CAR_Public/100714.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Wednesday, July 14, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 137

                             Headlines

ACTIVISION: Class Suit Says CEO Kotick Promised to Pay IW Bonuses
AMERICAN AIRLINES: 8th Cir. Upholds Dismissal of Negligence Suit
ANADARKO PETROLEUM: Oil Spill Spawns Brower Piven Class Suit
ARIZONA: Los Angeles-Based Group Sues Over Immigration Law
AUSTRALIA: May Face Suit Over Rent Paid to Aboriginal Communities

BANK OF AMERICA: Fails to Meet HAMP Obligations, Suit Claims
BEST BUY: Defends "Holloway" Lawsuit in California
BLUE SHIELD: Accused of Charging Excessive Insurance Premiums
CALAMP CORP: Court Gives Preliminary Approval to Settlement Pact
DIRECTV: Sued for Charging Higher "Sales Tax" to Subscribers

DISCOVER FINANCIAL: Sued for Engaging in Deceptive Bus. Practices
ELECTRONIC ARTS: IP Suit by College Football Players Ongoing
FACEBOOK INC: Germany Sues Over Use of Private Information
KB HOME: July 26 Hearing Set for Settlement Pact Final Approval
LAND O' LAKES: Egg Price-Fixing Suit Remains Pending

LIVE NATION: Faces Suit After Rush Concert Cancelled Due to Rain
MCNEIL CONSUMER: Recalls Certain Over-The-Counter Products
NATIONAL BEEF: NBL Not Liable for Contaminated Wastewater
NEW ORLEANS: July 16 Hearing Set for Notice Motion in OPSB Case
ORIENTAL TRADING: SmileMakers Recalls Adjustable Football Ring

RED HAT: Court Approval of Settlement Agreement Remains Pending
ROYAL BANK OF CANADA: Earl Jones Fraud Victims Mull C$40MM Suit
SOMANETICS CORP: Faces "Manne" Suit Over U.S. Surgical Merger
SPECTRANETICS CORP: Recalls Thrombus Extraction Catheter
UNITED STATES: Court Junks Air Traffic Controllers' FLSA Suit

WAL-MART STORES: Sued for Underpayment of Retirement Benefits
WD-40 CO: Sued in California Over Toilet Bowl Cleaners



                            *********

ACTIVISION: Class Suit Says CEO Kotick Promised to Pay IW Bonuses
-----------------------------------------------------------------
James Cottee at games.on.net reports that new allegations have
surfaced from the class action suit being brought against
Activision by close to 40 current and former Infinity Ward staff.
The plaintiffs are now claiming that Activision stationed security
guards at all the entrances to Infinity Ward, conducted secret
interrogations with staff, and turned their humble offices into a
'police state.'  They're also now claiming that Activision CEO
Bobby Kotick visited their offices to give his personal assurance
that their overdue bonuses would be paid -- and that he did not
keep his word.


AMERICAN AIRLINES: 8th Cir. Upholds Dismissal of Negligence Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Annie Youderian at Courthouse News Service reports that the United
States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit upheld the
dismissal of a class action accusing American Airlines of false
imprisonment and negligence for stranding passengers for nine
hours on the tarmac.

Lead plaintiff Catherine Ray sued the airlines for false
imprisonment and negligence after she waited nine hours for her
flight to leave a runway in Austin for the Dallas airport, which
had been closed due to bad weather.

The airline gave passengers two opportunities to take a bus back
to the airport, but Ms. Ray declined.  She said the pilot told
passengers that if they chose to deplane, they would be "finished
with this flight" and would be "on their own."

Ms. Ray and her husband stayed on board, which soon became
"stuffy" and "smelly," according to the lawsuit.

She says passengers were given just "two or three granola bars"
and "two soda pops" over nine hours, and one of the toilets in the
plane stopped working.

The plane was taken to a gate around 9:00 p.m., and many
passengers, including Ray and her husband, spent the night in the
terminal.

A federal judge ruled for American Airlines, and the federal
appeals court in St. Louis rejected Ms. Ray's appeal.

The three-judge panel dismissed her false imprisonment claim,
saying there were no laws capping how many hours an airline could
delay its passengers.

"Ray has not presented any statute or regulation, federal or state
. . . that placed a limit on the number of hours American was
permitted to keep passengers aboard one of its airplanes during a
delay," Judge Diana Murphy wrote.

"Moreover, American provided two opportunities to deplane, and the
pilot informed the passengers that the second was their last
chance to leave the flight."

Ms. Ray's negligence claim fails, the panel ruled, because she
"has presented little to no evidence that she suffered physical
injury because of American's actions."

A copy of the decision in Ray v. American Airlines, Inc., Nos. 09-
2317/09-2357 (8th Cir.), is available at:

     http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/10/07/092317P.pdf


ANADARKO PETROLEUM: Oil Spill Spawns Brower Piven Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation, said a class action
lawsuit has been commenced in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of the
common stock of Anadarko Petroleum Corporation during the period
between June 12, 2009 and June 9, 2010, inclusive.

No class has yet been certified in the action.  Members of the
Class will be represented by the lead plaintiff and counsel chosen
by the lead plaintiff. If you wish to choose counsel to represent
you and the Class, you must apply to be appointed lead plaintiff
no later than August 23, 2010 and be selected by the Court. The
lead plaintiff will direct the litigation and participate in
important decisions including whether to accept a settlement and
how much of a settlement to accept for the Class in the action.
The lead plaintiff will be selected from among applicants claiming
the largest loss from investment in the Company during the Class
Period. You are not required to have sold your shares to seek
damages or to serve as a Lead Plaintiff.  You may contact Brower
Piven (through hoffman@browerpiven.com or 410/415-6616) to answer
any questions you may have in that regard.

The complaint accuses the defendants of violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by virtue of the Company's failure
to disclose during the Class Period that the Company, 25% owner of
the Macondo/Deepwater Horizon well currently leaking millions of
gallons of oil into the Gulf of Mexico, had no effective
Exploration and Oil Spill Response Plan for Macondo/Deepwater
Horizon; that BP implemented drilling procedures to cut costs at
the expense of safety; that the Company lacked adequate systems of
internal, operational or financial controls to maintain adequate
insurance reserves or to meet the known or foreseeable risks
associated with its deepwater drilling liabilities; and that
defendants lacked any reasonable basis to claim that Anadarko was
operating according to plan, or that Anadarko could achieve
guidance provided to the investing public.

According to the complaint, on April 20, 2010, the
Macondo/Deepwater Horizon rig exploded killing 11 platform workers
and injuring 17 others. In the wake of this tragedy, defendants
allegedly continued to issue materially false and misleading
statements representing that the Company would likely incur only
approximately $177.5 million in liability for its part in the
Macondo/Deepwater Horizon venture. The complaint further alleges
that on June 1, 2010, the public began to learn the truth about
Anadarko's business, operations, management, and the intrinsic
value of Anadarko common stock when it was reported that the
Macondo/Deepwater Horizon well could not be capped and investors
came to realize there was effectively no plan in place to stop the
spill. According to the complaint, that day, the value of shares
of Anadarko fell significantly. Also according to the complaint,
on June 9, 2010, shares of Anadarko fell significantly, again,
after investors learned of the material deficiencies in the
Macondo/Deepwater Horizon Exploration and Oil Spill Response Plan,
via the Huffington Post, and further learned that, contrary to the
Company's previous statements as to its liability exposure, the
Company would now be responsible for over $1 billion in clean up
costs.

If you have suffered a net loss for all transactions in Anadarko
Petroleum Corporation common stock during the Class Period, you
may obtain additional information about this lawsuit and your
ability to become a lead plaintiff by contacting Brower Piven at
http://www.browerpiven.com/, by email at hoffman@browerpiven.com
, by calling 410/415-6616, 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. If you choose
to retain counsel, you may retain Brower Piven without financial
obligation or cost to you, or you may retain other counsel of your
choice. You need take no action at this time to be a member of the
class.


ARIZONA: Los Angeles-Based Group Sues Over Immigration Law
----------------------------------------------------------
MyFOX Los Angeles reports that Center for Human Rights and
Constitutional Law and the League of United Latin American
Citizens filed a federal class action lawsuit on Friday in federal
court in Phoenix challenging Arizona's new immigration law.  The
complaint alleges that Arizona's training materials recently
developed and distributed to Arizona law enforcement agencies to
implement the law "exacerbate the conflicts between the United
States Constitution and federal laws on the one hand, and Arizona
law on the other hand."

"The training materials issued a few days ago by Arizona are so
vague and ill-defined that they will certainly lead to widespread
racial profiling and discrimination," said Peter Schey, president
of the Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law.

Mr. Schey served as lead counsel in the lawsuit that resulted in
California's Proposition 187, which barred illegal immigrants from
state-funded services, unconstitutional.  He now serves as lead
counsel for the plaintiffs in the Arizona case.

"The Arizona law and its training materials conflict with federal
immigration law in numerous ways so that immigrants who are known
to the federal authorities with petitions to legalize their status
will nevertheless be subject to detention, arrest and prosecution
in Arizona because they do not possess the kinds of specific
documentary proof Arizona insists upon to establish lawful
presence," he said.

The complaint alleges that Arizona's training materials violate
federal law "by failing to recognize that numerous categories of
immigrants who did not enter the United States lawfully
nevertheless are eligible for legalization of status," and "by
permitting law enforcement officers to rely upon vague and ill-
defined factors" such as a person's dress, difficulty
communicating in English, demeanor and claim of not knowing others
at the same location as providing justification for a detention
based on suspected undocumented status.

The lawsuit argues that Arizona's law is "void and should be
struck down under the Supremacy Clause of the United States
Constitution."

The plaintiffs include League of United Latin American Citizens,
two university professors who seek standing as taxpayers, and five
undocumented immigrants whose presence is known to the federal
government and who are seeking legalization of status in pending
petitions but do not possess the type of documentation showing
lawful residence that the new Arizona law demands to avoid
detention, arrest, and prosecution.

"As the oldest and largest Hispanic civil rights organization in
the United States, we are profoundly disturbed by the anti-
immigrant law recently enacted in Arizona," said LULAC National
President Rosa Rosales. "We plan to vigorously fight that law, and
Arizona's discriminatory training materials to implement the law,
in the federal courts, in the Arizona legislature, and in the
United States Congress.

"Arizona may be frustrated, as are we, with Congress' failure to
seriously address comprehensive immigration reform. Nevertheless,
the solution is not a patchwork of varying state laws, each trying
to be more repressive than the next to force immigrants to go
elsewhere."

The U.S. Justice Department has also announced that it will seek
to have Arizona's law, which allows state law enforcement officers
to check the immigration status of suspects stopped for other
reasons, to be declared unconstitutional.


AUSTRALIA: May Face Suit Over Rent Paid to Aboriginal Communities
----------------------------------------------------------------
Amy Marshall at ABC News reports that the Federal Government of
Australia may find itself facing a class action challenging the
amount of rent it plans to pay Aboriginal communities, a human
rights lawyer says.

The Commonwealth says it will pay rent to Aboriginal communities
for compulsory five-year leases that it has taken over their land.

The High Court ruled the Government must pay fair compensation but
lawyer George Newhouse says he is examining claims that the rent
does not reflect fair value.

"It's very early days," he said.

"The Government's only just announced that they're actually going
to pay a rent.

"We need to sit down with the communities, community by community,
look at how much land's been taken by the Commonwealth, get a
valuer in and have a look and assess what the true worth of the
community land is worth."


BANK OF AMERICA: Fails to Meet HAMP Obligations, Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Jamie Ross at Courthouse News Service reports that despite
pocketing $25 billion from the Troubled Asset Relief Program to
help homeowners avoid foreclosure, Bank of America refuses to help
its customers out because it makes money by turning them away, a
class action claims in Federal Court.  "Fees that Bank of America
charges borrowers that are in default constitute a significant
source of revenue to the servicer," the class claims.

Though BofA gets $1,000 for each Home Affordable Modification
Program loan modification, it's more profitable to "avoid
modification and to continue to keep a mortgage in a state of
default or distress and to push loans toward foreclosure,"
according to the complaint.

Bank of America refuses to use the government funding for its
intended purpose, and forces foreclosures, because modifying
mortgage loans would bring it lower monthly service fees, and
"(f)ees that Bank of America charges borrowers that are in default
constitute a significant source of revenue to the servicer," the
class claims.

According to the U.S. Treasury, Bank of America has more than 1
million mortgages that qualify for modifications, but BofA has
granted only 12,761 permanent modifications, the complaint states
-- "just over 1 percent of the eligible pool."

Also, the lender's "right to recover expenses from an investor in
a loan modification, rather than a foreclosure, is often less
clear and less generous," the complaint adds.

The homebuyers say that Bank of America has to pay for "additional
staffing, physical infrastructure, and expenses such as property
valuation, credit reports and financing costs" when granting loan
modifications.

Bank of America counts on the fees it charges borrowers in default
as "a significant source of revenue," the homeowners claim.  And
the bank adds late fees and "process management fees" to loans to
increase the unpaid balance and monthly service fee, the class
claims.

The complaint cites an October 2009 report from Diane Thompson
with the National Consumer Law Center: "Why Servicers Foreclose
When They Should Modify and Other Puzzles of Servicer Behavior."

According to the 33-page federal complaint:

"Economic factors that discourage Bank of America from meeting its
contractual obligations under HAMP by facilitating loan
modifications include the following:

"Bank of America may be required to repurchase loans from the
investor in order to permanently modify the loan.  This presents a
substantial cost and loss of revenue that can be avoided by
keeping the loan in a state of temporary modification or lingering
default.

"The monthly service fee that Bank of America, as the servicer
collects as to each loan it services in a pool of loans, is
calculated as a fixed percentage of the unpaid principal balance
of the loans in the pool.  Consequently, modifying a loan to
reduce the principal balance results in a lower monthly fee to the
servicer.

"Fees that Bank of America charges borrowers that are in default
constitute a significant source of revenue to the servicer.  Aside
from income Bank of America directly receives, late fees and
'process management fees' are often added to the principal loan
amount thereby increasing the unpaid balance in a pool of loans
and increasing the amount of the servicer's monthly service fee.

"Entering into a permanent modification will often delay a
servicer's ability to recover advances it is required to make to
investors of the unpaid principal and interest payment of a non-
performing loan.  The servicer's right to recover expenses from an
investor in a loan modification, rather than a foreclosure, is
often less clear and less generous."

The class alleges consumer fraud and breach of contract.  It wants
Bank of America ordered to offer permanent modifications to class
members, and ordered to institute "appropriate training of their
employees . . . regarding their duties under HAMP."

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Robert Carey, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO
          11 West Jefferson, Suite 1000
          Phoenix, AZ 85003
          Telephone: (602) 840-5900

               - and -

          Steve Berman, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO
          1918 Eighth Ave., Suite 3300
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 623-7292


BEST BUY: Defends "Holloway" Lawsuit in California
--------------------------------------------------
Best Buy Co., Inc., defends a purported class action lawsuit
captioned, Jasmen Holloway, et al. v. Best Buy Co., Inc., pending
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California.

The action was filed in December 2005, and alleges that the
company discriminates against women and minority individuals on
the basis of gender, race, color and/or national origin in its
stores with respect to the company's employment policies and
practices.

The action seeks an end to discriminatory policies and practices,
an award of back and front pay, punitive damages and injunctive
relief, including rightful place relief for all class members.  A
class certification motion was heard in June 2009, but the Court's
decision has been delayed as the parties are under order to submit
further briefs.

No further updates were reported in the company's July 8, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended May 29, 2010.

With operations in the United States, Canada, Europe, China,
Mexico and Turkey, Best Buy Co., Inc. -- http://www.bby.com/-- is
a multinational retailer of technology and entertainment products
and services with a commitment to growth and innovation.  The Best
Buy family of brands and partnerships collectively generates more
than $49 billion in annual revenue and includes brands such as
Best Buy, Best Buy Mobile, Audiovisions, The Carphone Warehouse,
Five Star, Future Shop, Geek Squad, Magnolia Audio Video, Napster,
Pacific Sales and The Phone House.  Approximately 180,000
employees apply their talents to help bring the benefits of these
brands to life for customers through retail locations, multiple
call centers and Web sites, in-home solutions, product delivery
and activities in our communities.  Community partnership is
central to the way we do business at Best Buy.  In fiscal 2010,
the company donated a combined $25.2 million to improve the
vitality of the communities where its employees and customers live
and work.


BLUE SHIELD: Accused of Charging Excessive Insurance Premiums
-------------------------------------------------------------
Chie Akiba at Courthouse News Service reports that Blue Shield
charged California policyholders as much as three times the
premiums allowed by state law, a class action claims in Superior
Court.  The named plaintiff claims she was overcharged by $1,400 a
year for 3 years, and estimates the class contains more than 6,000
people.

Under the amended Knox-Keene Health Care Service Plan Act of 2000,
California set a ceiling on how much health care insurers such as
Blue Shield can charge under the Health Insurance Portability and
Accountability Act.

The law states that "in no case shall the premium charged . . .
exceed . . . the average premium paid by a subscriber of the Major
Risk Medical Insurance Program who is of the same age and resides
in the same geographic area as the federally eligible defined
individual," according to the complaint.

Named plaintiff Amalia Corona Lample cites a Feb. 18, 2009 Los
Angeles Times article that reported that Blue Shield "said it was
not required to follow the state-issued rate structure because the
company did not believe it was legally binding."

Ms. Lample disputes that.  She claims Blue Shield charged her
$4,376 more than the state allows for her premiums, from 2007
through 2009.  She seeks restitution and punitive damages for
breach of faith, unfair competition and violations of business
law.

The defendant is California Physicians' Service dba Blue Shield of
California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William Larson, Esq.
          KIESEL, BOUCHER & LARSON LLP
          8648 Wilshire Blvd.
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211-2910
          Telephone: (310) 854-4444


CALAMP CORP: Court Gives Preliminary Approval to Settlement Pact
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Los Angeles County Superior Court gave its preliminary
approval to the settlement agreement resolving a class action
against CalAmp Corp., according to the company's July 8, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended May 29, 2010.

In November 2008, a class action lawsuit was filed in the Los
Angeles County Superior Court against CalAmp, the former owner of
CalAmp's Aercept business and one of Aercept's distributors.

The lawsuit alleged that Aercept made misrepresentations when the
plaintiffs purchased analog vehicle tracking devices in 2005,
which was prior to CalAmp's acquisition of Aercept in an asset
purchase.

In April 2010, the parties entered into a settlement agreement on
terms and conditions that did not have a material impact on
CalAmp's financial condition or results of operations.  The
settlement agreement received the preliminary approval of the
Court on April 19, 2010, and is subject to final Court approval.

CalAmp Corp. -- http://www.calamp.com/-- is a provider of
wireless communications solutions that enable anytime/anywhere
access.  The company has two segments: Wireless DataCom Division
and Satellite Division.  CalAmp's Wireless DataCom Division
services the public safety, industrial monitoring and controls,
and mobile resource management market segments with wireless
solutions built on communications technology platforms that
include licensed narrowband, unlicensed broadband and cellular
networks.  CalAmp's Satellite Division supplies outdoor customer
premise equipment to the United States Direct Broadcast Satellite
(DBS) market.


DIRECTV: Sued for Charging Higher "Sales Tax" to Subscribers
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action claims DirecTV charges a higher "sales tax" rather
than a "rental tax" for the receivers it leases to subscribers, in
Jefferson County Court, Birmingham, Ala.

A copy of the Complaint in Pettway et al. v. DirectTV, Inc.,
Case No. CV-2010-902454 (Ala. Cir. Ct., Jefferson Cty.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/07/09/DirecTV.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Patrick C. Cooper, Esq.
          James S. Ward, Esq.
          WARD & WILSON, L.L.C.
          2100 Southbridge Parkway, Suite 580
          Birmingham, AL 35209
          Telephone: (205) 871-5404


DISCOVER FINANCIAL: Sued for Engaging in Deceptive Bus. Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Renee Walker, et al., individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. Discover Financial Services, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 10-cv-03013 (N.D. Calif. July 8, 2010), accuses the
issuer of the Discover credit card, of engaging in deceptive
business practices by its confusing and misleading sales tactics
to "surreptitiously enroll unwitting Discover Card members to its
costly "Payment Protection Plan", in violation of the Cal. Bus. &
Prof. Code, the Consumer Protection Statues of various other
states, including New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, and Texas.
The Plan purports to provide both debt suspension and debt
cancellation benefits during the benefit period if the member
experiences a covered hardship such as disability, hospitalization
or one of the other covered events, for a certain fee.

The Plan is "disengenuosly" presented as an "optional" benefit to
card members, but in actuality, when the unsuspecting card members
authorize the Discover agents to mail promotional materials, the
agents "unilaterally" extend the scope of that authority and
enroll the card members in the Plan without their consent.
Discover then requires the card member to take onerous affirmative
steps to cancel the Plan.

As a result, card members are deluded into enrollment, and caused
to pay the attendant monthly fee which is a percentage of their
rolling balance.  When asked to provide for proof of such
enrollment, Discover refuses to provide any such evidence.

Plaintiffs also accuse Discover of employing misleading
advertising relating to pricing of the Plan, such that members are
made to believe that they may be assessed "89 cents per every $100
of his account balance at the end of each monthly billing period"
and that card members may only charge the next 89 cents once the
rolling balance reaches the next $100 increment, when reality, it
charges $.0089 of the card members' account balance at the end of
each billing period.  In addition, plaintiffs say that these fees
are actually finance charges, and in failing to include these fees
in the finance charge section of the card members' statement,
Discover violates Regulation Z, 12 CFR part 226, of the Federal
Truth in Lending Act.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael J. Flannery, Esq.
          John J. Carey, Esq.
          Francis J. "Casey" Flynn, Jr., Esq.
          Tiffany M. Yiatras, Esq.
          CAREY, DANIS & LOWE
          8235 Forsyth Blvd., Suite 1100
          St. Louis, Mo. 63105
          Telephone: (314) 725-7700

               - and -

          Bruce H. Nagel, Esq.
          Jay J. Rice, Esq.
          Diane E. Sammons, Esq.
          NAGEL RICE, LLP
          103 Eisenhower Parkway
          Roseland, NJ 07068
          Telephone: (973) 618-0400

               - and -

          David S. Paris, Esq.
          Ross H. Schmierer, Esq.
          PARIS ACKERMAN & SCHMIERER LLP
          101 Eisenhower Parkway
          Roseland, NJ 07068
          Telephone: (973) 228-6667


ELECTRONIC ARTS: IP Suit by College Football Players Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------
Zach Berman, writing for The Washington Post, reports that this
time of year once excited Sam Keller. The release of the updated
version of the popular NCAA Football video game series by EA
Sports is an annual milestone of summer, appearing in stores about
seven weeks before the college football season begins.

Mr. Keller, a former quarterback at Arizona State and Nebraska,
could sit in his college living room with roommates and play as
his virtual self -- or at least as a player with the same number,
skin tone, height, throwing arm and home state.

Whether those likenesses are part of a college athletes'
intellectual property is a fundamental issue in a class-action
lawsuit filed by Mr. Keller against the NCAA and EA Sports.  The
issue has been ongoing for more than a year, and likely won't be
resolved anytime soon.  The newest version of the game will be
released on Tuesday, complete with team rosters similar to those
that will play on Saturdays this autumn.

"Something needed to change about how college football players
were being taken advantage of with this game," Mr. Keller said.
"College football players, and college athletes in general, they
work really hard and to be taken advantage of by this game. I felt
we could win this thing."

Mr. Keller's attorneys said that the claims against the EA Sports
and the NCAA are different.  Their issue with EA Sports is the use
of the likenesses of the players.  Their issue with the NCAA is
that college sports' governing body made a deal with the video
game manufacturer, turning a blind eye toward the use of the
players' likenesses.  The suit also names the Collegiate Licensing
Company, which is the NCAA's licensing arm.

The NCAA contends it "does not attempt to profit from the
likenesses of Mr. Keller or any other student-athletes, nor does
it license EA to use those images," spokesman Bob Williams wrote
in an e-mail.

An EA Sports spokesperson wrote: "Our position remains unchanged.
We have reviewed the complaint, and we remain confident we will
win on the merits.  We do not believe that any violations of
student-athlete rights have occurred."

In a 2006 Indianapolis Star article about the realism in the game,
an EA Sports spokesperson said, "This has been an ongoing
discussion: 'Okay, how far can we go?' " While stopping short of
using the players' names, players are identified by positions and
jersey numbers.  They also use a different home town, albeit one
in their home states.

In a similar but separate case, former UCLA basketball standout Ed
O'Bannon, along with other former athletes, presented a class-
action lawsuit against the NCAA using athletes' images and
likenesses without compensation.

Mr. Keller does not object with the NCAA making money off licensed
products such as jerseys, or even if the school promotes the
player for its own purposes.  But he said the video game is the
most egregious misuse because the players' intellectual property
is being violated.

"They don't have a name on the back, because they're not allowed
to," Mr. Keller said of the players in the video game. "It's
supposed to be Arizona State and just a bunch of players. They're
not supposed to have each player pixilated, but they do, and it's
obvious. The issue with EA Sports is completely separate from any
issue with the NCAA. The only reason it comes in line is because
EA Sports takes our images, and they're not supposed to. But the
NCAA lets it happen. They're not protecting us."

EA Sports' NFL version of the game is the popular Madden NFL
series, which has an exclusive agreement with the NFL and the
players' association that allows EA Sports to use the names and
likenesses of players. In the NCAA game, users can manually insert
-- or even download online -- the names of players in the game.


FACEBOOK INC: Germany Sues Over Use of Private Information
----------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press Reports that a German data protection
official has filed a legal complaint against Facebook, saying
people have been griping that their private information was saved
by the personal networking site without their knowledge or
consent.

Johannes Caspar last week said his Hamburg data protection office
has taken legal steps against Facebook which could result in it
being fined for saving private information of individuals who
don't use the site and haven't granted it access to their details.

Mr. Caspar says his office received complaints from people who had
been contacted by Facebook after it obtained their name and e-mail
address through people listing them as a contact.

Facebook has until Aug. 11 to respond formally to the legal
complaint.


KB HOME: July 26 Hearing Set for Settlement Pact Final Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California has
set a hearing for July 26, 2010, to consider final approval of the
settlement in the suit captioned Bagley et al., v. KB Home, et
al., according to the company's July 9, 2010, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended May 31, 2010.

On March 16, 2007, plaintiffs Reba Bagley and Scott Silver filed
an action brought under Section 502 of the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 1132.  The action was
brought against the company, its directors, certain of its current
and former officers, and the board of directors committee that
oversees the KB Home 401(k) Savings Plan.

After the court allowed leave to file an amended complaint,
plaintiffs filed an amended complaint adding Tolan Beck and Rod
Hughes as additional plaintiffs and dismissing certain individuals
as defendants.  All four plaintiffs claim to be former employees
of KB Home who participated in the 401(k) Plan.

Plaintiffs allege on behalf of themselves and on behalf of all
others similarly situated that all defendants breached fiduciary
duties owed to plaintiffs and purported class members under ERISA
by failing to disclose information to and providing misleading
information to participants in the 401(k) Plan about the company's
alleged prior stock option backdating practices and by failing to
remove the company's stock as an investment option under the
401(k) Plan.  Plaintiffs allege that this breach of fiduciary
duties caused plaintiffs to earn less on their 401(k) Plan
accounts than they would have earned but for defendants' alleged
breach of duties.

The parties to the litigation executed a settlement agreement on
Feb. 26, 2010.

On March 1, 2010, plaintiffs filed a Motion for Preliminary
Approval of the Settlement, Certification of a Settlement Class,
Approval of Notice Plan and To Set a Time for Fairness Hearing.

On March 15, 2010, the court held a hearing on the motion at
which it granted preliminary approval of the settlement and
requested that the parties make certain revisions to the
settlement papers.

The parties to the litigation executed an amended settlement
agreement on April 5, 2010.

On April 12, 2010, the court preliminarily approved the amended
settlement and the conditional certification of the settlement
class described in the amended settlement.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Stephen J Fearon, Jr., Esq.
         SQUITIERI & FEARON LLP
         32 East 57th Street, 12th Floor
         New York, NY 10022
         Telephone: (212) 421-6492
         E-mail: stephen@sfclasslaw.com

              - and -

         Stephen M. Fishback, Esq.
         KELLER FISHBACK AND JACKSON LLP
         18425 Burbank Boulevard Suite 610
         Tarzana, CA 91356-6918
         Telephone: (818) 342-7442
         Facsimile: (818) 342-7616
         E-mail: sfishback@kfjlegal.com

Representing the defendants are:

         Marc T.G. Dworsky, Esq.
         MUNGER TOLLES & OLSON
         355 S. Grand Ave., 35th Fl.
         Los Angeles, CA 90071-1560
         Telephone: (213) 683-9100
         E-mail: marc.dworsky@mto.com

              - and -

         Michael M. Farhang, Esq.
         GIBSON DUNN AND CRUTCHER
         333 South Grand Avenue, Suite 4600
         Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197
         Telephone: (213) 229-7005
         E-mail: mfarhang@gibsondunn.com


LAND O' LAKES: Egg Price-Fixing Suit Remains Pending
----------------------------------------------------
Jason Rodriguez, writing for The Post-Journal, relates that to
identify the source of a class-action lawsuit involving thousands
of alleged victims and defendants representing virtually the
entire egg industry in America, look no further than a Main Street
restaurant in Falconer.

According to local attorney Arthur Bailey, Esq., the case began
with a cup of coffee at T.K. Ribbing's in the spring of 2008.

"I am the beginning of it," said Mr. Bailey, who listened to owner
Steve Ribbing as he voiced his frustration over the price of eggs.
He told Mr. Bailey that he could purchase large quantities at the
local grocery store cheaper than he was currently getting them
from his wholesaler.

Mr. Bailey, whose experience lies with fraud, malpractice claims
and class actions, agreed the situation was "economically
backward."  He said Mr. Ribbing's complaint was quickly referred
to James Pizzirusso, Esq., a partner with the Hausfeld LLP firm,
and a lawsuit was filed in a federal district court in September
2008.

With media attention beginning to focus on soaring prices, the
Justice Department declared its intention to investigate the egg
industry.  Within a month of Mr. Ribbing's original lawsuit it
appointed a team of lawyers from Hausfeld to begin a class-action
suit.

Mr. Bailey, who is not currently among the lead counsel, said he
enjoys a working relationship with Hausfeld that has lasted three
decades.  He said he provides a service for the firm by scouting
potential cases.  His son, Arthur Bailey Jr., serves as an
associate attorney for the firm's San Francisco office.

The legal suit in its current form identifies four named
plaintiffs who purchased shell eggs directly from the accused
producers -- T.K. Ribbing's from Falconer and Lisciandro's
Restaurant in Jamestown, followed by two small grocers in Illinois
and Reading, Pa.  Mr. Bailey said there are potentially thousands
of plaintiffs which can join the class but they must have
documentation of transactions from the period when the alleged
price fixing took place.

"I had to gather up all my bills from the past 10 years," said
John Lisciandro, recalling when he was contacted by the legal
counsel to get involved in the case.

Larger companies like chain restaurants and grocery outlets are
waiting to decide whether to stake their claim in the suit, said
Mr. Bailey, since they retain their own legal representation and
may wish to pursue a separate suit.  He said these powerful
players may seek a part of the final settlement or they may "opt
out" and simply utilize the research they've already made.

THE DEFENDANTS

The egg industry acted "not so much to drive prices up, but to
keep their profits where they have been," said Mr. Bailey.

An expanded legal complaint has been composed from evidence
collected after one defendant was convinced to take a settlement
-- which still leaves a large number of industry heavyweights
potentially liable.

Identified in the suit are 10 producers of shell eggs including
Land O' Lakes and its network of subsidiaries as well as
Hillendale Farms, the wholesale dealer from Ohio who sold eggs to
both Ribbing and Lisciandro.  The defendants are represented by
Eimer Stahl Klevorn & Solberg LLP.

Mr. Bailey said the industry relied on its "quarterback," a trade
collective known as United Egg Products to decrease production and
raise prices.  According to the complaint the UEP's membership
controls 96% of the total number of egg-laying hens in the
country.

Whereas attorneys for the plaintiffs claim the trade group and its
companies are violating federal antitrust legislation, the
defendants' have cited the CapperVolstead Act, said Mr. Bailey.
This law permits the establishment of cooperatives for "producing,
handling and marketing farm products."

But the lawsuit alleges the defendants crossed legal boundaries,
from its experimental "flock reduction" initiative to remove older
hens, to an "economic summit" in 2004 where the UEP led an effort
to devise a long-term scheme to keep output low and prices
inflated.

Under the guise of adhering to federal standards for animal
ethics, Mr. Bailey said the industry "removed nearly half of
chickens from cages nationwide, but cleverly they did not add new
cages."  He said this cut the domestic supply of eggs almost 50
percent.

After naming the defendants the suit reports the identity of all
co-conspirators is unknown and will require discovery by the legal
counsel.  Recently a pair of distributors for Land O' Lakes
accepted a $25 million settlement and will have to cooperate with
the investigation.

"Not only will they have to turn over documents, but they will
have to testify," said Mr. Bailey.

Although a few smaller defendants have decided to come to terms
with a settlement in the past two years, the remainder have
clearly indicated they will not quit the game easily.

"That's why I love my job," said Mr. Bailey, referring to his
defendant adversaries.  "I am matching wits all the time with some
very creative and superior minds."


LIVE NATION: Faces Suit After Rush Concert Cancelled Due to Rain
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cynthia Dizikes, writing for The Chicago Tribune, reports that New
York-based Christopher Langone purchased tickets for and traveled
to Chicago to see a July 7 Rush concert, billed as a "rain or
shine" event, according to a class-action breach of contract
lawsuit Mr. Langone filed Friday in Cook County Circuit Court.

The event at Charter One Pavilion, however, did not take place
Wednesday night due to rain, according to the suit, which names as
defendants Live Nation Worldwide; Live Nation Chicago, and the
three Rush band members, Gary Lee Weinrib, Neil Peart and Alex
Zivojinovic.

"After the announcement of cancellation, rain was not significant
in Chicago," the lawsuit states.  "For example, the Chicago White
Sox completed a game in the weather in Chicago on the evening of
July 7, 2010."

Mr. Langone is suing for an unspecified amount of damages,
including the cost of his ticket and his travel.


MCNEIL CONSUMER: Recalls Certain Over-The-Counter Products
----------------------------------------------------------
McNeil Consumer Healthcare, Division of McNEIL-PPC, Inc., is
recalling 21 lots of over-the-counter medicines.  The lots
involved are sold in the United States, Fiji, Guatemala, Dominican
Republic, Puerto Rico, Trinidad & Tobago, and Jamaica.  This
action is a follow-up to a product recall that McNeil Consumer
Healthcare originally announced on January 15, 2010, which was
initiated following consumer complaints of a musty or moldy odor,
which has been linked to the presence of trace amounts of a
chemical called 2,4,6-tribromoanisole (TBA).  The risk of serious
adverse medical events is remote.  This recall is being conducted
with the knowledge of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

These lots are being added to the list of recalled products as a
precautionary measure after a continuing internal review
determined that some packaging materials used in the lots had been
shipped and stored on the same type of wooden pallet that was tied
to the presence of TBA in earlier recalled lots.  All lots
involved in the recall were produced before the January 15, 2010
recall, after which McNeil stopped accepting shipments of
materials from its suppliers on that type of pallet.

Consumers who purchased product from the lots included in this
recall should stop using the product and contact McNeil Consumer
Healthcare for instructions on a refund or replacement.  For these
instructions, and information regarding how to return or dispose
of the product, consumers should log on to the Internet at
http://www.mcneilproductrecall.com/ or call 1-888-222-6036
(Monday-Friday 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Eastern Time, and Saturday-
Sunday 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time).  Consumers who have
medical concerns or questions should contact their healthcare
provider.

Any adverse reactions may also be reported to the FDA's MedWatch
Program by fax at 1-800-FDA-0178, by mail at MedWatch, HF-2, FDA,
5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20852-9787, or on the MedWatch
Web site at http://www.fda.gov/safety/medwatch/default.htm/

The product lot numbers for the recalled products can be found on
the side of the bottle label.

                    Full Recalled Product List
                    --------------------------

                                        Lot          UPC
               Product Name            Number       Code
               ------------            ------       ----
    BENADRYL(R) ALLERGY ULTRATAB(TM)
    --------------------------------
    BENADRYL(R) ALLERGY ULTRATAB(TM)
     TABLETS 100 count                 ABA567   312547170338
    --------------------------------   ------   ------------
    BENADRYL(R) ALLERGY ULTRATAB(TM)
     TABLETS 100 count                 ABA574   312547170338
    --------------------------------   ------   ------------
    Children's TYLENOL(R) Meltaways
    -----------------------------
    CHILDREN'S TYLENOL(R) MELTAWAYS
     BUBBLEGUM  30 count               ABA544   300450519306
    -------------------------------    ------   ------------
    MOTRIN(R) IB
    ----------
    MOTRIN(R) IB CAPLET 24 count       ACA003   300450481030
    --------------------------         ------   ------------
    MOTRIN(R) IB CAPLET bonus pack
     50+25 count                       ACA002   300450481764
    ------------------------------     ------   ------------
    MOTRIN(R) IB TABLET 100 count      AFA060   300450463043
    ---------------------------        ------   ------------
    TYLENOL(R), Extra Strength
    ------------------------
    TYLENOL(R), Extra Strength  EZ
     TABLET 225 count                  ASA206   300450422378
    ------------------------------     ------   ------------
    TYLENOL(R), Extra Strength  EZ
     TABLET 50 count                   ABA005   300450422507
    ------------------------------     ------   ------------
    TYLENOL(R), Extra Strength
     COOL CAPLET 24 count              ABA566   300450444240
    --------------------------         ------   ------------
    TYLENOL(R), Extra Strength
     CAPLET bonus pack 24+12
     count                             ACA025   300450444318
    --------------------------         ------   ------------
    TYLENOL(R), Extra Strength
     CAPLET 50 count                   AFA018   300450449078
    --------------------------         ------   ------------
    TYLENOL(R), Extra Strength
     CAPLET 50 count                   ABA168   300450444530
    --------------------------         ------   ------------
    (included in Day/Night Pack)
    ----------------------------
    TYLENOL(R), Day & Night Value
     Pack                              AEC005   300450527103
    -----------------------------      ------   ------------
    (contains Extra Strength
     CAPLET 50 count Lot # ABA168
     & UPC  300450444530)
    -----------------------------
    TYLENOL(R), Day & Night Value
     Pack                              AFC005   300450527103
    -----------------------------      ------   ------------
    (contains Extra Strength
     CAPLET 50 count Lot # ABA168
     & UPC  300450444530)
    -----------------------------
    TYLENOL(R), Day & Night Value
     Pack                              ADC002   300450527103
    -----------------------------      ------   ------------
    (contains Extra Strength
     CAPLET 50 count Lot # ABA168
     & UPC  300450444530)
    -----------------------------
    TYLENOL(R), Extra Strength
     RAPID RELEASE GELCAP 24
     count                             ACA024   300450488244
    --------------------------         ------   ------------
    TYLENOL(R), Extra Strength
     RAPID RELEASE GELCAP 225
     count                             AJA119   300450488251
    --------------------------         ------   ------------
    TYLENOL(R) PM
    -----------
    TYLENOL(R) PM CAPLET 24 count      ACA005   300450482242
    ---------------------------        ------   ------------
    TYLENOL(R) PM CAPLET 24 count      ADA259   300450482242
    ---------------------------        ------   ------------
    TYLENOL(R) PM GELTAB 50 count      AFA100   300450176509
    ---------------------------        ------   ------------
    TYLENOL(R) PM RAPID RELEASE
     GELCAP 20 count                   ACA004   300450244208
    ---------------------------        ------   ------------


NATIONAL BEEF: NBL Not Liable for Contaminated Wastewater
---------------------------------------------------------
The court has issued a ruling that National Beef Packing Company,
LLC's wholly owned subsidiary, National Beef Leathers LLC, was not
liable under a successor liability theory for the conduct of the
tannery's previous owner and another party prior to NBL's purchase
of the tannery, according to the company's July 9, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended May 29, 2010.

NBL was named as a defendant in seventeen currently pending
lawsuits involving NBL's tannery located in St. Joseph, Missouri.
NBL purchased certain assets of the tannery from Prime Tanning in
March 2009.  The lawsuits are pending in the Circuit Courts of
Buchanan County, Clinton County, Ray County, and DeKalb County,
Missouri and in the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Missouri and were filed between April 22, 2009 and March 12,
2010.

The lawsuits allege that Prime and NBL spread wastewater sludge
containing hexavalent chromium in four counties in northwest
Missouri.  The lawsuits currently include fifteen actions filed
by individual plaintiffs and two purported class actions.

The plaintiffs are seeking an unspecified amount of damages for
wrongful death, personal injury, pain and suffering, economic
damages, punitive damages, diminished property values and medical
monitoring.

On May 11, 2010, the court issued an order ruling that NBL is not
liable under a successor liability theory for the conduct of the
tannery's previous owner and another party prior to NBL's purchase
of the tannery.   As a result of this ruling, the plaintiffs in 15
lawsuits filed between April 22, 2009 and April 29, 2010, in the
Circuit Courts of Buchannan County, Clinton County, and DeKalb
County, Missouri seeking damages for economic damages, punitive
damages, diminished property values and medical monitoring
voluntarily dismissed their claims against NBL in June 2010.

National Beef Packing Company, LLC --
http://www.nationalbeef.com/-- has operations in Liberal and
Dodge City, Kansas; Brawley, California; Hummels Wharf,
Pennsylvania; Moultrie, Georgia, St. Joseph, Missouri and Kansas
City, Kansas.  National Beef processes and markets fresh beef,
case-ready beef and beef by-products for domestic and
international markets.  In fiscal year 2008, National Beef
generated sales of $5.8 billion and processed 3.8 million head of
cattle. U.S. Premium Beef, LLC --http://www.uspremiumbeef.com/--
is the majority owner of National Beef.


NEW ORLEANS: July 16 Hearing Set for Notice Motion in OPSB Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alejandro de los Rios at The Louisiana Record reports that Judge
Ethel Julien will hear a notice motion in a five-year-old class
action suit against the Orleans Parish School Board on July 16 in
Orleans Parish Civil District Court.

New Orleans principal Eddy Oliver, teacher's aide Oscarlene Nixon
and OPSB custodian Mildred Goodwin lead the class of 7,500 current
and former OPSB employees who claim they were wrongfully
terminated after most of New Orleans' public schools were flooded
during hurricane Katrina.

The State of Louisiana Board of Elementary and Secondary
Education, the State Department of Education and the Recovery
School District were added as defendants in the suit after the
state took more than 100 schools in Orleans Parish in the wake of
Katrina.

On March 30, Willie Zanders, Esq., on behalf of the class, filed a
motion to approve short form notice, long form notice, opt-out
form and manner of publication of notice/opt-out asking Judge
Julien to approve for class counsel to send notice to 5,000 class
members about the trial and to place an ad in New Orleans-area
newspapers to notify the remaining 2,500 class members.

In a joint opposition against the plaintiff's motion, the
defendants argued that the notice motion is "defective in both its
dissemination plan and its substance," noting that it "makes no
effort to identify missing class members or update their existing
addresses."  Defense counsel pointed to the difficulty in locating
many class members since many have relocated permanently since
Katrina and that the plaintiff's notice may not reach many
potential class members that no longer live in the New Orleans
area.

The case was originally filed as an injunctive relief for Oliver,
Nixon and Goodwin, in which they claimed that the OPSB's proposed
plan to turn several of its schools into quasi-charter schools
would "end public schools in New Orleans."

The initial request, which essentially asked that teachers that
were hired by the OPSB be retained in schools that were taken over
by the RSD, was denied.  But in a September 2007 ruling, Judge
Julien acknowledged other causes of action including wrongful
termination and breach of contract.  In December 2008, Judge
Julien certified the class as "all current or former employees of
the OPSB prior to Hurricane Katrina."  The class includes
principals, teachers, paraprofessionals, central office
administrators, secretaries, social works, food service,
maintenance and other service workers that had been hired by the
OPSB.

Judge Julien's ruling was appealed to the Louisiana Fourth
District Court of Appeals.  In November 2009, Judge Edwin Lombard,
Judge Terri Love and Judge Paul Bonin affirmed the class
certification.

The case was appealed to the Louisiana Supreme Court, which voted
not to block the case on March 5.

Orleans Parish Case 2005-12244.

The class is represented by:

     Willie Matthews Zanders, Esq.
     2311 Peniston St.
     New Orleans, LA 70115
     Telephone: (504) 258-7312

          - and -

     Suzette P. Bagneris, Esq.
     THE BAGNERIS LAW FIRM
     Energy Centre
     1100 Poydras Street, Suite 1455
     New Orleans, Louisiana 70163
     Telephone: (504) 552-4828
     E-mail: sbagneris@bagnerislawfirm.com

          - and -

     Clarence Roby, Jr., Esq.
     Law Office of Clarence Roby APLC
     3701 Canal St., Ste. U
     New Orleans, Louisiana

          - and -

     Anthony Irpino, Esq.
     Irpino Law Firm
     201 St. Charles Avenue, Suite 2546
     New Orleans, Louisiana

          - and -

     Roderick Alvendia, Esq.
     Alvendia Kelly & Demarest
     1515 Poydras St., Ste. 1400
     New Orleans, Louisiana

          - and -

     Juana Lombard, Esq.

          - and -

     Charles M. Samuel III, Esq.
     RITTENBERG, SAMUEL & PHILLIPS, L.L.C.
     715 Girod Street, Suite 100
     New Orleans, LA 70130
     Telephone: (504) 524-5555
     Facsimile: (504) 524-0912

          - and -

     Walter Willard, Esq.
     The Willard Firm, PLC
     1515 Poydras St., Ste. 1420
     New Orleans, Louisiana

The OPSB is represented by:

     William Aaron Jr., Esq.
     Renee F. Smith, Esq.
     GOINS AARON, PLC
     201 Saint Charles Avenue, Suite 3800
     New Orleans, Louisiana 70170-1034
     Telephone: (504) 569-1800
     Facsimile: (504) 569-1801

The State agencies are represented by:

     Michael H. Rubin, Esq.
     M. Brent Hicks, Esq.
     Jon Ann H. Giblin, Esq.
     MCGLINCHEY STAFFORD, PLLC
     One American Place, 14th Floor, 301 Main Street
     Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70825
     Telephone: (225) 383-9000
     Facsimile: (225)) 343-3076
     E-mail: mrubin@mcglinchey.com
             bhicks@mcglinchey.com
             jgiblin@mcglinchey.com

          - and -

     Angelique Freel, Esq.
     Assistant Attorney General


ORIENTAL TRADING: SmileMakers Recalls Adjustable Football Ring
--------------------------------------------------------------
Oriental Trading Company, Inc. and its wholesale subsidiary, Fun
Express, Inc. were recently notified that a supplier to doctor's
and dentist's offices, SmileMakers, has issued a voluntary recall
of an item previously sold by both companies because of the
presence of cadmium in the metal substrate.  This product, a
football adjustable ring, has not been sold by Oriental Trading
Company, Inc. or Fun Express, Inc. since last year and is no
longer in stock.

Oriental Trading Company, Inc. and Fun Express, Inc. strive to
lead the industry in product safety excellence.  The companies
actively engage suppliers in product safety matters, conduct
factory inspections, and adhere to product safety and quality
standards that meet or exceed those established by federal, state
and industry authorities.  The companies have a well-earned
reputation for supplying safe and enjoyable products and highly
value the trust that parents, teachers and families place in their
products every day.

The companies' football adjustable rings passed rigorous testing
prior to distribution.  The companies have no information to
indicate that the item may present a hazard to children and
believe that the football adjustable rings comply with all
applicable safety requirements.  However, the companies' top
priority is product safety and, as a precaution, the companies are
voluntarily recalling the item.

The companies recommend that consumers immediately dispose of the
item (football adjustable ring, item # 42/4359).  For a refund or
exchange for another product, consumers may call (800) 723-6155
between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m. Central Standard
Time, Monday through Friday, and 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. Central
Standard Time, Saturday or Sunday.

                    About Oriental Trading Company

Oriental Trading Company -- http://www.orientaltrading.com-- is
the nation's largest direct merchant of value-priced party
supplies, arts and crafts, toys and novelties, and a leading
provider of affordable home d‚cor and giftware.  Recognized as one
of the Top 10 online retailers based on customer satisfaction and
one of the Top 50 Catalog Companies, Oriental Trading Company
employs approximately 3,000 employees and offers more than 30,000
products to individuals, teachers, schools, churches, businesses
and not-for-profit organizations. From pink flamingos, party
supplies and grass skirts to holiday decorations, scrapbooking
supplies, and crafts.

                         About Fun Express

Fun Express -- http://www.funexpress.com-- is a leading business
to business supplier of toys, novelties, giftware, party supplies
and promotional premiums.

Fun Express carries over 10,000 items including wholesale toys,
wholesale novelties, wholesale party favors, wholesale
decorations, and are the leading wholesale supplier to party
retailers, family entertainment centers and restaurants.

Fun Express supplies bulk quantities on a wholesale basis for
several business needs including promotional premiums, redemption
center supplies, special events and parties, gifts with purchase,
brand identification campaigns, kids' meal programs, retail stores
and more!


RED HAT: Court Approval of Settlement Agreement Remains Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
The approval of an agreement to settle a class action lawsuit
against Red Hat, Inc., remains pending in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of North Carolina.

In the summer of 2004, 14 class action lawsuits were filed against
the company and several of its former officers on behalf of
investors who purchased the company's securities during various
periods from June 19, 2001 through July 13, 2004.

All 14 suits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina.

In each of the actions, plaintiffs sought to represent a class of
purchasers of the company's common stock during some or all of the
period from June 19, 2001 through July 13, 2004.  All of the
claims arose in connection with the company announcement on
July 13, 2004 that it would restate certain of its financial
statements.

One or more of the plaintiffs asserted that certain former
officers (Individual Defendants) and the company violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder by issuing the financial
statements that the company subsequently restated.

One or more of the plaintiffs sought unspecified damages,
interest, costs, attorneys' and experts' fees, an accounting of
certain profits obtained by the Individual Defendants from
trading in the Company's common stock, disgorgement by the
company's former chief executive officer and former chief
financial officer of certain compensation and profits from
trading in the company's common stock pursuant to Section 304 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and other relief.

As of Sept. 8, 2004, all of these class action lawsuits were
consolidated into a single action referenced as Civil Action No.
5:04-CV-473BR and titled In re Red Hat, Inc. Securities
Litigation.

On May 6, 2005, the plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated
class action complaint.

On July 29, 2005, the company, on behalf of itself and the
Individual Defendants, filed a motion to dismiss the action for
failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.  Also
on that date, PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, another defendant,
filed a separate motion to dismiss.

On May 12, 2006, the Court issued an order granting the motion to
dismiss the Securities Exchange Act claims against several of the
Individual Defendants, but denying the motion to dismiss the
Securities Exchange Act claims against the company, its former
chief executive officer and former chief financial officer.  The
Court dismissed the claims under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act in their
entirety, and also granted PwC's motion to dismiss.

On Nov. 6, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification.

Subsequent to the filing of that motion, several plaintiffs
withdrew as potential class representatives, and the company
opposed the certification of the remaining proposed class
representatives.

On May 11, 2007, the Court entered an order denying class
certification and denying all other pending motions as moot.
Thereafter, on July 13, 2007 Charles Gilbert filed a renewed
motion for appointment as lead plaintiff and approval of
selection of lead counsel.

On Nov. 13, 2007, the Court entered an Order allowing Gilbert's
motion, appointing him lead plaintiff and adding him as a party
plaintiff and appointing lead counsel.  On Jan. 14, 2008,
Gilbert's counsel filed a motion to certify the action as a class
action.

On Aug. 28, 2009, the Court entered an Order certifying the
action as a class action, appointing Gilbert as the class
representative, and defining the class as "all purchasers of the
common stock of Red Hat, Inc. between Dec. 17, 2002, and
July 12, 2004, inclusive and who were damaged thereby," excluding
company insiders.

On Dec. 15, 2009, the company announced that it had reached an
agreement in principle to settle this matter, subject, among
other matters, to completion of a final written settlement
agreement and court approval.

The company recorded, for its quarter ended Nov. 30, 2009, an
estimated liability in the amount of $8.8 million for its portion
of the proposed settlement.

On March 29, 2010, counsel for the class filed a Motion for
Preliminary Approval of the Settlement and, on June 11, 2010, a
United States Magistrate Judge issued a Memorandum and
Recommendation to the presiding judge that the motion be approved,
according to the company's July 9, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended May
31, 2010.

Red Hat, Inc. -- http://www.redhat.com/-- is the world's leading
open source solutions provider and a component of the S&P 500, is
headquartered in Raleigh, NC with over 65 offices spanning the
globe.


ROYAL BANK OF CANADA: Earl Jones Fraud Victims Mull C$40MM Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
CTV Montreal reports that victims of fraudster Earl Jones gathered
in Pointe-Claire on Saturday to discuss their plight for justice
and efforts to launch a C$40 million class-action lawsuit against
the Royal Bank of Canada.  The meeting falls one year after
Quebec's securities regulator froze the accounts of the shamed
financial planner and began investigating his activities.

Mr. Jones' victims say he was able to carry out his financial
crimes because the bank was negligent.  Their lawsuit application
will be heard July 14.

"Mr. Jones used the Royal Bank exclusively to perpetrate his Ponzi
Scheme for 27 years, and not only that, specifically one bank
account," said group spokesperson Joey Davis.

"We're very confident that the motion will be granted on Wednesday
and that we'll be able to institute the actual action against the
Royal Bank thereafter," he added.

In January, Mr. Jones pleaded guilty to two charges related to
defrauding investors of roughly C$50 million.  He was sentenced to
11 years in jail, but is eligible for parole after 22 months of
detention.


SOMANETICS CORP: Faces "Manne" Suit Over U.S. Surgical Merger
-------------------------------------------------------------
Somanetics Corporation faces a putative class action complaint,
titled Stanley Manne v. Somanetics Corporation, et al., filed in
the Sixth Judicial Circuit Court for the State of Michigan in
connection with its planned merger with United States Surgical
Corporation, according to the company's July 9, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended May 31 2010.

On June 16, 2010, United States Surgical and Covidien DE Corp,
entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger with the company.  On
June 30, 2010, a shareholder filed a complaint naming as
defendants Somanetics and each of its directors, as well as United
States Surgical Corporation, Covidien plc, and Covidien DE
Corporation.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that the consideration
to be paid to shareholders under the terms of the Merger Agreement
is unfair and undervalues Somanetics, that the directors breached
their fiduciary duties by, among other things, failing to maximize
shareholder value and failing to engage in a fair sale process,
that Somanetics, United States Surgical Corporation, Covidien plc
and Covidien DE Corporation aided and abetted the alleged breaches
of fiduciary duties, and that Somanetics failed to adequately
disclose material information regarding the Offer.

The complaint seeks, among other relief, to enjoin the
consummation of the Offer, or if the Offer is consummated, to
rescind the Offer.

Somanetics Corporation -- http://www.somanetics.com/-- develops,
manufactures and markets the INVOS(R) Cerebral/Somatic Oximeter.
The INVOS System is the only commercially-available
cerebral/somatic oximeter with labeling for improved outcomes
after surgery in patients above 2.5 kg.  The INVOS System is the
clinical reference standard in cerebral/somatic oximetry, with a
12-year market track record, more than 750 clinical references and
implementation at approximately 800 U.S. hospitals.  Somanetics
also develops, manufactures and markets the Vital Sync(TM) System,
a device that integrates data from bedside devices into a single
system for enhanced patient assessment and decision making, data
management and data storage.  Somanetics supports its customers
through a direct U.S. sales force and clinical education team.
Covidien markets INVOS System products in Europe, Canada, the
Middle East and South Africa and Edwards Lifesciences represents
INVOS System products in Japan.


SPECTRANETICS CORP: Recalls Thrombus Extraction Catheter
--------------------------------------------------------
Spectranetics Corporation initiated a voluntary recall of specific
lots of its thrombus extraction catheter (product number 60090-01)
manufactured by Spectranetics since October 2009.  The Food and
Drug Administration has been informed of this action and
communication to various Competent Authorities outside of the
United States has begun.  While Spectranetics has received and
confirmed customer complaints on this issue, no adverse events
have been reported to the Company.  Customers who have received
the affected lots of product will receive a letter from
Spectranetics with requested actions and product replacement
instructions.  A manufacturing process improvement to correct the
issue has been implemented and product is available for shipment.

The occurrence of this issue is very low and may result in a
blocked guidewire lumen that restricts the loading of the thrombus
extraction catheter onto the guidewire prior to insertion of the
catheter into the patient.

The Company plans to replace all affected units and estimates
costs in the range of $250,000 to $400,000, which will be recorded
within cost of goods sold during the quarter ended June 30, 2010.
The cost estimate includes replacement of customer inventory as
well as the write-off of Spectranetics inventory impacted by this
issue.  Inventory of the thrombus extraction catheter is currently
available and production volumes have been increased so that all
customer demand and replacement product can be fulfilled over the
next several weeks.

"We are committed to deliver high-quality devices to our customers
and their patients.  We will endeavor to complete this voluntary
action and the replacement of affected product in an expedient
manner," stated Emile J. Geisenheimer, Chairman, President and
Chief Executive Officer.

                         About Spectranetics

Spectranetics develops, manufactures, markets and distributes
single-use medical devices used in minimally invasive procedures
within the cardiovascular system.  The Company's products are sold
in 40 countries throughout the world and are used to treat
arterial blockages in the heart and legs as well as the removal of
problematic pacemaker and defibrillator leads.

The Company's Vascular Intervention (VI) products include a range
of peripheral and cardiac laser catheters for ablation of occluded
arteries above and below the knee and within coronary arteries.
The Company also markets aspiration and thrombectomy catheters for
the removal of thrombus and support catheters to facilitate
crossing of coronary and peripheral arterial blockages.

The Lead Management (LM) product line includes excimer laser
sheaths and cardiac lead management accessories for the removal of
problematic pacemaker and defibrillator cardiac leads.


UNITED STATES: Court Junks Air Traffic Controllers' FLSA Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that air traffic controllers at
the Edwards Air Force Base in south-central California lost their
class-action bid for overtime pay in the U.S. Court of Federal
Claims.

Air traffic controllers sought overtime pay for time spent in
security inspections and the time they spent on required medical
examinations.  They also demanded overtime pay for their unused
"credit hours," or extra hours worked in exchange for paid leave.

When the Federal Aviation Administration no longer allowed workers
to rack up credit hours, employees had to either cash in their
accrued credit hours at the regular hourly rate or swap them for
one hour of paid leave.

Air traffic controllers claimed they should receive overtime pay
for each credit hour earned, rather than their regular wage.

Because credit hours are not overtime hours under the Fair Labor
Standards Act, Judge Charles Lettow wrote, the plaintiffs are not
entitled to overtime pay.

The claims court also rejected their pay demands for time spent on
mandatory security inspections and medical exams.

Judge Lettow granted the government's cross-motion for summary
judgment.

A copy of the Opinion and Order in Whalen, et al. v. United
States, No. 07-707C (Fed. Cl. Ct.), is available at:

                        http://is.gd/doQhx


WAL-MART STORES: Sued for Underpayment of Retirement Benefits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Diana Alexander-Jones, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., et al., Case No. 10-cv-03005
(N.D. Calif. July 8, 2010), asserts claims against the fiduciaries
of the Wal-Mart Profit Sharing and 401(k) Plan for violations of
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.  Ms.
Alexander-Jones accuses the world's biggest retailer of conspiring
to underpay retirement benefits to its female hourly employees who
participated in the Plan during the period July 1, 2004, to the
present.   The complaint seeks to recover "tens or hundreds of
millions of dollars" of retirement savings that should have been,
but were not, paid as a result of Wal-Mart's illegal underpayment
and suppression of employee wages due to gender discrimination.

Ms. Alexander-Jones says the Plan provides that Wal-Mart shall
make both 401(k) and profit sharing contributions to the Plan each
year, equal in amount to a specified percentage of the annual
regular salary of Wal-Mart employees who participate in the Plan.
In reality, however, Ms. Alexander-Jones explains that Wal-Mart
underpaid its contributions to the Plan by wrongfully failing to
promote and wrongfully underpaying female Plan participants.  By
lowering the total amount of wages female Wal-Mart employees
received, Ms. Alexander-Jones relates that Company improperly
reduced the total amount of Plan assets thereby lowering the
amount of retirement and profit sharing benefits hourly workers
received.

Upon information and belief, Ms. Alexander-Jones understands that
female employees are paid less than their male counterparts even
though they perform substantially similar work, and even though
female employees have similar or greater skills and experience.

Pursuant to Civil L.R. 3-12, Plaintiffs also submitted to the
Court a Notice of Related Cases in the above captioned case.
Plaintiffs believe that the case "Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.",
Case No. 01-cv-02252, filed June 8, 2001, in the Northern District
of California is related.  Ms. Alexander-Jones believes that this
complaint appears to concern substantially the same parties,
property, transaction, or event as her case.  In light of these
common issues, Ms. Alexander-Jones narrates that assignment of
these cases to a single judge is "likely to promote judicial
economy by avoiding an unduly burdensome duplication of labor and
expense or conflicting results that might ensue if the cases were
conducted before different judges."  Parties in any of these cases
may file and serve a response supporting this Notice not later
than twenty-one (21) days before the hearing date on this Notice.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Todd M. Schneider, Esq.
          SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL BRAYTON KONECKY LLP
          180 Montgomery St., Suite 2000
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 421-7100
          E-mail: tschneider@schneiderwallace.com

               - and -

          Todd S. Collins, Esq.
          Ellen T. Noteware, Esq.
          BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
          1622 Locust Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 875-3000
          E-mail: tcollins@bm.net
                  enoteware@bm.net

               - and -

          Ann Miller, Esq.
          ANN MILLER, LLC
          The Benjamin Franklin
          834 Chestnut Street, Suite 206
          Philadelphia, PA 19107
          Telephone: (215) 238-0468

               - and -

          Kurt Olsen, Esq.
          KLAFTER OLSEN & LESSER, LLP
          1250 Connecticut Ave., N.W., Suite 200
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 261-3553

               - and -

          Jeffrey Klafter, Esq.
          Seth Lesser, Esq.
          KLAFTER OLSEN & LESSER, LLP
          Two International Drive, Suite 350
          Rye Brook, NY 10573
          Telephone: (914) 934-9200


WD-40 CO: Sued in California Over Toilet Bowl Cleaners
------------------------------------------------------
WD-40 Company faces the matter Andrea Burns v. WD-40 Company in
connection with its automatic toilet bowl cleaners, according to
the company's July 8, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended May 31,
2010.

The legal action was filed on June 18, 2010, against the company
in the Superior Court of California for the County of Orange.  The
complaint seeks class action status and alleges that the company
misrepresented that its 2000 Flushes Bleach and 2000 Flushes Blue
Plus Bleach automatic toilet bowl cleaners (ATBCs) are safe for
plumbing systems and that the company has unlawfully omitted to
advise consumers regarding allegedly damaging effects that the use
of the ATBCs is claimed to have on toilet parts made of plastic,
rubber and metal.

The complaint seeks to remedy the company's allegedly wrongful
conduct:

     (i) by requiring the company to compensate consumers who
         have purchased the ATBCs;

    (ii) by enjoining the company from the use of allegedly
         misleading advertising for the ATBCs; and

   (iii) by other legal and equitable relief and the award of
         interest, attorneys' fees and costs.

If class action certification is granted in this legal proceeding,
the company says it is reasonably possible that the outcome could
have a material adverse effect on its consolidated financial
position, results of operations or cash flows.

WD-40 Company -- http://www.wd40company.com/-- is a global
consumer product company dedicated to delivering unique, high-
value and easy-to-use solutions for a wide variety of maintenance
needs of "doer" and "on-the-job" users by leveraging and building
the brand fortress of the company.  The company markets three
multi-purpose maintenance product brands - WD-40(R), 3-IN-ONE(R)
and BLUE WORKS(TM) - and eight homecare and cleaning product
brands: X-14(R) mildew stain remover and automatic toilet bowl
cleaners, 2000 Flushes(R) automatic toilet bowl cleaners, Carpet
Fresh(R) and No Vac(R) rug and room deodorizers, Spot Shot(R)
aerosol and liquid carpet stain removers, 1001(R) carpet and
household cleaners and rug and room deodorizers, and Lava(R) and
Solvol(R) heavy-duty hand cleaners.  WD-40 Company markets its
products in more than 160 countries worldwide and recorded sales
of $292 million in fiscal year 2009.

                            *********

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  * * *