA employees attended a settlement conference on July 2
at the U.S. District Court in Reno, Nevada.

"We agreed talks would still continue, and we agreed to make no
comment at this time," Travis Gerber, Esq., who represents former
Jerritt Canyon employees in the class action lawsuit, told Elko
Daily Free Press on Tuesday.

Elko Daily Free Press relates that Robert Baldock, president and
chief executive officer of Yukon-Nevada Gold Corp., Queenstake's
parent, said in an e-mail Saturday that "both sides are agreed
with the court there will be 'no comment' to any media for the
moment."

The report recalls Yukon-Nevada laid off nearly 400 Jerritt Canyon
employees in August 2008 when the company abruptly shut down
Jerritt Canyon Mine.  They received half of their severance pay at
that time.  The report notes a  handful of the laid-off workers
later filed a class action lawsuit against Queenstake for the
other half and unpaid medical bills.  Any settlement would cover
all the laid-off workers.

The report relates Jerritt Canyon Mine is back in operation, with
underground mining under way at the Smith Mine and the mill
processing ore from Smith and stockpiles.  Yukon-Nevada executives
have said they are paying off creditors that had outstanding bills
at the time of the 2008 shutdown, but, according to the report, at
least one creditor sent an e-mail to the Elko Daily Free Press to
report the creditors aren't all paid off yet.

Mr. Gerber may be reached at:

     Travis Gerber, Esq.
     GERBER LAW OFFICES
     491 4th St.
     Elko, NV 89801
     Telephone: (775) 738-9258


* KPMG Says Canadian Banks Attractive Targets for Class Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Gray at The Globe and Mail reports that a new KPMG study says
Canadian bankers should watch what types of class actions banks
are facing in the United States and monitor cases against their
competitors at home, and comb through their own operations to
mitigate similar risks, such as bank fees that have been targeted
elsewhere for being unfair.  KPMG adds that banks should also
consider offering voluntary restitution to customers who feel hard
done by because of a bank error or policy -- before a class action
is filed.

"The strengths of Canada's banks -- their deep pockets and broad
range of customers -- are also just the things that make them
attractive targets for class-action lawsuits," KPMG says,
according to Globe and Mail.

Globe and Mail notes that Canadian banks are the subject of at
least 81 class-action lawsuits, ranging from complaints over
credit cards, mortgages, loans and fraud, as well as allegedly
unpaid overtime.  The total claims stated by plaintiffs amount to
C$4.9 billion.  KPMG estimates that if all claims -- many of which
do not state a dollar amount -- are included, plaintiffs are
demanding between C$8.8 billion and C$12.4 billion.

According to the report, KPMG also points out that it is extremely
unlikely Canadian banks would lose every case and have to fork out
this total.  But KPMG say the costs could still be "substantial"
and can damage banks' reputations.

                            *********

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  * * *