CAR_Public/100713.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Tuesday, July 13, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 136

                             Headlines

ALLIANCE CREDIT: Appeals Ct. Vacates Order Certifying Class Suit
AMEDISYS INC: Charles H. Johnson Sues Over Inflated Fin'l Reports
AMERICAN SUZUKI: Recalls 2,000 Twin Trundle Beds
APPLE INC: Calif. Court Certifies iPhone Monopoly Class Suit
BANCORPSOUTH INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due July 12

BANNER SUPPLY: Fla. Suit Alleges Deceptive & Unfair Practices
BAUXITE RESOURCES: Challenges IMF to Provide Details on Claims
CHINA NORTH EAST: Barroway Files Shareholder Class Action
COMCAST CORP: Aug. 29 Bar Date Set to Join P2P Case Settlement
EXPEDIA INC: Distributes Settlement Credits

GRANGE INSURANCE: Accused in Ohio of Defrauding Policyholders
LANIER GOLF: Homeowners' Suit Can't Proceed as "Class Action"
LAS CRUCES: Resident to Sue Over Traffic Lights, Speed Cameras
LEHMAN BROTHERS: Australian Arm Enters Mediation
LOUISIANA: Rights Advocates Sue School for Handcuffing Minor

LUZERNE COUNTY: Ex-Commissioners Dragged in Kids-for-Cash Scandal
MIND CTI: NY Court Dismisses Securities Class Action
NORDSTROM INC: App. Ct. Affirms $8.9MM Deal in Sales Reps' Suit
ODYSSEY HEALTHCARE: Brower Piven Mulls Suit Over Gentiva Deal
ORLEANS LEVEE: Defense Wants Judge to Recuse in Class Suit

PDI COMMUNICATIONS: Recalls 2,700 Television Sets
STATE FARM: Sued for Denying Coverage in Class Action v. J. Clark
SYNCORA HOLDINGS: Securities Class Action Complaint Amended
TIERONE CORP: Former Bank Employee Sues Over Retirement Plans
TRANSOCEAN LTD: Oil Spill Spawns Milberg Securities Fraud Suit

UNITED STATES: Mantese Sues Dept. of Defense Over Autism Therapy
UNITED STATES: Hispanic Farmers' Counsel Finds USDA Offer Low
UNIVERSITY OF IDAHO: Court Approves Settlement of Retirees' Suit
VITAMIN WORLD: Accused in Calif. Suit of Not Paying Overtime
WASHINGTON D.C.: Moves Closer to Ending Juvenile Justice Suit

                            *********

ALLIANCE CREDIT: Appeals Ct. Vacates Order Certifying Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alliance Credit Counseling, Inc., appeals from the trial court's
order certifying a class action lawsuit filed by Kendra Trumiar on
behalf of herself and other "Georgia residents from whom Alliance
accepted fees and contributions on or after July 1, 2003 in an
amount in excess of 7.5% of the amount paid monthly by the
individual Class Plaintiffs to Alliance for distribution to
Plaintiffs' individual creditors."  Alliance asserts eight
enumerations of error, including a claim that the trial court
failed to make the required findings of fact and conclusions of
law in its certification order.

The Court of Appeals of Georgia held that while the trial court's
order recites that specific factors for class certification exist,
it does not specify "the findings of fact and conclusions of law
on which the court has based its decision with regard to whether
each such factor has been established."

"Because the trial court did not make the necessary findings of
fact and conclusions of law, we have no basis to evaluate whether
the trial court properly exercised its discretion in granting
class certification," Judge Smith wrote. "We therefore vacate the
trial court's order certifying the class and remand this case to
the trial court to make the required findings of fact and
conclusions of law."

The case is Alliance Credit Counseling, Inc., v. Trumiar, case no.
A10A0506 (Ga. App. July 8, 2010), and a copy of the decision is
available at:

     http://www.leagle.com/unsecure/page.htm?shortname=ingaco20100708187


AMEDISYS INC: Charles H. Johnson Sues Over Inflated Fin'l Reports
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Charles H. Johnson & Associates said a class action has been
commenced in the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Louisiana on behalf of purchasers of Amedisys, Inc.
publicly traded securities during the period February 23, 2010
through May 13, 2010.

If you are a member of the proposed Class, you may move the Court
to serve as a lead plaintiff for the Class on or before August 9,
2010. You do not need to be a lead plaintiff in order to share in
any recovery that may be obtained.

The Complaint alleges that Defendants made misleading statements
and failed to disclose: 1) that the Company's reported sales and
earnings growth were materially impacted by a scheme whereby the
Company intentionally increased the number of in-home therapy
visits to patients for the purpose of triggering higher
reimbursement rates under the Medicare home health prospective
payment system, as those excess visits were not always medically
necessary; 2) that the Company's reported sales and earnings were
inflated by said scheme and subject to recoupment by Medicare; and
3) that the Company was in material violation of its Code of
Ethical Business Conduct and compliance due to the scheme to
inflate Medicare revenues.

On May 13, 2010, The Wall Street Journal reported that the Senate
Finance Committee had started an investigation into the billing
and operating practices of Amedisys.  On this news, Amedisys stock
fell $4.48 per share.

If you purchased Amedisys, Inc. stock during the Class Period, or
have any questions concerning this notice or your rights with
respect to this matter, please contact:

     Neal Eisenbraun, Esq.
     CHARLES H. JOHNSON & ASSOCIATES
     2599 Mississippi Street
     New Brighton, MN 55112
     Telephone: (651) 633-5685
     E-mail: cjohnsonlaw@gmail.com


AMERICAN SUZUKI: Recalls 2,000 Twin Trundle Beds
------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
American Suzuki Motor Corp., of Brea, California; Montgomery
Motors, Ltd., of Honolulu, Hawaii; Suzuki del Caribe Inc., of Rio
Piedras, Puerto Rico, announced a voluntary recall of about 1,355
Suzuki QuadSport ATVs.  Consumers should stop using recalled
products immediately unless otherwise instructed.

The flame arrester screen can become detached from its mounting
ring, preventing the throttle valve from returning to the idle
position when the throttle lever is released and causing the rider
to lose control of the ATV.  This poses a serious hazard of injury
or death.

American Suzuki has received two reports of flame arrester screens
detaching from the mounting ring.  No injuries have been reported.

This recall involves all Suzuki 2009 model year LT-Z400K9 and LT-
Z400ZK9 ATVs.  "QuadSport Z400" or "QuadSport Z400Z" is written on
the sides and left front fender of the ATV.  "Suzuki" is written
on the sides of the ATV.   Pictures of the recalled products are
available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10747.html

The recalled products were manufactured in Japan and sold through
ATV dealers nationwide from September 2008 through June 2010 for
between $6,500 and $6,700.

Consumers should stop using these vehicles immediately and contact
a local Suzuki ATV dealer to schedule an appointment for a free
repair.  Consumers with recalled ATVs are being sent a notice
directly from Suzuki.

For more information, consumers can contact Suzuki at (800) 444-
5077 between 8:30 a.m. and 4:45 p.m., Pacific Time, Monday through
Friday, or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.suzukicycles.com/


APPLE INC: Calif. Court Certifies iPhone Monopoly Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that Judge James Ware of the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California says a
monopoly-abuse lawsuit against Apple Inc. and AT&T Inc.'s mobile-
phone unit can move forward as a class action.

The lawsuit consolidates several suits filed by iPhone buyers
starting in late 2007, a few months after the first generation of
Apple's smartphone went on sale.  The class includes anyone who
bought an iPhone with a two-year AT&T agreement since the device
first went on sale in June 2007.  The lawsuit seeks an injunction
to keep Apple from selling locked iPhones in the U.S. and from
determining what iPhone programs people can install.  It also
seeks damages to cover legal fees and other costs.

According to the AP, the amended complaint filed in June 2008:

     -- disputes Apple's practice of "locking" iPhones so that
        they can only be used on AT&T's network, and Apple's
        absolute control over what applications iPhone owners can
        and can't install on the gadgets;

     -- alleges that Apple secretly made AT&T its exclusive iPhone
        partner in the U.S. for five years.  Consumers agreed to
        two-year contracts with AT&T when they purchased their
        phones, but were in effect locked into a five-year
        relationship with AT&T; and

     -- contends that Apple's deal with AT&T hurt competition and
        drove up prices for consumers.

Apple and AT&T haven't commented on the terms of their deal.
Apple has said it didn't hurt competition.

The AP relates that Judge Ware in his ruling Thursday:

     -- held that the lawsuit's claims for violations to antitrust
        law can continue as a class action;

     -- dismissed other claims against Apple, including
        allegations that the company broke laws when an update to
        the iPhone's operating software caused some phones to stop
        working and deleted programs that users had purchased.


BANCORPSOUTH INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due July 12
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dyer & Berens LLP is encouraging investors who purchased or
otherwise acquired BancorpSouth, Inc. common stock during the
period between July 23, 2009 and February 25, 2010, to consider
whether to seek a "lead plaintiff" appointment in the pending
securities class action.

If you wish to serve as a lead plaintiff, you must seek such an
appointment no later than July 12, 2010.  If you wish to discuss
the class action lawsuit or have any questions concerning this
notice or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's
counsel, Jeffrey A. Berens, Esq., at (888) 300-3362 x302, (303)
861-1764, or via e-mail at jeff@dyerberens.com  Any member of the
putative class may move the court to serve as a lead plaintiff
through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and
remain an absent class member.  Although investors' ability to
share in any recovery is not affected by their decision to seek
appointment, lead plaintiffs make important decisions which could
affect the overall recovery for class members.

The complaint alleges that, during the class period, defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the
company's business and financial results and engaged in improper
behavior that harmed BancorpSouth's investors by failing to
disclose the extent of seriously delinquent commercial real estate
loans and construction and land loans. The company also failed to
adequately and timely record losses for its impaired loans,
causing its financial statements to be materially false.  As a
result of defendants' allegedly false statements, BancorpSouth's
stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the class
period, reaching a high of $25.13 per share on October 14, 2009.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of BXS investors.
The plaintiff is represented by Dyer & Berens LLP, which has
significant expertise in prosecuting investor class actions.
For more information about the firm, please go to
http://www.DyerBerens.com/

To contact the firm:

     Jeffrey A. Berens, Esq.
     DYER & BERENS LLP
     303 East 17th Avenue, Suite 300
     Denver, CO  80203
     Telephone: (888) 300-3362 x302
                (303) 861-1764
     E-mail: jeff@dyerberens.com


BANNER SUPPLY: Fla. Suit Alleges Deceptive & Unfair Practices
-------------------------------------------------------------
Florida attorneys Mike Ryan and Ervin Gonzalez have been working
to help find relief and solutions for homeowners across Broward
County and the State of Florida.  Mr. Ryan, Esq., a partner at
Krupnick Campbell Malone Buser Slama Hancock Liberman & McKee, has
been one of the lead attorneys in this litigation in Florida while
also traveling to Tallahassee and Washington, D.C. with homeowners
and builders to press for meaningful solutions to save communities
from this defective drywall catastrophe.  Florida Attorney Ervin
Gonzalez, Esq., a partner with the firm of Colson Hicks, has been
litigating locally and nationwide against many defendants and
tried the nation's first Chinese drywall case successfully to a
jury verdict, obtaining a multi-million dollar verdict.

On July 9, 2010, Messrs. Ryan and Gonzalez joined forces to file a
Florida statewide class action against Banner Supply in Broward
County Circuit Court.  The Complaint alleges that Banner Supply, a
major supplier of defective Chinese drywall, knew in 2006 that the
drywall it had been selling was defective, that Banner was in
contact with Knauf-related entities regarding the complaints
related to this defective drywall, and yet failed to inform the
intended ultimate users, the homeowners.

Messrs. Gonzalez and Ryan believe this is the best vehicle to
finally find a partial solution to this catastrophe in Florida, as
to this Defendant, as well as some much needed relief for
homeowners and associations, to whom it cannot come soon enough.
The team selected representative plaintiffs who are homeowners,
condominium owners, townhome owners, and associations while
pursuing a single defendant to try to resolve the issue as quickly
as possible.

Last month, a court in Miami-Dade County entered an order
certifying a class action for a group of Miami-Dade County
homeowners, and included Banner Supply as a defendant in the
certified class action.  "We are going to try to obtain a ruling
on class certification as quickly as possible and then take these
cases to the jury," said Mr. Gonzalez.  The Broward County Circuit
Court established a single division for the drywall cases.  Mr.
Ryan has been appointed by the Court as the Plaintiffs' Liaison
Counsel for the Chinese Drywall cases for Broward County.

"Mr. Ryan and I recognize the situation for homeowners is nothing
short of desperate. Insurance companies are not providing any
coverage for the damage. Many cannot live in their homes. They are
unable to sell or lease the home. While homeowners are trying to
pay their mortgages, taxes and upkeep on the homes, banks are
threatening to foreclose or have foreclosed already," said Mr.
Gonzalez.  "Had Banner gone public with this information,
thousands of homeowners could have avoided this catastrophe and
saved entire communities from devastating financial loss," added
Ryan.

"Since March of 2009, we have been describing this catastrophe as
a 'silent hurricane,' with a path of destruction throughout
Florida and the country," said Mr. Ryan. "In some sense it is
worse than a hurricane because there is no insurance. This latest
action is part of the evolving strategy to find solutions as
quickly as possible."

The law firms may be reached at:

     Michael J. Ryan, Esq.
     KRUPNICK CAMPBELL MALONE BUSER SLAMA
        HANCOCK LIBERMAN AND MCKEE
     12 S.E. Seventh Street, Suite 801
     Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
     Telephone: (877) 763-8181
                (954) 763-8181
     Facsimile: (954) 763-8292

          - and -

     Ervin A. Gonzalez, Esq.
     COLSON HICKS EIDSON
     255 Aragon Avenue, Second Floor
     Coral Gables, Florida 33134
     Telephone: (305) 476-7400
     Facsimile: (305) 476-7444
     E-mail: ervin@colson.com


BAUXITE RESOURCES: Challenges IMF to Provide Details on Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mathew Murphy, writing for The Age, reports that Bauxite Resources
has cautioned its shareholders to seek independent legal advice
before joining any class action proposed against the company by
litigation funder IMF.

Mr. Murphy reports that Bauxite Resources has strongly rejected
any suggestion of impropriety and called on IMF to provide more
details about its allegations.  In a three-page statement to the
Australian Securities Exchange, Bauxite Resources said it intended
to fight the allegation it had misled shareholders.  "IMF suggests
that any claim for damages will assert misleading conduct by BRL
and breaches of its continuous disclosure obligations. BRL
maintains that its disclosures were appropriate and kept
shareholders properly informed of the company's progress," Bauxite
Resources said.

"The material provided by IMF is not clear as to what facts will
be advanced in any court to seek to prove those claims. The
information disclosed by IMF falls well short of allowing
shareholders to form a view as to whether BRL has breached any
relevant obligations."

According to the Class Action Reporter on July 1, 2010,
M. McNamara, writing for Australian Business News, said Bauxite
Resources could be sued by IMF for claims relating to the
company's placement of 60 million shares at 95 cents in October
2010.  Litigation funder IMF said it may launch a class action
lawsuit.  IMF alleges Bauxite Resources should not have stated to
the market it would mine within the Shire of Chittering north of
Perth, where large-scale mining is not permitted, according to the
Trading Room.  In a statement, IMF indicated that shareholders who
participated in the $57 million raising might be eligible to
participate in the claim and that a further announcement would be
made "upon the commencement of legal proceedings or if a decision
is made not to proceed."


CHINA NORTH EAST: Barroway Files Shareholder Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
The following statement was issued July 9, 2010, by the law firm
of Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer & Check, LLP:

Notice is hereby given that a class action lawsuit was filed in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York on behalf of purchasers of the securities of China North East
Petroleum Holdings Limited (NYSE Amex: NEP) ("China North" or the
"Company"), who purchased or otherwise acquired China North
securities between August 14, 2009 and May 26, 2010, inclusive
(the "Class Period").

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions
concerning this notice or your rights or interests with respect to
these matters, please contact Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer &
Check, LLP (Darren J. Check, Esq. or David M. Promisloff, Esq.)
toll free at 1-888-299-7706 or 1-610-667-7706, or via e-mail at
info@btkmc.com

The Complaint charges China North and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
China North is an independent, non-state-owned oil production
company that engages in oil drilling project management including
the exploration and the extraction of crude oil in proven
oilfields in Northern China.

More specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company failed
to disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse
facts which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by
them:  (1) that a Company officer and a Company director
engineered significant improper cash transfers between the
Company's bank accounts and their personal accounts; (2) that the
Company's financial statements were not prepared in accordance
with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles; (3) that the
Company lacked adequate internal and financial controls; and (4)
that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's financial
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

On May 27, 2010, China North issued a press release disclosing
that in 2009, a Company officer and a Company director had
engineered significant improper cash transfers between bank
accounts of the Company and their personal accounts.  The Company
also disclosed that its Chief Executive Officer was placed on
administrative leave and that he had stepped down as Chairman of
the Board, both pending the outcome of the Company's forensic
audit.  In addition, the Company announced that its Chief
Financial Officer and a director had resigned.  As a result of
this event and a serious of other adverse events, China North's
stock has been halted and investors have suffered significant
losses.

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

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

If you are a member of the class described above, you may, not
later than August 10, 2010, move the Court to serve as lead
plaintiff of the class, if you so choose.  A lead plaintiff is a
representative party that acts on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation.  In order to be appointed lead
plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim
is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the
class member will adequately represent the class.  Your ability to
share in any recovery is not, however, affected by the decision
whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff.  Any member of the
purported class may move the court to serve as lead plaintiff
through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and
remain an absent class member.

The firm may be reached at:

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


COMCAST CORP: Aug. 29 Bar Date Set to Join P2P Case Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania has granted preliminary approval of the settlement in
the class action Hart v. Comcast of Alameda, case no. 08-MD-1992,
and has certified the Settlement Class.  Similar lawsuits were
filed and have been coordinated and transferred to the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
These lawsuits arise from claims that Comcast promised and
advertised specific download and upload speeds but impaired use of
certain Peer-to-Peer file sharing traffic on its High-Speed
Internet network.

Comcast agrees to credit or refund some current or former High-
Speed Internet service customers.  Comcast agrees to pay up to $16
million, less Settlement costs, to eligible Class Members.  If you
submit a valid Claim Form, you will receive a share of this
amount, not to exceed $16.00.  The Settlement is not an admission
of wrongdoing by any party.

Pursuant to the settlement, an online Claim Form must be submitted
or a paper Claim Form must be postmarked no later than Aug. 29,
2010.

More information on the case is available at no charge at
http://www.P2PCongestionSettlement.com/

Class Counsel are:

     Mark N. Todzo, Esq.
     Eric S. Somers, Esq.
     LEXINGTON LAW GROUP LLP
     1627 Irving Street
     San Francisco, CA 94122
     Telephone: (415) 759-4111
     Facsimile: (415) 759-4112

          - and -

     David R. Scott, Esq.
     Christopher M. Burke, Esq.
     SCOTT + SCOTT LLP
     600 B Street, Suite 1500
     San Diego, CA 92101
     Telephone: (619) 233-4565
     Facsimile: (619) 233-0508

Comcast is represented by:

          Seamus C. Duffy, Esq.
          DRINKER BIDDLE AND REATH LLP
          One Logan Square
          18th & Cherry Sts.
          Philadelphia, PA 19103-6996

Class Counsel will request an award of attorneys' fees and
expenses from the Court up to $3,000,000.  Comcast will pay all
attorneys' fees and expenses.  This will not reduce the benefit
available to Settlement Class Members.

The Court appointed Jon Hart as Class representative.  Mr. Hart
will receive a $2,500 award for his service as Class
representative.  If approved by the Court, Comcast will pay for
his services.  This will not reduce the benefit available to
Settlement Class Members.


EXPEDIA INC: Distributes Settlement Credits
-------------------------------------------
Puget Sound Business Journal reports that customers who booked a
hotel room using Expedia.com from 2001 through the middle of 2008
may be getting an e-mail from the Bellevue online travel agency,
explaining they've received part of a $123 million class-action
settlement.  According to the Business Journal, the e-mail
explains that Expedia has placed settlement credits into the
accounts of those customers eligible to receive them.

The Class Action Reporter on June 25 ran a story on the
Settlement.

The Settlement was made on behalf of a nationwide class of
consumers who booked hotel stays through Expedia from January 10,
2001 through June 11, 2008, and paid a "Tax Recovery Charge" and a
"Service Fee."  The Settlement provided for the distribution to
Class Members of $123.4 million in cash payments and Expedia
Settlement Credit that can be used for hotel reservations and
"package" reservations that include hotel reservations.

Consumers of hotel stays through Expedia filed a lawsuit against
Expedia primarily concerning the bundled "Tax Recovery Charges"
and "Service Fees" charged by Expedia when consumers book a hotel
stay through Expedia's Web site or telephone operators. The
Plaintiffs alleged that, in its assessment of "Tax Recovery
Charges" and "Service Fees," Expedia (i) committed deceptive or
unfair practices in violation of the Washington Consumer
Protection Act from January 10, 2001 to June 11, 2008, and (ii)
breached its contractual obligations from February 18, 2003
through December 11, 2006.

Expedia denied Plaintiffs' allegations.

The Court granted final approval of the Settlement on December 1,
2009. However, appeals were filed challenging aspects of the Final
Approval Order.  Those appeals have now been resolved.  Expedia
has placed Settlement Credits in the accounts of those
automatically eligible to receive them.  The Settlement Credits
became available for use on June 1, 2010. Expedia Settlement
Credit Notice e-mails were distributed beginning on June 2, 2010.
Checks for Class Members who elected to receive and were eligible
to receive a Cash Payment were distributed beginning in June 2010.

More information on the Settlement is available at:

               http://www.servicefeessettlement.com/


GRANGE INSURANCE: Accused in Ohio of Defrauding Policyholders
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a class action claims Grange
Insurance Co. defrauded policyholders by claiming they were
entitled to rental cars for only "a few days," rather than the
true limit of $900 and $30 a day, in Hamilton County Court,
Cincinnati.

A copy of the Complaint in Dougherty, et al. v. Grange Insurance
Company, et al., Case No. A1006337 (Ohio C.P. Ct., Hamilton Cty.),
is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/07/08/Insure.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jeffrey S. Bakst, Esq.
          JEFFREY S. BAKST & ASSOCIATES, LLC
          2406 Auburn Ave.
          Cincinnati, OH 45219
          Telephone: (513) 381-2221


LANIER GOLF: Homeowners' Suit Can't Proceed as "Class Action"
-------------------------------------------------------------
Michael D. Peck filed a lawsuit on behalf of himself and all
homeowners with lots adjacent to the Lanier Golf Club, Inc.  Mr.
Peck seeks a declaratory judgment that the adjacent lot owners
have an irrevocable easement or implied covenant in Lanier's golf
course and an injunction restricting the use of Lanier's property
to "golf course purposes only."  Mr. Peck filed a motion for class
certification, which the trial court denied.  The Court of Appeals
of Georgia vacated the trial court's decision and remanded the
case for further proceedings because the trial court failed to
make the required findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant
to OCGA Section 9-11-23, the class action statute.  Following
remand, the trial court entered an order that again denied class
certification and also dismissed Mr. Peck's complaint.  Mr. Peck
again appealed.

The Appeals Court affirmed in part, and reversed in part.  In an
opinion dated July 7, 2010, Appellate Court Judge Debra Bernes
held that because there was some evidence to support the trial
court's finding that the class did not share common factual
issues, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying
class certification.  The trial court's dismissal of the complaint
after ruling on the class certification motion, however, was
improper.

"Even if the court determined that the action brought as a class
should not be so maintained, this would not afford a basis for
dismissing the complaint. Rather, such a determination would mean
that the action would be stripped of its character as a class
action and would proceed as a non-class action," Judge Bernes
wrote.

Judges Anne Elizabeth Barnes and Senior Appellate Court Judge G.
Alan Blackburn concurred.

The appellate case is Peck et al., v. Lanier Golf Club, case no.
A10A0745 (Ga. App.).  A copy of the decision is available at:

     http://www.leagle.com/unsecure/page.htm?shortname=ingaco20100707248


LAS CRUCES: Resident to Sue Over Traffic Lights, Speed Cameras
--------------------------------------------------------------
Diana M. Alba, writing for Las Cruces Sun-News, reports that
Anthony Avallone, 83, has formed a trust, a type of legal entity,
with plans to file a civil lawsuit against the city over its red
light and speeding cameras.  He said he's seeking donations from
the public to hire an attorney for the litigation.  Mr. Avallone
said he hopes it eventually would turn into a class-action lawsuit
-- one that seeks the return of all fines collected from drivers.

A retired attorney himself, Mr. Avallone said the idea was sparked
after his son received a traffic camera citation this spring for
an infraction at the Valley Drive and Avenida de Mesilla
intersection.  After a closer look at the citation and traffic cam
ordinance, Mr. Avallone said, he believes the city's process
violates people's rights.

"I started my usual research on constitutional issues by carefully
reading the ordinance and the notice of violation," said Mr.
Avallone, who retired after a 43-year law career. "I realized
there were some serious problems."

For starters, Mr. Avallone said, the city describes the citation
as a civil proceeding. However, he contended it's actually a
criminal prosecution.

"Sure enough, the federal cases are quite clear, if it's
identified with a criminal prosecution, it's clearly subject to
all the constitutional protections," he said.

Those protections include alerting the accused about the specific
offense they're alleged to have committed, Mr. Avallone said.
There are three aspects in the city's ordinance that could result
in a citation, he said, but the specific violation isn't cited
when a driver receives a ticket in the mail.

In addition, the notices of violation are sent to the vehicle
owner, who's then asked to identify the driver.  Mr. Avallone said
the owner, under the Fifth Amendment, has the right not to admit
guilt.  And even if someone else was driving the vehicle, Mr.
Avallone said he believes a strong argument can be made that the
driver is an extension of the owner, and, in that case, the owner
also doesn't have to incriminate himself.

Lastly, Mr. Avallone said, when he attended his son's citation
hearing, the hearing officer "accepted without proof, all the
evidence presented by the machine."

"I said to myself: 'Well that switches things around," he said.
"The prosecution usually has the burden of proof. If that isn't a
violation of the Constitution, I don't know what is."

City of Las Cruces spokesman Udell Vigil said he can't comment
about something that could turn into a lawsuit against the city.

Drivers cited face up to a $100 fine for traffic camera
violations.

Fred Atkinson, 55, of Las Cruces believes the traffic cameras do
little to increase safety, but rather are in place to raise
revenue for the city.

"I hope he's successful," he said of Mr. Avallone's effort.

Mr. Avallone, one of three trustees for his newly formed Due
Process Foundation, said he plans to collect donations and ask
contributors if they want to become members of his group.

Michael Fleming, 50, said he doesn't see the point of a legal
challenge to the ordinance.  "My opinion is, if you don't speed,
you have nothing to be afraid of," said Mr. Fleming, also a
newspaper carrier for the Sun-News.

How quickly a lawsuit can be filed will hinge on how fast the
group is able to raise about $2,000, enough to start the
proceeding, Mr. Avallone said. He said he plans to seek nonprofit
tax status for the group, though that will take months to become
finalized.

"Our plan is to invite them to become members and keep them
informed; I think I have a duty to do that," he said.

Benji Banegas, 56, of Las Cruces said he received a citation at
the North Main Street-Solano Drive intersection, when following a
driver who was turning sluggishly in the left-hand turn lane.

"By the time I took the turn, the camera got me," he said. "I went
ahead and paid it."

Mr. Banegas said he's not sure what to think about mr. Avallone's
proposed lawsuit, but added, "I wish him luck."

The two cameras at the North Main Street-Solano Drive intersection
and one at the Valley Drive-Avenida de Mesilla have since been
deactivated because state highway officials said they were
improperly located in a state right-of-way.

Mr. Avallone said a challenge involving his son's case would be
filed in federal district court with a request that it be granted
class-action status. He said the court would determine whether the
conditions were met for a class-action suit and make a decision.
At that point, he said, the group would put out a call, asking for
people who have received a traffic camera citation to step
forward.

Mr. Avallone said "it's a little premature" for people who've been
cited to join the proceeding now.  If the ordinance were declared
unconstitutional, Mr. Avallone said, a possible outcome is that
fines would be remanded.  Also, Mr. Avallone said, the group will
seek that the ordinance be revoked.  People interested in
contributing should send a check to Due Process Trust, c/o Trustee
Anthony F. Avallone, P.O. Box 7484, Las Cruces, NM 88006.


LEHMAN BROTHERS: Australian Arm Enters Mediation
------------------------------------------------
Clancy Yeates at The Age reports that local councils and Lehman
Brothers Australia have agreed to enter mediation.  On Friday,
according to Mr. Yeates, the Federal Court said it would oversee
mediation between the two sides over the next six months, giving
councils and Lehman's liquidators a chance to come to a quick
agreement.  If they fail to reach a deal, the court also granted
leave for Wingecarribee Shire Council to proceed with a class
action against the failed investment.

The class action, which follows a lawsuit lodged by Wingecarribee,
in the Southern Highlands of New South Wales, against Lehman in
2007, would include more than 70 other councils, charities and
churches who together have lost nearly A$200 million.  The
aggrieved councils allege that Lehman misled them when it sold
them about A$1.2 billion of complex assets known as collateralized
debt obligations.  The claim -- which is being funded by IMF
Australia --- would allege that councils were not properly told
about the risks of CDO investments, which had AAA credit ratings.

IMF managing director John Walker said the best result they could
hope for was a "just, quick and cheap" resolution for the councils
and other organizations that bought the CDOs.  Mr. Walker said he
hoped the two sides could now sort out the claims more quickly
than complex liquidations, which can take years.

"This is the first time, to my knowledge, that a class action has
been used to resolve mass claims in a liquidation," The Age quotes
Mr. Walker as saying.  The report notes the latest step follows
the win for councils last year, when they had Lehman placed in
liquidation by the Federal Court after a legal challenge to a deal
between Lehman's big creditors.  The councils' hopes of minimizing
losses received a separate boost in March, when the collapsed U.S.
investment bank offered to make a deal with its creditors.  The
U.S.-based Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc told the Australian arm it
could unwind troubled debt securities to pay the company an
undisclosed sum "under certain conditions."


LOUISIANA: Rights Advocates Sue School for Handcuffing Minor
------------------------------------------------------------
Children at an elementary school in New Orleans are subjected to
unlawful seizures and arrests -- including handcuffing and
shackling -- for minor violations of school rules, according to a
class action lawsuit filed July 8, 2010, by the Southern Poverty
Law Center and the Juvenile Justice Project of Louisiana.

The suit was filed on behalf of an African-American first-grade
student who was brutally handcuffed and shackled to a chair by an
armed security officer after he argued with another youth over a
seat in the lunchroom at Sarah T. Reed Elementary School.  The
school is part of the Louisiana Recovery School District.

The boy, known as J.W. in the court filing, was just 6 years old
when the incident occurred on May 6.  He had previously been
handcuffed and shackled for a similar incident. School officials
told the boy's father that the arrest and seizure was required
under school rules.

The boy's father, Sebastian Weston, said his son is now terrified
of school, his teachers and police. "These incidents, where our
little boy was treated more like an animal than a young child,
have affected him greatly," Weston said. "He has gone from being a
bundle of joy -- excited about school and his friends -- to now
withdrawing into a shell."

"Our client was deeply traumatized by this experience and is now
terrified of school," said SPLC attorney Thena Robinson.
"Handcuffing and shackling children to furniture is absolutely
outrageous and can inflict not only physical injuries but
psychological wounds that can have a profound impact. RSD
personnel acted unreasonably and continue to enforce a school
policy that violates clearly established state and federal law."

Cable News Network reports that the school district is a statewide
entity administered by the Louisiana Department of Education to
manage underperforming schools.  The lawsuit names the
superintendent of the school district, Paul Vallas, along with
school officials and security officers of Sarah T. Reed Elementary
School as defendants.

The suit alleges that the school principal, one of several named
defendants, "provided a clear directive to all employees . . .
that students were to be arrested and handcuffed if they failed to
comply with school rules."  The complaint also alleges that RSD
officials -- including Superintendent Paul Vallas and Director of
Security Eddie Compass -- allowed the enforcement of this policy
at Reed Elementary and were deliberately indifferent to the rights
of the students who attend school there.

For many years, local advocates have decried RSD's practices of
arresting, handcuffing and shackling schoolchildren for minor
violations of school rules that do not constitute probable cause
of criminal activity. Most recently, Families and Friends of
Louisiana's Incarcerated Children, issued a report that documents
the prevalence of RSD's unlawful arrest and seizure policies. JJPL
representatives have repeatedly met with RSD officials in an
effort to craft alternatives to this destructive practice.

"Since children returned to the city after Hurricane Katrina,
schools have treated them like criminals," said JJPL Legal
Director Carol Kolinchak. "In a city with such significant
educational needs, our schools have a duty to provide support for
students rather than respond with inappropriate aggression. While
work with RSD has yielded some positive results, including a move
away from private security contractors, we have reached a point
where the courts must intervene to uphold the law, and clear
policies and procedures to govern school security officers must be
put in place."

The suit, which seeks certification as a class action, asks for a
court ruling that the school's policy to "unlawfully seize and
arrest schoolchildren at Sarah T. Reed Elementary School absent
probable cause of criminal activity" violates students' rights
under the U.S. Constitution.

Ken Jones, director of communications for the school district,
declined to comment on the lawsuit, but said in an e-mail to CNN,
"The Louisiana Recovery School District investigated the
allegations involving a student at Sarah T. Reed Elementary school
last semester. The RSD concluded that this was an isolated
incident, the student was not arrested and the employee involved
was terminated."

Thena Robinson, Esq., one of the lawyers who filed the lawsuit,
said in an e-mail the school's punishment methods crossed the
line.  She said the case was "symptomatic" of a school culture
that treats students like criminals, an issue that she said
contributes to Louisiana's high incarceration rate.


LUZERNE COUNTY: Ex-Commissioners Dragged in Kids-for-Cash Scandal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael R. Sisak, writing for Citizens Voice, reports that the
latest lawsuit arising from the Luzerne County kids-for-cash
scandal accuses former commissioners Greg Skrepenak and Todd
Vonderheid and other officials of aiding and abetting two judges
who schemed to ship thousands of juveniles to a pair of for-profit
detention centers.

Messrs. Skrepenak, Vonderheid and the other officials were part of
"a culture of corruption and graft that permeated all levels of
county management" and enabled former Judges Mark A. Ciavarella
Jr. and Michael T. Conahan to operate with unilateral force,
according to the lawsuit, filed Wednesday in federal court.

After their election in 2004, Messrs. Skrepenak and Vonderheid
voted for a $58 million, 20-year lease with the Pa. Child Care
facility in Pittston Township.  They allowed Judges Ciavarella and
Conahan to have direct control over the court's budgeting,
personnel and contract decisions, the lawsuit said.

At the same time, according to federal prosecutors, Judges
Ciavarella and Conahan were pocketing $2.8 million in kickbacks
from the former co-owner of the center, attorney Robert J. Powell,
Esq., and its developer, Robert K. Mericle.

"Skrepenak and Vonderheid were allied both politically and
socially with Judges Conahan and Ciavarella," the lawsuit said.
They either knew of the judges' illegal conduct "and did nothing
to address it," or "actively worked to facilitate it."

Another official named in the lawsuit, former County Manager/Chief
Clerk Sam Guesto oversaw the "exorbitant payments" to the facility
including some issued on an "emergency" basis, making him "well
aware" of the scheme, the lawsuit said.

"Guesto repeatedly stonewalled any investigation into the county's
contract with Pa. Child Care," refusing to provide a copy of a
state audit of the county's dealings with the facility to county
commissioners and blocking an internal investigation by former
County Controller Steve Flood, the lawsuit said.

The class-action lawsuit, one of a half-dozen lawsuits filed since
federal prosecutors charged Judges Conahan and Ciavarella in
January 2009, could include as many as 4,000 plaintiffs -- at
least 1,500 juveniles sentenced by Judge Ciavarella and at least
2,500 of their parents.

Mr. Vonderheid said he could not comment on pending litigation.
County Solicitor Vito DeLuca said he had not seen the lawsuit and
could not comment.  Mr. Skrepenak's attorney, Pete Moses, Esq. did
not return a telephone message.  A telephone number for Mr. Guesto
was said to be temporarily out of service.

Judge Ciavarella and Conahan, who were also named as defendants in
the lawsuit, could not be reached for comment.  Attorneys for the
other defendants, including Powell, Mericle and companies
associated with the operation of the detention centers, could not
be reached.


MIND CTI: NY Court Dismisses Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
MIND C.T.I. LTD. said the previously disclosed purported
securities class action against the Company, its Chairperson and
CEO, a former CFO and a former director, has been dismissed.  On
July 2, 2010, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York issued a decision, dismissing the complaint against all
defendants without leave to amend and directing the clerk to close
the case.  Plaintiffs may appeal the ruling within 30 days.

On Aug. 13, 2009, a class action securities lawsuit was filed
against the company, its Chairperson and CEO and two former
officers.  Pursuant to the provisions of the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act of 1995, the plaintiffs have asserted claims
for damages in an unspecified amount for, among other things,
alleged misleading statements relating primarily to the company's
investment in auction rate securities, on behalf of public
investors who purchased the company's shares in the period from
June 8, 2006 through Feb. 27, 2008.

The company reviewed the allegations contained in the complaint
and believes that they are without merit.  The company filed a
motion to dismiss the complaint on Jan. 29, 2010.

MIND CTI Ltd. -- http://www.mindcti.com/-- provides convergent
end-to-end billing and customer care product based solutions for
service providers as well as telecom expense management (call
accounting) solutions.  MIND provides a complete range of billing
applications for any business model (license, managed service or
complete outsourced billing service) for Wireless, Wireline, VoIP
and Quad-play carriers in more than 40 countries around the world.
A global company, with over 12 years of experience in providing
solutions to carriers and enterprises, MIND operates from offices
in the United States, UK, Romania and Israel.


NORDSTROM INC: App. Ct. Affirms $8.9MM Deal in Sales Reps' Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Metropolitan News-Enterprise reports that the Fourth District
Court of Appeal has upheld an $8.905 million settlement of a class
action brought by Nordstrom's commissioned salespersons against
the company.  Justice Richard Fybel, writing for Div. Three,
rejected an employee's objection that $2.5 million of the
settlement amount would be paid in merchandise coupons rather than
cash.

The Appeals Court held that:

     -- Labor Code Sec. 212, which prohibits paying employees in
        coupons or other things not redeemable for cash, does not
        preclude the use of such items to fund a settlement of a
        good faith dispute as to whether the compensation claimed
        by an employee is actually owed; and

     -- the use of coupons was justified because some of the class
        members will receive less than $20 from the settlement and
        paying them in coupons will enable them to avoid tax
        withholding that would reduce the small amount even
       further.

The opinion was filed June 10 and certified July 7 for
publication.

The report recalls two employees filed separate class actions in
2004, alleging that a plan for paying sales commissions based on
net sales on a pay period basis, so that deductions for returned
merchandise would be deducted from commissions for the same pay
period, violated the California Labor Code.  While the system was
approved as part of a 1997 settlement of an earlier class action,
in which the plaintiff claimed that calculating commissions based
on net sales violated the Labor Code, the plaintiffs in the new
actions said it was illegal because it constitute a taking back of
wages that were earned when the merchandise was sold.

The two actions were coordinated and assigned to Orange Superior
Court Judge Thierry P. Colaw, and the settlement, which included a
new system of calculation, payment, and reporting of commissions
along with the cash and coupons, was approved last year.  Two
employees initially objected to the settlement, but Kellie Taylor
was left as the lone objector after Cynthia Alvarez opted out to
pursue her own action.

According to the report, Judge Colaw overruled Ms. Taylor's
objections.  He ruled that all relevant issues, including the
potential that former employees could recover waiting time
penalties under the Labor Code, were considered in the settlement
negotiations, and that it was unlikely the class could have
recovered such penalties by taking the case to trial.

Judge Fybel agreed, holding that claims for waiting time penalties
had little chance for success, given that the pay structure
challenged by the plaintiffs had been agreed to by the employees
in written agreements, and approved by the court in the prior
action.  He also noted that similar claims had been filed with the
Labor Commissioner and rejected, and that the employer could argue
that the former employees' commissions were incapable of being
calculated at the time of termination and could thus be delayed
until the date they were able to be calculated.

Nor, the justice wrote, did the lack of penalties under the
Private Attorneys General Act render the settlement unfair. The
trial judge reasonably concluded that no PAGA were recoverable
because the company followed the previously court-approved plan in
good faith.

The case is Nordstrom Commission Cases, G042772.


ODYSSEY HEALTHCARE: Brower Piven Mulls Suit Over Gentiva Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation, is
investigating whether the Board of Directors of Odyssey
Healthcare, Inc. (Nasdaq: ODSY) breached its fiduciary duty to its
shareholders in agreeing to sell Odyssey Healthcare to Gentiva
Health Services, Inc. (Nasdaq: GTIV).

Under the terms of the agreement, Odyssey Healthcare shareholders
will receive $27 in cash for each share they own, placing the
total value of the transaction at approximately $1 billion.  The
companies expect to close the deal in the third quarter of 2010.
The investigation is focused on the potential unfairness of the
price to Odyssey Healthcare shareholders and the process by which
the Odyssey Healthcare Board of Directors considered and approved
the transaction.

If you are a holder of Odyssey stock, and have information, or
would like to learn more about these claims, you may contact
Brower Piven at http://www.browerpiven.com/, by e-mail at
piven@browerpiven.com , by calling 410/415-6701, or at Brower
Piven, A Professional Corporation, 1925 Old Valley Road,
Stevenson, Maryland 21153.

Attorneys at Brower Piven have combined experience litigating
securities and class action cases of over 40 years.


ORLEANS LEVEE: Defense Wants Judge to Recuse in Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Alejandro de los Rios of The Louisiana Record reports that Lambert
Hassinger Jr., Esq., and Timothy Hassinger, Esq. -- defense
counsel for the New Orleans Sewerage and Water Board -- moved for
Judge Piper Griffin to recuse herself from a class action case
over the New Orleans levee system in Orleans Parish Civil District
Court.  They contend that Judge Griffin is not fit to preside over
the case on the grounds that she was affected by the citywide
flooding in New Orleans after the levees failed during hurricane
Katrina in 2005.  Judge Griffin stated that she did not file an
insurance claim for that hurricane and that she was not affected
by the flooding.

A recusal hearing has been set for Sept. 24.

Jefferson parish residents Susan and William Laurendine are the
lead class members in a class action suit against the Orleans
Levee district, the Parish of Orleans, the Department of
Transportation and Development, the Sewerage and Water Board and
the state of Louisiana.

The class is suing because of the damage caused by the failure of
the 17th Street levee which resulted in a 500-foot breach that
flooded several houses and commercial businesses.  The suit claims
the Orleans Levee District is liable for building levees and flood
walls "which were below standard," failing to test the barriers
and failing to "bind the walls together."

Judge Griffin was slated to hear a motion by the plaintiffs for
partial summary judgment on July 2.  The Louisiana Record reports
she did not rule on that request.

New Orleans attorney Darlene Jacobs, Esq., is representing the
class.

Orleans Levee is represented by:

    Thomas Anzelmo Sr., Esq.
    MCCRANIE, SISTRUNK, ANZELMO, HARDY, MCDANIEL & WELCH LLC
    3445 North Causeway Boulevard, Suite 800
    Metairie, LA 70002
    Telephone: (504) 831-0946
    Facsimile: (504) 831-2492
    E-mail: tanzelmo@mcsalaw.com

The rest of the defendants are represented by:

    Lambert Hassinger Jr., Esq.
    Timothy Hassinger, Esq.
    GALLOWAY, JOHNSON, TOMPKINS, BURR & SMITH, PLC
    One Shell Square, 701 Poydras Street, 40th Floor
    New Orleans, LA 70139
    Telephone: (504) 525-6802
    Telecopy: (504) 525-2456
    E-mail: jhassinger@gjtbs.com
            thassinger@gjtbs.com


PDI COMMUNICATIONS: Recalls 2,700 Television Sets
-------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
PDi Communications, announced a voluntary recall of about 2,700
Television Sets.  Consumers should stop using recalled products
immediately unless otherwise instructed.

PDi Communications has received one report of an incident
involving a flame in February 2010.  No injuries have been
reported.

This recall involves 26-inch and 32-inch wall-mounted LCD
television sets that were installed in healthcare facilities, such
as hospitals, medical centers and nursing homes.  Model and serial
number ranges included in this recall are listed in the chart
below.  The model number is printed on a label on the back of the
television sets.  Other models of PDi television sets or units
that are outside the serial number range are not included in this
recall.

   Model Number   Serial Number Range
   -----------    -------------------

   PDI-P26LCDC    0832-D009-00001-A through 0913-D009-02500
   PDI-P32LCDD    0902-D010-00001-A through 0921-D010-01419

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10746.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold through
PDi Communications to distributors that service healthcare
facilities such as hospitals, medical centers and nursing homes
nationwide from September 2008 through July 2009 for about $1,000.


STATE FARM: Sued for Denying Coverage in Class Action v. J. Clark
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bridgeview Health Care Center, Ltd., individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Company
and Jerry Clark d/b/a Affordable Digital Hearing, Case No.
2010-CH-28169 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty. June 30, 2010), asks the
Court to declare that the policy State Farm issued to Mr. Clark
requires it to defend and indemnify Mr. Clark for the claims made
by Plaintiff.

Bridgeview had instituted a civil class action against Mr. Clark,
Case No. 09-CH-16503, in the Circuit Court of Cook County,
Illinois (date of filing was not disclosed), which complaint was
thereafter removed to federal court.  The underlying action
accuses Mr. Clark, who is engaged in the business of selling and
repairing hearing aids, of sending unsolicited junk fax
advertisements (in order to market its goods or services), in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Act and the Illinois Consumer
Fraud Act.

Bridgeview says that State Farm had issued to Mr. Clark Commercial
General Liability insurance policies, one of which is numbered
94-KX-6659, which policy, Bridgeview claims, offers coverage for
"property damage" and "advertising injury."  Bridgeview explains
that the junk fax advertisements received from Mr. Clark (which
occurred during the policy periods of the policy) physically
injured plaintiff and other class members' personal property,
including but not limited to fax toner and paper, and caused
plaintiffs to lose the use of their personal property, including
but not limited to the use of their cellular telephones during the
junk text message transmissions.  Concerning the alleged
advertising injury, Bridgeview says that said injury occurred as a
result of Mr. Clark's oral or written publication of material
which violates Plaintiff's right of privacy.

State Farm has denied coverage under its policy, contending that
Mr. Clark is not entitled to defense or indemnity under the policy
in the underlying action.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian J. Wanca, Esq.
          David M. Oppenheim, Esq.
          ANDERSON + WANCA
          3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 760
          Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
          Telephone: (847) 368-1500

               - and -

          Phillip A. Bock
          BOCK & HATCH, LLC
          134 N. LaSalle St., Suite 1000
          Chicago, IL 60602


SYNCORA HOLDINGS: Securities Class Action Complaint Amended
-----------------------------------------------------------
Syncora Holdings Ltd. said Thursday an amended complaint has been
filed by the lead plaintiff in the putative securities class
action brought against Security Capital Assurance Ltd. -- as SHL
was known at the time the action was initiated -- and certain
former officers of SHL.  In its press release of April 5, 2010,
SHL announced that the court had dismissed all claims in the
original complaint but had granted the lead plaintiff 90 days to
file an amended complaint.

Syncora Holdings Ltd. (OTC: SYCRF) -- http://www.syncora.com/--
is a Bermuda-domiciled holding company.  SHL, through its
subsidiary, Syncora Guarantee  Inc., a monoline financial
guarantee insurance provider, provides credit enhancement for the
obligations of debt issuers worldwide.


TIERONE CORP: Former Bank Employee Sues Over Retirement Plans
-------------------------------------------------------------
Josh Funk at The Associated Press reports that Susan Bredthauer, a
former TierOne Bank employee, filed a federal lawsuit Wednesday
against TierOne's former directors, its employee benefit committee
and the company that oversaw the company's retirement plans,
Principal Trust Co.  The AP relates Ms. Bredthauer said the people
who oversaw the company's retirement plans should have known
TierOne Corp. stock was a bad investment long before federal
regulators took over the bank and sold its assets last month.

The lawsuit could become a class action.

TierOne had losses in 10 of the last 11 quarters as it struggled
under the weight of bad loans in areas of the country hit hard by
the subprime mortgage crisis.  Yet the bank's retirement plans
held more than 2 million shares of TierOne stock.  The Federal
Deposit Insurance Corp. took over TierOne in early June, and Great
Western Bank, of Sioux Falls, S.D., agreed to acquire the bank.
All of TierOne's branches are now Great Western branches.

According to the AP, Principal Trust spokeswoman Jamie Naig said
TierOne had not received a copy of the lawsuit and could not
immediately comment on the case.  TierOne's corporate offices are
closed, and no one answered the phone there.

Ms. Bredthauer is represented by David Rowe, Esq.  He may be
reached at:

     David Rowe, Esq.
     KINSEY ROWE BECKER & KISTLER, LLP
     P.O. Box 85778, Suite 601
     121 South 13th Street
     Lincoln, NE 68501-5778
     Telephone: (402) 438-1313
     Facsimile: (402) 438-1654
     E-mail: krbk@krbklaw.com

According to AP, Mr. Rowe says the TierOne officials and Principal
Trust had a fiduciary duty to protect participants' investments.
But Mr. Rowe said in the lawsuit that those officials failed to
act after TierOne faltered because of financial mismanagement and
inadequate reserves.

The AP notes the TierOne stock held in the 401k retirement plan
and employee stock ownership plan was worth $46.8 million at the
end of 2007 when the stock traded for $22.15. By the end of last
month, TierOne's stock sold for 6.5 cents per share, so the
retirement plans' holdings were worth $149,954.  During the time
period cited in the lawsuit, TierOne also tried to sell itself to
commercial lender CapitalSource Inc., but that deal fell apart in
2008 after turmoil in the credit markets and regulatory delays.
Falling stock prices trimmed the value of the deal from $652
million when it was announced to $322 million when TierOne's
parent company backed out.


TRANSOCEAN LTD: Oil Spill Spawns Milberg Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Milberg LLP has filed a class action lawsuit in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York on behalf of all persons who purchased Transocean, Ltd.,
securities during the period from August 5, 2009, to June 1, 2010,
inclusive.  Transocean is the owner and operator of 139 mobile
offshore drilling units, and provides the mobile offshore drilling
units and services that oil companies worldwide use to find and
develop oil and natural gas reserves.  The action is captioned
Foley v. Transocean, Ltd., et al., and is numbered 10-CV-5233.
The complaint is available from the Court or can be viewed at
Milberg LLP's Web site at http://www.milberg.com/

The complaint charges Transocean and certain of its trustees and
officers with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5.  According to
the complaint, prior to and during the Class Period Defendants
were informed of the serious risks associated with the blowout
preventors on Transocean's ultra-deepwater drilling engagements.
Despite this knowledge, Defendants disseminated false and
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose material
information concerning: (i) Transocean's deficient safety efforts
and safety violations; (ii) the heightened hazards associated with
the BOPs used by the Company; (iii) the likelihood that the
equipment required to drill at depths such as those encountered by
the Deepwater Horizon would render Transocean's safety protocols,
including those relating to the BOPs, ineffective; and (iv) the
Company's significant exposure to liability as a result of these
unmitigated hazards.

Beginning on April 20th, and continuing until June 1, 2010, the
public began to learn of Transocean's misrepresentations and the
magnitude of those risks to the Company and its businesses, which
caused Transocean's stock to drop.  On April 20, 2010, while
drilling at a well off the Louisiana coast and on the outer
continental shelf in the Gulf of Mexico, an explosion onboard
Transocean's ultra-deepwater semi-submersible drilling rig
Deepwater Horizon caused a fire which resulted in the death of
eleven crew members, nine of whom were Transocean employees, and
the injury of seventeen others.  The rig sank on April 22, 2010.
These incidents led to the ongoing massive oil spill in the Gulf
of Mexico which has affected an estimated surface area of
thousands of miles.

As a result of Defendants' false and misleading statements and/or
omissions, Transocean securities traded at inflated levels during
the Class Period. As the truth about the full extent of the
disaster was absorbed by the market in the weeks following the
explosion and oil spill, Transocean shares fell almost $45 per
share from the Class Period high of $94.88 on January 11, 2010, to
close at $50.04 on June 1, 2010, an approximate 47% drop, wiping
out $13.4 billion in market value as of June 1, 2010.

If you purchased any class of shares of Transocean from August 5,
2009, through June 1, 2010, you may move the court no later than
July 12, 2010, and request that the Court appoint you as lead
plaintiff. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. To be
appointed lead plaintiff, the Court must decide that your claim is
typical of the claims of other class members, and that you will
adequately represent the class. Your share in any recovery will
not be enhanced or diminished by the decision whether or not to
serve as a lead plaintiff. You can recover as an absent class
member without moving for lead plaintiff. You may retain Milberg
LLP, or other attorneys, to serve as your counsel in this action.

The complaint has been filed as a class action on behalf of all
persons who own Transocean securities. No class has yet been
certified, and there can be no guarantee that a class will be
certified.

Milberg LLP -- http://www.milberg.com/-- is widely recognized as
the premier class action and complex litigation firm, representing
individual and institutional investors, pension funds, hedge
funds, unions, and consumers. Founded in 1965, Milberg has offices
in New York, Los Angeles, Tampa, and Detroit. The firm has taken
the lead in landmark cases that have set groundbreaking legal
precedents and prompted changes in corporate governance benefiting
shareholders in North America and abroad.

The firm may be reached at:

     Peter Safirstein, Esq.
     Andrei V. Rado, Esq.
     MILBERG LLP
     One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Fl.
     New York, NY 10119-0165
     Telephone: (800) 320-5081
     E-mail: psafirstein@milberg.com
             arado@milberg.com


UNITED STATES: Mantese Sues Dept. of Defense Over Autism Therapy
----------------------------------------------------------------
Military families having children with autism have filed a class
action lawsuit against the Department of Defense, alleging that
the DoD and its health benefits division, TRICARE, have wrongfully
refused to provide insurance coverage for applied behavior
analysis therapy.  In a dramatic new development, the Department
of Defense has vacated its prior policy of denying payment for ABA
therapy for autistic children of military families, but it is
still refusing to pay for such claims.  Specifically, the DoD's
attorneys have issued a policy letter stating, "The TRICARE
Management Activity has vacated any previous instruction it may
have issued to its contractors that ABA is not covered under the
Basic Program."  Military families having an autistic child should
file claims for ABA therapy without delay.

ABA therapy is known to be extremely effective in treating
children with autism if given at an early stage of development.
It is scientifically validated and includes positive
reinforcements and individual goal setting,  to achieve dramatic
behavior modification.  ABA therapy allows children with autism
the opportunity to reach maximum potential and the hope of
becoming independent in their adult lives.  Yet, the DoD refuses
to afford this therapy to autistic children of military families.

The lawsuit contends that the military health benefits division,
TRICARE, at the direction of the DoD, incorrectly characterizes
ABA therapy as "special education" and thereby improperly excludes
ABA therapy from the health care available to members of the
military. The families refute this position and demonstrate in
their Complaint that many prestigious individuals and
organizations, including the United States Army, the Army and
Marine Corps Autism Task Force, the Executive Director of the
National Autism Center, the Acting Surgeon General of the United
States Army, and United States Air Force Major Ella B. Kundu,
Diplomate of the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology, agree
that ABA therapy is not "special education."

The case is Berge v. United States of America, et al, No.
10-cv-00373-RBW (DC), and it was assigned to Judge Reggie B.
Walton of the federal district court in Washington, D.C.

The Department of Defense has recently requested that all action
on the case be stayed and that the matter be remanded, or sent
back, so that the DoD can study the issue further.  The families
have vigorously opposed the request for a stay or a remand,
contending that time is of the essence for the approximately
20,000 military children with autism.  Counsel for the families
assert that the DoD's policy of denying such care to autistic
children of military families is illegal and should be invalidated
without delay.

Gerard Mantese, co-counsel for the families, stated: "The
thousands of military families that we represent deserve health
care coverage comparable to what is being offered by private
insurers.  These military families give us so much to be thankful
for in this country -- our freedom and our safety.  Our military
should not also be asked to sacrifice proper health care for their
children in order to serve their country."

Former Michigan State Senator, David Honigman, co-counsel for the
families, emphasized: "There is only a small window of opportunity
for these children to receive this therapy and obtain maximum
benefit from it.  The studies show that this therapy yields the
most dramatic improvement in abilities if administered at early
ages.  We oppose any attempt to delay this case because children
with autism will suffer during the delay.  The DoD's denial of
coverage based on the assertion that ABA therapy is 'special
education' is contrary to the plain meaning of the health benefits
statute and is incorrect as a matter of law."

The attorneys for the families are:

     Gerard V. Mantese, Esq.
     David M. Honigman, Esq.
     Brendan H. Frey, Esq.
     MANTESE HONIGMAN ROSSMAN AND WILLIAMSON, P.C.
     1361 E. Big Beaver Road
     Troy, Michigan 48083
     Telephone: (248) 457-9200 ext. 203
     E-mail: gmantese@manteselaw.com
             dhonigman@manteselaw.com
             bfrey@manteselaw.com

          - and -

     John J. Conway, Esq.
     JOHN J. CONWAY, PC.
     26622 Woodward Ave. #225
     Royal Oak, MI 48067
     Telephone:(313) 961-6525


UNITED STATES: Hispanic Farmers' Counsel Finds USDA Offer Low
-------------------------------------------------------------
Shaun Griswold, writing for Las Cruces Sun-News, reports that on
May 26, the U.S. Department of Agriculture offered $1.33 billion
to settle class-action lawsuit, Garcia v. Vilsack, which accuses
the bureau of ethnic discrimination leading led to the foreclosure
of thousands of acres of farmland owned by minorities.

However, Stephen Hill, Esq., the lead attorney in the case,
considers the settlement too low and chides the offer as another
form of discrimination.  The group made its message clear during a
rally at the New Mexico State University campus Thursday.

"It is disappointing in that the number on the table is woefully
inadequate and it reflects the continuation of the discrimination
against the Hispanic farmers that this case is all about," Mr.
Hill as saying.

U.S. Sen. Tom Udall, D-NM, sent a staff member to the rally to
read a statement in support. "Hispanic farmers and ranchers built
the southwest United States," he said. "We cannot have justice for
some farmers and injustice for Hispanic farmers."

Attorneys for the plaintiffs have cited a similar lawsuit filed by
African-American farmers, who reached a $1.25 billion class-action
agreement in February.  That was on top of a $1 billion settlement
the farmers won in 1999, in a case similar to the one the Hispanic
farmers are fighting.

According to the USDA's 2007 Census of Agriculture, there are more
than 30,000 African-American owned farms and more than 55,000
Hispanic owned farms.  The plaintiff's attorneys claim that more
Hispanic farms is a clear sign that they should reach an equal
settlement, if not greater than that received by the African-
American farmers.

"There is no rhyme or reason to in any way justify or explain the
kind of disparity, with respect to the dollar amount," said Mr.
Hill.  "For the life of us, we can't figure out why damage to
Hispanics' lives is given so much less value than their black
counterparts. Are Hispanics worth one-third as much?"

Lupe Garcia is the lead plaintiff in the class-action lawsuit.  In
1999, Lupe Garcia lost 626 acres of family-owned farm land north
of Las Cruces.  He claims it was due to discriminatory practices
from his local farm agency, then known as the Farmers Home
Association.  A longtime Do-a Ana County resident, he is now the
lead plaintiff in the lawsuit -- which includes 81 other Hispanic
farmers -- that started more than 10 years ago, but just reached
class-action status in 2009.

The lawsuit states that it seeks to remedy years of discriminatory
loan abuses -- which the lawsuit claims were in direct violation
of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act -- that eventually led to the
foreclosure of thousands of acres of minority-owned farm land.

"It is undisputed in this case that the USDA denied minority
farmers equal access to both farm credit and non-credit benefit
programs," the lawsuit claims.  "It is also undisputed that, in
the 1980s, USDA secretly shut down its entire enforcement
operation without informing Congress or the minority farmers who
were adversely affected by the agency's discriminatory practices."

The era covered by the lawsuit -- 1981 to 1996 -- was considered a
time when farmers were forced to endure a bureaucratic black hole,
where loan board committees, like the FHA, where dominated by
white males. This led to the discriminatory practices alleged in
the lawsuit, it says.

Ostensibly, many farmers in the lawsuit claim friends and family
of local USDA officials purchased the foreclosed land with an
opportunist's lead.

Alfredo Lujan, 78, is a retired school teacher with farmland in
Mesquite and another plaintiff in the case.  He recalls years of
abusive powers from local USDA councils.

"In 1989 a local USDA group said they would pay me for a crop
yield. They never paid me. They said they couldn't find me, I've
been at the same house since 1944," he said. "As for the credit
based loans, they never bothered to tell me about them before the
deadline passed."

The settlement in the case is a only a monetary acknowledgment,
systemic problems still exist, ones that will eventually lead to
further discrimination if nothing changes, Mr. Hill said.  "We
want to make changes with the system as part of our agreement, but
the federal government told us, 'no, don't worry about that we
have that taken care of,'" he said.

Mr. Lujan said the Elephant Butte Irrigation District, which
oversees the entire Mesilla Valley in New Mexico, implements
policies to promote big farms at the expense of small farms. One
policy he mentioned limits farms with two acres or less to three
irrigation services a month.

"Every member on the board owns a big farm," he said. "Take a
drive on Towa Street off Highway 478 and you'll see 15 houses that
have dead land. They're little chile farmers with a quarter -acre,
who can't grow anything with the water they are given. It's
economic genocide."


UNIVERSITY OF IDAHO: Court Approves Settlement of Retirees' Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Latah County District Court on July 8 approved a settlement
between the University of Idaho and two sub-classes of former
faculty and staff who had filed a lawsuit challenging adjustments
made by the university in 2007 to their medical insurance costs
and life insurance benefits made after they entered into early
retirement programs in 1998 and 2002, respectively.

Under the settlement, which the class representatives unanimously
recommended, the class members, barring a declaration of financial
exigency by the University, are guaranteed that medical insurance
premiums for the traditional health coverage offered by the
University to the class members will not increase by more than 10%
over the previous year for the remainder of their lives, and their
life insurance will not decrease below the current benefit which
is a maximum of $10,000.

Although this is less than what the retirees had been seeking,
their lawsuit had been dismissed and they were facing an appeal
and a risk of having to pay the University's attorney fees. Now,
as a result of the settlement, those issues will not have to be
decided.

According to Wileen Anderson, one of the class representatives,
"This has not been an easy decision to make. However, we are
convinced that, under all of the circumstances, it is the best for
both retirees and the university to bring this case to a mutually
acceptable conclusion."

University spokesperson Tania Thompson joined in praising the
settlement. "The university values the contributions of all of its
retirees and is pleased that the litigation has been brought to an
ending everyone supports."

Joel Mills at The Lewiston Morning Tribune reports that Second
District Judge Jeff Brudie brought that case to a close Thursday
when he approved the settlement.  The class-action lawsuit was
brought by more than 250 retired faculty and staff members.

The report recalls the former employees took early retirement
buyouts in 1998 and 2002 that they thought guaranteed a certain
level of health and life insurance benefits for life. But as part
of cost-cutting actions in 2007, the UI required the retirees to
pay part of their health insurance premiums and reduced their life
insurance benefits.  That action triggered the lawsuit, and 2nd
District Judge John R. Stegner sided with the UI in a summary
judgment last year when both sides agreed to forgo a trial.

The report relates the retirees failed in a bid to get Judge
Stegner to reconsider his ruling, but filed an appeal with the
Idaho Supreme Court.  But when a settlement proposal emerged last
month, the case was remanded to the 2nd District Court.

The report says Judge Brudie presided at Thursday's hearing after
Judge Stegner voluntarily recused himself because he is teaching
an evidence class at the UI Law School.  The settlement stipulates
increases to premium co-payments be 10% or less per year, and life
insurance benefits not drop below $10,000.  It allows the
university to modify the terms of the benefits in the future, but
only if it declares a financial emergency.  It also absolves the
retirees from paying the UI's $94,000 in court costs.

"The class members and representatives have taken the position
that this settlement is fair and adequate," Moscow attorney Ron
Landeck, Esq., told Judge Brudie, speaking for the retirees.

According to the report, Judge Brudie said an appeal to the Idaho
Supreme Court would have been an expensive proposition for the
retirees, and there would have still been no guarantee of a
favorable outcome.  "These concessions from the university may be
more than what the plaintiffs might have been ultimately able to
obtain," Judge Brudie said, according to the report, noting he,
too, thought the settlement was "fair and reasonable.

The report also notes the settlement was not supported by
everyone.  A retiree and class member named Larry Robertson of
Nampa wrote a memorandum to the court asking that Judge Brudie not
give his stamp of approval.  Judge Brudie found Robertson's letter
largely restated arguments Mr. Landeck made at previous hearings,
however, and didn't let it influence his ruling.


VITAMIN WORLD: Accused in Calif. Suit of Not Paying Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Vitamin World stiffed workers
for overtime, a class action claims in Alameda County Court,
Oakland.

A copy of the Complaint in Hamilton, et al. v. Vitamin World
Inc., et al., Case No. RG10524008 (Calif. Super. Ct., Alameda
Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/07/08/Employ.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jeffrey Spencer, Esq.
          SPENCER LAW FIRM
          1211 Puerta Del Sol, Suite 150
          San Clemente, CA 92673
          Telephone: 949-240-8595
          E-mail: jps@spencerlaw.net

               - and -

          Jeffrey Wilens, Esq.
          LAKESHORE LAW CENTER
          18340 Yorba Linda Blvd., Suite 107-610
          Yorba Linda, CA 92886
          Telephone: 714-854-7205
          E-mail: jeff@lakeshorelaw.org


WASHINGTON D.C.: Moves Closer to Ending Juvenile Justice Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
According to Henri E. Cauvin at Washington Post, Grace M. Lopes,
the monitor overseeing the court-ordered reform of the District's
juvenile justice agency said in a report filed Thursday that the
city has staged a "remarkable" turnaround in how it educates
juveniles in long-term detention and had moved a step closer to
ending a long-running class-action lawsuit.

Once marked by a dearth of certified teachers and a lack of
appropriate special-education services, the school serving
sentenced juveniles was turned over to a private foundation three
years ago and has become a model educational program for a
juvenile correctional facility, the monitor said.

In a 54-page report filed in D.C. Superior Court, Ms. Lopes said
her educational expert, Carol Cramer Brooks, had conducted an
assessment of the school over several months in 2009 and 2010 and
concluded that the school was one of the "best programs" Brooks
had ever seen.  The school, Ms. Brooks said, has a strong,
committed staff, a low student-teacher ratio, a well-defined
curriculum and an abundance of energy and creativity among the
faculty.

Called the Maya Angelou Academy, the school is operated by the See
Forever Foundation, which also runs the two-campus Maya Angelou
Public Charter School in the District.  The academy is housed at
New Beginnings, the detention facility that the District opened in
Laurel last year for long-term juvenile detainees, and its bright,
modern space would be the envy of many parents who send their
children to D.C. public schools.

While the new home certainly bolstered the school's standing, the
changes began in 2007, soon after See Forever was contracted to
take over the school, called the Oak Hill Academy, and which had
been perhaps the most troubled part of the notorious Oak Hill
detention center.  In the late 1990s, the school was briefly
placed in receivership, and as recently as 2005 and 2006, the
monitor was reporting that the school was racked by violence,
disorder and chronic student absenteeism and lacked any functional
administrative infrastructure.

Under pressure from the court, a sweeping reform effort was
launched by then-Mayor Anthony A. Williams (D) in 2005 with the
hiring of Vincent N. Schiraldi to lead the new Department of Youth
Rehabilitation Services.  In 2007, See Forever was brought on to
take over the school at Oak Hill and within months, the monitor
was seeing signs of change, with a "dynamic, creative team of
teachers."

For DYRS, the report is a boost to its efforts, which have been
faulted repeatedly by critics who disagree with the agency's
emphasis on rehabilitation.  A recent run of high-profile crimes
involving juveniles has heightened their criticism.

"Though we realize there is more work to be done, we are very
encouraged by our progress and DYRS will continue to work hard to
help young people succeed in school, go to college, and prepare
for the world of work, all of which results in safer neighborhoods
for everyone," DYRS interim director Marc A. Schindler said in a
statement.

Mayor Adrian M. Fenty (D), who as a member of the council
championed the reform effort, praised the progress noted in the
monitor's report. "DYRS has transformed its school system -- which
was among the worst in the country -- and turned it around to meet
this administration's goal of having a world-class education
system for D.C.'s young people, regardless of where they are in
our city."

                            *********

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  * * *