CAR_Public/100719.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Monday, July 19, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 140

                             Headlines

AMEDISYS INC: Application for Lead Plaintiff Until August 9
ANDARKO PETROLEUM: Application for Lead Plaintiff Due August 23
APPLE INC: Court Certifies Class in Antitrust Lawsuit
ASTOR SERVICES: Polish National Files Lawsuit Against Firm
COCA-COLA: Accused of Selling Products with High Lead Levels

COUNTRYWIDE FIN'L: Oregon Joins Lawsuit Over Subprime Losses
DOW CHEMICAL: Sued in Louisiana Over Ethyl Acrylate Leak
DRAPER AND KRAMER: Sued For Violations of Chicago RLT Ordinance
HONDA MOTOR: Accused in California Suit of Deceptive Advertising
JACK IN THE BOX: Accused in Calif. of Unfair Business Practice

MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Consolidated Securities Suit Remains Pending
MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Still Faces Price-Fixing Lawsuits in Canada
MICRON TECHNOLOGY: SRAM Antitrust Suits Still Pending in Canada
MICRON TECH: Appeal on Reversal of Quebec Ruling Still Pending
MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Settles DRAM Antitrust Cases for $67 Million

MTP ENTERPRISES: Accused of Violating Illinois Wage and Hour Laws
MUDDY OUTDOORS: Recalls 2,550 2009 Tree Climbing Sticks
MUTUAL FUNDS MDL: Fairness Hearing Set for Oct. 21 and 22
NEDELJKA KOVACEVIC: Sued for Not Paying Interest on Security Dep.
NOVARTIS PHARMA: Settles Sex Discrimination Suit for $152.5MM

PACIFIC WEB: Accused in Mo. Suit of Deceptive Marketing Practice
PALM INC: Faces Suit in Illinois for Defective Treo Phones
PFIZER INC: Sued in Delaware for Breach of Fiduciary Duty
POTTERY BARN: Recalls 82,000 Pottery Barn Kids Drop-Side Cribs
PROGRESSIVE MOUNTAIN: Accused of Bad Faith Insurance Practices

ROYAL BANK OF CANADA: Class Suit by Earl Jones Victims Okayed
SOMANETICS CORP: Faces Brower Piven Suit Over Covidien Deal
TEXAS WINDSTORM: Settles Ike "Slab" Claims for $189 Million
TORO COMPANY: Recalls 35880 Snow Blowers
VITACOST.COM INC: Kahn Swick Sues Over September 2009 IPO

WALT DISNEY: Blind Passholders Sue for ADA Violations


                            *********

AMEDISYS INC: Application for Lead Plaintiff Until August 9
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC disclosed that investors have only until
August 9, 2010 to inquire and take advantage of their right to
apply for lead plaintiff in a securities class action lawsuit
filed in the United States District Court, Middle District of
Louisiana against Amedisys, Inc. and certain of its top officials.
No class has yet been certified in this action.  On July 13, 2010,
AMED shares fell as much as 30% to a four-year low (after falling
as much as 22% on July 1, 2010) after the home health and hospice
care provider forecast second-quarter earnings below analysts'
estimates.  According to Reuters, an RBC Capital Market Analyst
downgraded AMED shares to "sector perform" from "outperform" due
to increased government scrutiny.

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

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

         - or -

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

KSF attorneys have significant experience in representing both
institutional and individual shareholders in securities fraud
litigation.

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

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff in this class action
lawsuit, you must move the Court no later than August 9, 2010.
Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as
lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to
do nothing and remain an absent class member.

KSF -- http://www.ksfcounsel.com/-- is a law firm focused on
securities class action litigation with offices in Louisiana and
New York.  KSF's lawyers have significant experience litigating
complex securities class actions and have recovered tens of
millions of dollars over the past two years for aggrieved
investors.


ANDARKO PETROLEUM: Application for Lead Plaintiff Due August 23
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC, which filed the first class action lawsuit
against Anadarko Petroleum Corporation in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York, on behalf of
purchasers of the common stock of the Company between June 12,
2009 and June 9, 2010, inclusive, on June 23, 2010, advises
purchasers of the stock during the class period to contact the
firm to learn more about their rights in this case.  The case is
filed as Civil Action Number 10-cv-4905.  No class has yet been
certified in this action.  Any purchaser of this stock or other
securities during the class period may inquire and receive
information about this case.  Additionally, anyone who desires to
represent the class as Lead Plaintiff must contact the firm prior
to August 23, 2010.  KSF has significant experience in
representing both individual and institutional clients in
securities litigation matters.

If you would like to discuss your legal rights as a member of the
class and /or the lead plaintiff position and its related
responsibilities including overseeing lead counsel with the goal
of obtaining a fair settlement, you may contact without obligation
or cost to you:

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

         - or -

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

Anadarko and certain of its Officers are charged with making a
series of materially false and misleading statements related to
the Company's business and operations in violation of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

In particular, the Complaint charges Anadarko, 25% owner of the
Macondo/Deepwater Horizon well currently leaking millions of
gallons of oil into the Gulf of Mexico, with failing to disclose,
among other things: that there was no effective Exploration and
Oil Spill Response Plan for Macondo/Deepwater Horizon; that BP
implemented drilling procedures solely 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 sponsored and/or
endorsed by defendants.

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 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. However, these
statements were materially false and misleading.

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.  That day, shares of Anadarko fell almost $10.00 per share
-- or approximately 20% -- falling from a close of $42.10 per
share, from a prior day's close of $52.33 per share, on huge
volume of over 44.8 million shares traded.  Shortly thereafter, on
June 9, 2010, shares of Anadarko fell another 20% 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 the Company would now be
responsible for over $1 billion in clean up costs.  The well
continues to this date to spill millions of gallons of oil into
the Gulf of Mexico.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff in this class action
lawsuit, you must request this position by application to the
court no later than August 23, 2010.  Any member of the putative
class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through
counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an
absent class member.

KSF -- http://www.ksfcounsel.com/-- is a law firm focused on
securities and class action litigation with offices in New York
and Louisiana.  KSF's lawyers have significant experience
litigating complex securities class actions and have recovered
tens of millions of dollars over the past years for aggrieved
investors.


APPLE INC: Court Certifies Class in Antitrust Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------
Maria Dinzeo at Courthouse News Service reports that Apple iPhone
users can sue Apple and AT&T for their exclusive service contract,
under the Sherman Act, the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and computer
fraud laws.  U.S. District Judge James Ware granted a motion for
class certification, finding "plaintiffs have offered sufficient
evidence of the ability to prove antitrust impact on a class-wide
basis."

In the original complaint, filed in 2007, customers claimed they
had purchased the required 2-year contract with AT&T.  But they
say that "Apple and AT&T had secretly agreed to technologically
restrict voice and data service in the aftermarket for continued
voice and data services for five years, i.e., after Plaintiffs'
initial two year service period expired.  Plaintiffs also allege
that Apple monopolized the aftermarket for third party software
applications for the iPhone, and that Apple caused the iPhone to
become unusable if it detected that a customer had 'unlocked'
their iPhone for use with other service providers," according to
Ware's 26-page order.

Apple and AT&T claimed that their customers could not prove they
had suffered actual injuries from the alleged antitrust law
violations.

But Judge Ware found it more appropriate to certify the class
rather than prosecute individual antitrust claims: "the Court
finds that the factors of Rule 23(b)(3) favor adjudication in a
class setting as superior to individual actions.  The potential
number of class members is indisputably in the thousands, if not
greater.  Moreover, it is unlikely that the majority of class
members suffered losses of a magnitude that would justify
individual actions for antitrust violations against large
corporate defendants.  In light of the core set of common legal
and factual questions, a class action appears manageable.  Thus,
the Court finds that class treatment is superior to individual
actions.

"Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify a
Rule 23(b)(3) class."


ASTOR SERVICES: Polish National Files Lawsuit Against Firm
----------------------------------------------------------
Jolanta Jachimczyk, a 58-year old female of Polish national
origin, has filed a civil rights lawsuit in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York against her employer,
Astor Services For Families & Children, and several individuals
who Ms. Jachimczyk alleges participated in, and/or condoned the
unlawful discrimination against her and subsequent retaliation.
ASTOR, based in Rhinebeck, NY, is a community-based nonprofit
organization that provides children's mental health services,
child welfare services, and early childhood development programs,
and serves NY State's Mid-Hudson Valley region and the Bronx.

In her 1st Amended Complaint, Ms. Jachimczyk, who was first hired
by ASTOR in 1988 as a social worker, alleges that, in April 2009,
ASTOR demoted her, in whole or in substantial part, due her Polish
national origin.  In June 2001, ASTOR promoted Ms. Jachimczyk from
her position as a clinician/therapist to Program Director of
Astor's Family-Based Treatment & Therapeutic Foster Care Programs.
Ms. Jachimczyk alleges that, while she served as Program Director,
she endured disparate treatment and a hostile work environment
from her subordinates due to, in whole or in substantial part, to
her Polish national origin, including: (a) her frequently being
ridiculed because of her accent; (b) being told on several
occasions that "the way [she] pronounced things is funny"; (c)
being called a "Polish Princess" on several occasions; and (d) her
subordinates isolating her and their frequently being oppositional
and confrontational towards her in comparison to their favorable
treatment of other ASTOR managers, site and/or Program Directors
of North-American national origin.

Ms. Jachimczyk further alleges that, after her verbal and written
complaints in July 2009 to ASTOR that she believed her demotion
and hostile work environment were due, in whole or in part, to
unlawful national origin discrimination, ASTOR did not make any
serious investigation of her claims.  She alleges that, instead,
ASTOR began a campaign of unlawful retaliation against her.  Ms.
Jachimczyk alleges that, because of her first making internal
complaints of discrimination in July 2009 through and including
the filing of her lawsuit in federal district court in early May
2010, ASTOR has subjected her to conditions designed to force her
to resign.  She alleges that ASTOR's retaliation includes: (a)
ASTOR's acceptance of certain subordinates be "insubordinate" to
her, despite her requests to ASTOR that it take corrective action
towards these certain subordinates; (b) her immediate supervisor's
hostile and demeaning questioning of Ms. Jachimczyk's requests
and/or notification of her need to take time off from work; (c)
her being singled out for "reprimand" in comparison to other
similarly-situated managers, program and/or site directors; and
(d) ASTOR's directive to Ms. Jachimczyk in mid May 2010 that
Jachimczyk undergo a "medical evaluation."

Ms. Jachimczyk is seeking $1.62 million from defendants, which
includes payment for lost back and front salaries, damages for
severe physical and emotional injuries, and punitive damages for
defendants' alleged outrageous conduct and complete disregard of
her rights under Title VII and the NYS Human Rights Law. Ms.
Jachimczyk is being represented by Law Offices of Jimmy M. Santos,
PLLC, in Cornwall, NY.


COCA-COLA: Accused of Selling Products with High Lead Levels
------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Hull at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class
action claims that more than 100 food products for babies and
children contain dangerous levels of lead.  Named as defendants in
Denver are Coca-Cola, Gerber, Motts and the Hain Celestial Group.
Named plaintiff Suzanne Kennedy claims the defendants produce
dozens of supposedly kid-friendly products with lead levels that
violate California's safe drinking water standards.

The 54-page complaint claims to be a response to a host of
"notices of violations" filed in June by the California-based
nonprofit Environmental Law Foundation.

The Foundation tested "food product categories that children like
and eat often and which the data showed had widespread presence of
lead," it said in a statement on June 10.

The Foundation claimed that its researchers found lead levels
beyond that allowed by California law (0.5 micrograms per day) in
125 products, primarily canned and packaged fruit and juices.

The Denver complaint, alleging violations of the Colorado Consumer
Protection Act, breach of warranty and unjust enrichment, cites a
body of scientific research suggesting that children are more
susceptible to lead poisoning than adults.

"Based on this empirical data and the fact that defendants'
conduct is directed at children who are more susceptible to
chemical exposures, defendants needed to be particularly vigilant
to ensure that their food products did not contain harmful
chemicals that might have both short and long term health effects,
even at potentially very small exposure levels," according to the
complaint.

Ms. Kennedy wants the companies to stop selling the products until
they get the lead out, and damages for breach of warranty, unjust
enrichment, and consumer law violations.

Her lead counsel is by Joe Whatley Jr. with Whatley Drake & Kallas
of New York, N.Y.

A copy of the Complaint in Kennedy v. The Coca-Cola Company, et
al., Case No. 10-cv-01623 (D. Colo.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/07/14/Lead.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joe R. Whatley, Jr., Esq.
          Patrick J. Sheehan, Esq.
          WHATLEY DRAKE & KALLAS, LLC
          1540 Broadway, 37th Floor
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 447-707026
          E-mail: jwhatley@wdklaw.com
                  psheehan@wdklaw.com

               - and -

          Howard Rubinstein, Esq.
          914 Waters Ave., Suite 20
          Aspen, CO 81611
          Telephone: (832) 715-2788
          E-mail: howardr@pdq.net

               - and -

          John G. Emerson, Esq.
          EMERSON POYNTER LLP
          830 Apollo Lane Houston, TX 77058-2610
          Telephone: (281) 488-8854
          E-mail: jemerson@emersonpoynter.com

               - and -

          Scott E. Poynter, Esq.
          Jack T. Patterson II, Esq.
          EMERSON POYNTER LLP
          The Museum Center
          500 President Clinton Ave., Suite 305
          Little Rock, AR 72201
          Telephone: (501) 907-2555
          E-mail: scott@emersonpoynter.com
                  jpatterson@emersonpoynter.com

               - and -

          Robert A. Jigarjian, Esq.
          JIGARJIAN LAW OFFICE
          128 Tunstead Ave.
          San Anselmo, CA 94960
          Telephone: (415) 341-6660
          E-mail: jigarjianlaw@gmail.com


COUNTRYWIDE FIN'L: Oregon Joins Lawsuit Over Subprime Losses
------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Lehman, writing for Oregon Public Broadcasting, reports that
Oregon is joining a class action lawsuit against mortgage lender,
Countrywide Financial Services.

Jeff Manning at The Oregonian reports that Oregon claims the
Oregon Public Employee Retirement Fund lost $29 million on
Countrywide mortgage-backed securities.

According to The Oregonian, the complaint, filed in federal court
in California, accuses Countrywide of violating securities law by
making statements to investors that were materially false and
misleading.  Company officials allegedly misrepresented and/or
failed to disclose information crucial to investors' ability to
accurately assess the risks of their investments.

According to OPB, Oregon Attorney General John Kroger says it's
time for Countrywide to pay up.  He said, "We bought products from
Countrywide based on their false misstatements.  And because of
those false misstatements we've lost $30 million.  And the goal of
our lawsuit it to get that money back for Oregon retirees."

Countrywide was acquired by Bank of America in 2008.  The lawsuit
also names as defendants JPMorgan Chase & Co., Banc of America
Securities and several other investment banks that sold the
securities, as well as individual executives.

The Iowa Public Employees' Retirement System serves as the lead
plaintiff in the suit.

Countrywide was the nation's largest residential mortgage lender
in 2005-2006, originating in excess of $850 billion in home loans.
It moved aggressively into subprime mortgage loans -- those made
to borrowers with bad credit.


DOW CHEMICAL: Sued in Louisiana Over Ethyl Acrylate Leak
--------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that two class actions claim a
leak from a Dow Chemical storage tank in Taft, La., exposed nearby
residents to toxic ethyl acrylate on July 7, 2009, in St. Charles
Parish Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Richard, et al. v. Dow Chemical
Company, Case No. 71723-D (La. Dist. Ct., Parish of St. Charles)
(Lemmon J.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/07/14/Liabil.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Randal L. Gaines, Esq.
          7 Turnberry Dr.
          LaPlace, LA 70068
          Telephone: 652-3299


DRAPER AND KRAMER: Sued For Violations of Chicago RLT Ordinance
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nancy Dingle, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated
v. Draper and Kramer Inc., Case No. 2010-CH-29756 (Ill. Cir. Ct.,
Cook Cty., July 12, 2010), accuses the property and financial
services company of failing to: (i) attach to the rental agreement
for her dwelling unit a summary including the required porch
safety language, as required under Sec. 5-12-170 of the Chicago
Residential Landlord & Tenant Ordinance and (ii) maintain her
dwelling unit free of bedbugs, in violation of RLTO Sec.
5-12-070.

Ms. Dingle relates that on November 14, 2009, she and D&K entered
into a written rental agreement for a dwelling unit numbered 1503
at the residential apartment building at 2801 S. Martin Luther
King Dr. in Chicago, Cook County.  The building has approximately
340 apartments.

RLTO Sec. 5-12-170 requires a landlord to attach to each rental
agreement (whether for a new rental or renewal) a summary which
shall include the following language:

"The porch or deck of this building should be designed for a live
load of up to 100 pounds, per square foot and is safe only for its
intended use.  Protect your safety.  Do not overload the porch or
deck.  If you have questions about porch or deck safety, call the
City of Chicago non-emergency number, 3-1-1."

RLTO Sec. 5-12-070 requires a landlord to maintain the premises in
compliance with the municipal code and to promptly make all
necessary repairs.  Ms. Dingle says she gave written notice to D&K
about the severity of the bedbug problem and her intent to
withhold rent, but D&K took no action to remedy the bedbug
infestation.

For violation of RLTO Sec. 5-12-170, Ms. Dingle seeks statutory
damages of $100 per tenant per lease, attorney's fees, litigation
expenses and costs of suit.  For violation of RLTO Sec. 5-12-070,
plaintiff seeks statutory damages of $3,250.00, rent abatement for
the months of May, June and July 2010, attorney's fees, litigation
expenses and costs of suit.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark A. silverman, Esq.
          MARK SILVERMAN LAW OFFICE LTD.
          225 W. Washington, Suite 220
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 775-1015


HONDA MOTOR: Accused in California Suit of Deceptive Advertising
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a man claims Honda advertises
that its Civic Hybrids get 49 miles per gallon, though they
actually get only about 26, in a class action in Los Angeles
Superior Court.


JACK IN THE BOX: Accused in Calif. of Unfair Business Practice
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Jack in the Box pays some
employees with a payroll debit card which requires a withdrawal
fee and does not make all the wages available on paydays,
according to a class action in Santa Clara County Court, Calif.

A copy of the Complaint in Flores v. Jack in the Box, Inc., et
al., Case No. 1-10-cv-176741 (Calif. Super. Ct., Santa Clara
Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/07/14/JackBox.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David R. Markham, Esq.
          R. Craig Clark, Esq.
          James M. Treglio, Esq.
          Laura M. Cotter, Esq.
          CLARK & MARKHAM LLP
          600 B St., Suite 2130
          San Diego, CA 92101-4512
          Telephone: (619) 239-1321

               - and -

          Francisco J. Aldana, Esq.
          THE ADVOCATES' LAW FIRM, LLP
          600 B St., Suite 2130
          San Diego, CA 92101-7912
          Telephone: (619) 236-8355


MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Consolidated Securities Suit Remains Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
The consolidated securities fraud class-action suit against Micron
Technology, Inc., is still pending in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Idaho.

On Feb. 24, 2006, a putative class-action complaint was filed
against the company and certain of its officers in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Idaho, alleging claims under
Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  Four
substantially similar complaints subsequently were filed in the
same court.

The cases purport to be brought on behalf of a class of
purchasers of the company's stock from Feb. 24, 2001, to
Feb. 13, 2003.

The five lawsuits have been consolidated and a consolidated
amended class action complaint was filed on July 24, 2006.

The complaint generally alleges violations of federal securities
laws based on, among other things, claimed misstatements or
omissions regarding alleged illegal price-fixing conduct.  It
seeks unspecified damages, interest, attorneys' fees, costs, and
expenses.

On Dec. 19, 2007, the Court issued an order certifying the class
but reducing the class period to purchasers of the company's
stock during the period from Feb. 24, 2001, to Sept. 18, 2002

No further updates regarding the case were reported by the company
in its July 13, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 3, 2010.

The suit is City of Roseville et al. v. Micron Technology, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 06-cv-00085 (D. Idaho) (Lynn Winmill, J.).

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Bruce S. Bistline, Esq.
         GORDON LAW OFFICES
         623 W. Hays
         Boise, ID 83702-5512
         Telephone: (208) 345-7100
         Facsimile: (208) 345-0050
         E-mail: bbistline@gordonlawoffices.com

              - and -

         Mary Blasy, Esq.
         LERACH COUGHLIN STOIA GELLER RUDMAN & ROBBINS, LLP
         100 Pine St., Suite 2600
         San Francisco, CA 94111
         Telephone: (415) 288-4545
         Facsimile: (415) 288-4534
         E-mail: maryb@lerachlaw.com

Representing the defendants are:

         Douglas W. Greene, Esq.
         WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
         701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5100
         Seattle, WA 98104
         Telephone: (206) 883-2529
         Facsimile: (208) 883-2699
         E-mail: dgreene@wsgr.com

              - and -

         Richard H. Greener Esq.
         GREENER BANDUCCI SHOEMAKER, P.A.
         950 W. Bannock St. 900
         Boise, ID 83702
         Telephone: (208) 319-2600
         E-mail: rgreener@greenerlaw.com


MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Still Faces Price-Fixing Lawsuits in Canada
--------------------------------------------------------------
Micron Technology, Inc. continues to face three purported class-
action lawsuits filed in Canada that allege price-fixing of
Flash products.

The suits assert violations of the Canadian Competition Act.

These cases assert claims on behalf of a purported class of
individuals and entities that purchased Flash memory directly
and indirectly from various Flash memory suppliers.

The company reported no developments in the matter in its
July 13, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 3, 2010.

Micron Technology, Inc. -- http://www.micron.com/-- is a
provider of advanced semiconductor solutions.  Through its
worldwide operations, Micron manufactures and markets DRAMs, NAND
flash memory, CMOS image sensors, other semiconductor
components, and memory modules for use in leading-edge computing,
consumer, networking and mobile products.


MICRON TECHNOLOGY: SRAM Antitrust Suits Still Pending in Canada
---------------------------------------------------------------
Micron Technology, Inc., along with other Static Random Access
Memory (SRAM) suppliers, continues to face a number of purported
antitrust class-action lawsuits in Canada over the sale of SRAM.

Three purported class action lawsuits alleging price-fixing of
SRAM products were filed in Canada, asserting violations of the
Canadian Competition Act.  These cases assert claims on behalf of
a purported class of individuals and entities that purchased SRAM
products directly or indirectly from various SRAM suppliers.

The company reported no developments in the matter in its
July 13, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 3, 2010.

Micron Technology, Inc. -- http://www.micron.com/-- is a
provider of advanced semiconductor solutions.  Through its
worldwide operations, Micron manufactures and markets DRAMs, NAND
flash memory, CMOS image sensors, other semiconductor
components, and memory modules for use in leading-edge computing,
consumer, networking and mobile products.


MICRON TECH: Appeal on Reversal of Quebec Ruling Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Micron Technology, Inc.'s appeal on the decision of the British
Columbia Court of Appeal reversing the decision of the Superior
Court, District of Montreal, Province of Quebec, remains pending.

Three purported class-action lawsuits over DRAM have been filed
in Canada, on behalf of direct and indirect purchasers, alleging
violations of the Canadian Competition Act.

The three cases have been filed in these Canadian courts:
Superior Court, District of Montreal, Province of Quebec;
Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Ontario; and Supreme Court of
British Columbia, Vancouver Registry, British Columbia.

The suits allege violations of the various jurisdictions'
antitrust, consumer protection and unfair competition laws
relating to the sale and pricing of DRAM products and seek treble
monetary damages, restitution, costs, interest and
attorneys' fees.

In May and June 2008 respectively, the plaintiffs' motion for
class certification was denied in the British Columbia and
Quebec cases.  The plaintiffs have filed an appeal of those
decisions.

On Nov. 12, 2009, the British Columbia Court of Appeal reversed
the denial of class certification and remanded the case for
further proceedings.

The appeal of the Quebec case is still pending.

No further updates were reported in the company's July 13, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 3, 2010.

Micron Technology, Inc. -- http://www.micron.com/-- is a
provider of advanced semiconductor solutions.  Through its
worldwide operations, Micron manufactures and markets DRAMs, NAND
flash memory, CMOS image sensors, other semiconductor
components, and memory modules for use in leading-edge computing,
consumer, networking and mobile products.


MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Settles DRAM Antitrust Cases for $67 Million
---------------------------------------------------------------
Micron Technology, Inc., has agreed to settle a purported class-
action relating to alleged dynamic random access memories (DRAM)
price-fixing in the United States for $67 million, according to
the company's July 13, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 3,
2010.

The plaintiffs' interlocutory appeal in connection to several
purported antitrust class-action lawsuits against Micron
Technology, Inc., and other suppliers of dynamic random access
memories (DRAM) that were transferred to California for
consolidated proceedings remains pending.

A number of purported class action price-fixing lawsuits have
been filed against the company and other DRAM suppliers.

Four cases have been filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California asserting claims on behalf of a
purported class of individuals and entities that indirectly
purchased DRAM and/or products containing DRAM from various DRAM
suppliers during the time period from April 1, 1999 through at
least June 30, 2002.

The complaints allege price fixing in violation of federal
antitrust laws and various state antitrust and unfair competition
laws and seek treble monetary damages, restitution, costs,
interest and attorneys' fees.

In addition, at least sixty-four cases have been filed in various
state courts asserting claims on behalf of a purported class of
indirect purchasers of DRAM.

Cases have been filed in these states:  Arkansas, Arizona,
California, Florida, Hawaii, Iowa, Kansas, Massachusetts, Maine,
Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, North Carolina, North
Dakota, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, Nevada,
New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah,
Vermont, Virginia, Wisconsin, and West Virginia, and also in the
District of Columbia and Puerto Rico.

The complaints purport to be on behalf of a class of individuals
and entities that indirectly purchased DRAM and/or products
containing DRAM in the respective jurisdictions during various
time periods ranging from April 1999 through at least June 2002.

The complaints allege violations of the various jurisdictions'
antitrust, consumer protection and/or unfair competition laws
relating to the sale and pricing of DRAM products and seek joint
and several damages, trebled, as well as restitution, costs,
interest and attorneys' fees.

A number of these cases have been removed to federal court and
transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California (San Francisco) for consolidated pre-trial
proceedings.

On Jan. 29, 2008, the Northern District of California Court
granted in part and denied in part the company's motion to
dismiss plaintiff's second amended consolidated complaint.

Plaintiffs subsequently filed a motion seeking certification for
interlocutory appeal of the decision.

On Feb. 27, 2008, plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint.

On June 26, 2008, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit agreed to consider plaintiffs' interlocutory
appeal.

On June 23, 2010, the company executed a settlement agreement
resolving these purported class-action indirect purchaser cases
and the pending cases of the Attorneys General relating to alleged
DRAM price-fixing in the United States.  Subject to certain
conditions, including final court approval of the class
settlements, the company agreed to pay a total of approximately
$67 million in three equal installments over a two-year period.

Micron Technology, Inc. -- http://www.micron.com/-- is a
provider of advanced semiconductor solutions.  Through its
worldwide operations, Micron manufactures and markets DRAMs, NAND
flash memory, CMOS image sensors, other semiconductor
components, and memory modules for use in leading-edge computing,
consumer, networking and mobile products.


MTP ENTERPRISES: Accused of Violating Illinois Wage and Hour Laws
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Audrey Berna, individually, and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. MTP Enterprises Ltd., d/b/a H&M Limousine Service,
Case No. 2010-CH-30008 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty. July 13, 2010),
accuses the limousine service operator of failing to provide meal
and rest breaks, improperly manipulating hourly paid employees'
time records, failing to record actual hours worked by hourly paid
employees, and failing to compensate hourly paid employees for all
hours actually worked, including missed breaks, regular and
overtime compensation as required by Illinois wage and hour laws.

Audrey Berna worked as an hourly paid, non-exempt limousine driver
for defendant.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas J. Shannon, Esq.
          SHANNON & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
          8 South Michigan Ave., Suite 2600
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 332-2804

               - and -

          James X. Bormes, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JAMES X. BORMES, PC
          8 South Michigan Ave., Suite 2600
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 201-0575


MUDDY OUTDOORS: Recalls 2,550 2009 Tree Climbing Sticks
-------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Muddy Outdoors, of Camdenton, Mo., announced a voluntary recall of
about 2,550 2009 Muddy Outdoors tree climbing sticks.  Consumers
should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise
instructed.

Bolts that secure the cam locs to the frame of these climbing
sticks that retains the rope around the tree can break, allowing
the cam locs to detach from the frame.  This causes the retaining
rope to detach and the climbing stick to release from the tree,
posing a fall hazard to the user.

CPSC has received two reports of bolts breaking on a climbing
stick.  No reports of injuries.

This recall involves climbing sticks are used for climbing a tree
and include 2009 year Model 70301 -- Muddy Outdoors climbing stick
(a 20 inch single climbing stick) and 2009 year Model 70304 --
Muddy Outdoors climbing stick (4 pack of 20-inch climbing sticks).
The year and model number is printed on a label on the front of
the main vertical frame of the climbing stick just below the two
cam locs.  Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10300.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold through
directly from Muddy Outdoors via Internet/telephone sales and
other outdoor sports retailers nationwide from July 2009 through
April 2010 for about $35 (model 70301) and about $130 (model
70304).

Consumers should immediately stop using these climbing sticks and
return the climbing sticks to Muddy Outdoors for a refund,
exchange or manufacturer's credit.  For additional information
contact Muddy Outdoors toll-free at (877) 366-8339 between 8:30
a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Central Time Monday through Friday or visit
the firm's Web site at http://www.gomuddy.com/ or e-mail the firm
at info@gomuddy.com


MUTUAL FUNDS MDL: Fairness Hearing Set for Oct. 21 and 22
---------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard LLP announced the proposed settlements of the
class action captioned: In re Mutual Funds Investment Litigation
[Federated Sub-Track], Civil Action No. 04-md-15861(D. Md.).
Bernstein Liebhard LLP serves as lead counsel in the securities
action, representing investors in Federated fluctuating mutual
funds during the period October 21, 1998 through September 30,
2003.

As part of these settlements, plaintiffs have reached settlements
with defendants Canary Capital Partners, LLC, Canary Capital
Partners, Ltd., Canary Investment Management, LLC, and Edward
Stern and Banc of America Securities LLC.  The proposed Cross-
Track Settlements total $1,557,500, which will be distributed to
certain Federated Funds.  Because the Cross-Track Settlement
Amount is being distributed directly to certain Federated Funds,
class members are not required to submit proof of claims.

The Cross-Track Settlements resolve class action litigation and
derivative litigation concerning allegations that the Cross-Track
Defendants violated securities laws and breached fiduciary duties
by allegedly engaging in or facilitating "market-timing" and
"late-trading" in certain Federated Funds during the period May 1,
2000 through July 31, 2003.  Market-timing is an investment
technique involving short-term, "in and out" trading of mutual
fund shares, designed to exploit inefficiencies in the way mutual
fund companies price their shares.  Late-trading is an investment
practice whereby investors are permitted to place orders to buy,
sell or exchange mutual fund shares using the day's net asset
value after 4:00 p.m. Eastern-time, capitalizing on post-4:00 p.m.
information.

A hearing will be held before the Honorable Catherine C. Blake in
the United States District Court for the District of Maryland,
United States Courthouse, 101 West Lombard Street, Baltimore,
Maryland 21201, at 10:00 a.m., on October 21 and 22, 2010, to
determine whether: (1) the proposed Cross-Track Settlements should
be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable and adequate; (2) the
plans for allocating the settlement proceeds should be approved;
(3) Plaintiffs' Counsel's applications for attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of litigation expenses should be approved; (4) the
claims against the Cross-Track Defendants should be dismissed with
prejudice; and (5) the Court should rule on such other matters as
the Court deems appropriate.

You may write to the Court if you object to one or both of the
Cross-Track Settlements, plans of allocation of the Cross-Track
Settlement Amounts -- available at
http://www.noticeclass.com/federatedsettlement-- or Plaintiffs'
Counsel's request for attorneys' fees and expenses. You may obtain
a copy of the Cross-Track Long-Form Notice by visiting
http://www.noticeclass.com/federatedsettlement  As more fully
described in the Cross-Track Long-Form Notice, the deadline for
submitting objections and requests for exclusion from any of the
proposed Cross-Track Settlements is September 21, 2010.

Plaintiffs also entered into a proposed settlement agreement with
Federated Investors Inc., Federated Investment Management Company,
Federated Equity Management Company of Pennsylvania, Federated
Services Company, Federated Securities Corporation, and certain
individual defendants.  The details of the settlement with the
Federated Defendants can be found at
http://www.noticeclass.com/federatedsettlement

Further information may also be obtained by contacting:

     U. Seth Ottensoser, Esq.
     Stephanie M. Beige, Esq.
     BERNSTEIN LIEBHARD LLP
     10 East 40th Street, 22nd Floor
     New York, New York 10016
     Telephone: (212) 779-1414
     E-mail: Ottensoser@bernlieb.com
             Beige@bernlieb.com

Bernstein Liebhard LLP -- http://www.bernlieb.com/-- is a
prominent plaintiffs' class action law firm that has been
representing investors since 1993.  It has pursued hundreds of
securities, shareholder, and consumer cases and recovered almost
$3 billion for its clients. It has also been named to The National
Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List" in each of the last seven
years.


NEDELJKA KOVACEVIC: Sued for Not Paying Interest on Security Dep.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Konstantine "Gus" Ress, individually and on behalf of other
tenants and former tenants similarly situated v. Nedeljka
Kovacevic, et al., Case No. 2010-CH-29817 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook
Cty. July 12, 2010), accuses the defendants of: i) failing to pay
interest on her and the proposed class members' security deposits
as mandated by Section 5-12-080(c) of the Chicago Residential
Landlord and Tenant Ordinance, (ii) commingling her and the
proposed class members' security deposits with the defendants'
own assets and failing to place the security deposits in a
federally insured interest bearing account in a bank, savings and
loan association or other financial institution located in the
State of Illinois as mandated by Section 5-12-080(a) of the RLTO,
(iii) failing to return her and the proposed class members'
security deposits within 45 days of vacating and failing to
deliver an itemized statement of damages within 30 days for any
alleged deductions as mandated by Section 5-12-080(d) of the RLTO,
and (iv) failing to provide at least two days' notice of
defendants' intent to enter their dwelling units as required by
Section 5-12-050 of the RLTO.

Plaintiff asks the Court to order defendants to pay her and each
proposed class member a sum equal to twice the amount of each
class member's security deposit, together with interest, court
costs and reasonable attorney's fees for each violation of
Sections 5-12-080(c), 5-12-080(a), and 5-12-080(d) of the RLTO.

Plaintiff also asks the Court to order defendants to pay plaintiff
and each proposed class member an amount equal to one month's
rent, together with court costs and reasonable attorney's fees for
each violation of Section 5-12-050, pursuant to Sections 5-12-060
and 5-12-180 of the RLTO.

Plaintiff Konstantine "Gus" Ress formerly resided in Unit 1S at
5651 N. Christiana, Chicago, Illinois 60659, which was part of the
building located at 5649-5655 N. Christiana, Chicago, Illinois
60659, a development consisting of approximately 36 residential
dwelling units.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel M. Starr, Esq.
          STARR & ROWELLS
          35 East Wacker Drive, Suite 1870
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 346-9420


NOVARTIS PHARMA: Settles Sex Discrimination Suit for $152.5MM
-------------------------------------------------------------
Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, a U.S. subsidiary of
Novartis AG, and Sanford Wittels & Heisler, LLP, Counsel to the
Plaintiffs and the Class, have announced an amicable end to their
litigation.  On July 14, 2010, the parties filed papers in the
Southern District of New York memorializing a settlement agreement
including up to $152.5 million in payments to eligible class
members and NPC's funding, over three years, of improvements to
policies and programs valued at an estimated $22.5 million.

While the company maintains that the alleged behavior described
during the trial is not systemic, NPC has agreed with the
Plaintiffs to end the ongoing proceedings and make monetary
payments to eligible class members for back-pay and compensatory
damages in the amount of up to $152.5 million.

"While we believe that there was not systemic discrimination at
NPC, the trial revealed that some of our associates had
experiences influenced by managerial behavior inconsistent with
our values" said Joe Jimenez, CEO of Novartis AG.  "As a company
we are now even more strongly resolved to ensure that all our
employees act and behave in accordance with our corporate values.
We aspire to be a leader in diversity and inclusion, and I am
committed to implementing decisive measures to ensure that we act
in accordance with our values."

"Novartis has agreed to a momentous settlement," explained David
Sanford, Esq., lead counsel for the Plaintiffs.  "The terms of
this agreement allow for full compensation of both former and
current female field force employees, ensuring that every woman
who worked at Novartis over the past eight years has been
compensated fairly."

As part of the agreement and consistent with its philosophy to
foster a diverse and inclusive workforce, NPC is implementing
comprehensive programs designed to ensure fair treatment of all
members of the NPC sales force.  The measures agreed to by the
parties set high standards, and the company is committed to occupy
a leadership position for gender equity in the industry.

"In this settlement, Novartis establishes itself as a leader on
issues for women in the workplace," said Katherine Kimpel, Esq.,
co-lead counsel for the Plaintiffs.  "In particular, NPC is
committed to substantially revising its human resources policies,
revamping its personnel management systems, and strengthening its
commitment to ensuring gender equality in the workplace."

As part of the measures, NPC will enhance many of its ongoing
commitments to all employees and will add additional programs and
initiatives to further strengthen its commitment to a diverse and
inclusive environment.  For example:

    * NPC will revise its sexual harassment policy and training,
making it even clearer that the company will not tolerate
inappropriate behavior or comments from employees, customers or
healthcare providers.

    * NPC will also further strengthen its complaint process to
ensure employees can safely raise concerns and that those concerns
will be addressed in a timely and thorough fashion;

    * NPC will retain an external specialist to conduct adverse
impact analyses aimed at identifying and remedying, with
recommendations from Class Counsel, unjustified gender
disparities;

    * NPC will revise its performance management process to ensure
it is fair to all employees.

The full range of changes and improvements that NPC will be making
are detailed in the settlement agreement filed with the Court.
The agreement remains subject to final court approval.

Plaintiffs' counsel may be reached at:

     David Sanford, Esq.
     Katherine M. Kimpel, Esq.
     SANFORD WITTELS & HEISLER, LLP
     1666 Connecticut Avenue NW, Suite 310
     Washington, DC 20009
     Telephone: (202) 742-7780
     Facsimile: (202) 742-7776
     E-mail: dsanford@swhlegal.com
             kkimpel@swhlegal.com

Novartis -- http://www.novartis.com/-- provides healthcare
solutions that address the evolving needs of patients and
societies.  Focused solely on healthcare, Novartis offers a
diversified portfolio to best meet these needs: innovative
medicines, cost-saving generic pharmaceuticals, preventive
vaccines, diagnostic tools and consumer health products.  Novartis
is the only company with leading positions in these areas.  In
2009, the Group's continuing operations achieved net sales of
$44.3 billion, while approximately $7.5 billion was invested in
R&D activities throughout the Group.  Headquartered in Basel,
Switzerland, Novartis Group companies employ approximately 100,000
full-time-equivalent associates and operate in more than 140
countries around the world.

The Plaintiffs and the Class are represented by Sanford
Wittels & Heisler, LLP.  Sanford Wittels & Heisler --
http://www.swhlegal.com/-- is a law firm with offices in
Washington, D.C., New York, and San Francisco that specializes in
employment discrimination, wage and hour, consumer and complex
corporate class action litigation and has represented thousands of
individuals in some of the major class action cases in the United
States.  The firm also represents individual clients in
employment, employment discrimination, sexual harassment,
whistleblower, public accommodations, commercial, medical
malpractice, and personal injury matters.


PACIFIC WEB: Accused in Mo. Suit of Deceptive Marketing Practice
----------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Harris at Courthouse News Service reports that an Internet
marketer uses "fake news articles and fake blogs" to direct
browsers to its page, then bills people's credits cards without
permission, a class action claims in Jackson County Court.  The
class claims that Pacific Web Works is preying upon people hurt by
the recession by promising them work-at-home jobs.

The Nevada-based company claims -- falsely -- that its victims
will work directly with Google, and will be well paid for it, says
lead plaintiff Thomas Aikens.

Mr. Aikens claims Pacific's initial offers come as spam email,
sponsored links, banner ads on Internet search pages and links in
fake news articles and fake blogs.

The complaint cites 18 corporate names or dbas.

Pacific Web Works' game is to drive consumers to pages where a
purchase can be made by credit card, according to the complaint.

Once consumers lands on a Pacific products page, they are urged to
buy a Pacific product, usually a CD or software kit that allegedly
will how to earn thousands of dollars by working at home using
Google, Mr. Aikens claims.

"These landing pages typically contain language describing their
offering 'As seen on: Fox News, CNN,' and 'USA Today,'" the
complaint states.

"The website prominently features network logos without license
from these media entities and are plainly designed to suggest to a
consumer that the offering is supported by a reputable entity.
Pacific WebWorks have never been 'seen on' or endorsed by any of
the networks claimed on the website."

Mr. Aiken says Pacific often advertises that its products cost $2
or less.  But in fine print, Aiken claims, consumers are told they
will be subject to a recurring monthly charge of $79.90 for access
to a program that allegedly allows them to "Start Making Money
Today!"

Consumers may also find that Pacific billed them $24.90 a month,
for another, unknown product, Mr. Aikens says.

The complaint claims that Pacific operates under a variety of
Internet names including Tracking202 Inc.; Media Trust LLC
(Advaliant); CyberPlex inc. (CX Digital Media); Coleadium Inc.
(Ads4Dough); JAR Media LLC; Sybtrackcom; eSynergy Media LLC; W4
Media LLC; Bskytracking.com; GMB Direct Inc.; Elite Clicks Media
LLC; Tracklead.net; Track606.com; Intermark Communications Inc.
(Copeac); Zoomleads.net; Vetrue Incorporated (Neverblue); Lidango;
and Convert2Media LLC.

The class seeks restitution and punitive damages for fraud, breach
of contract, unjust enrichment, and violations of the Missouri
Merchandising Practices Act.

A copy of the Complaint in Aikens v. Pacific WebWorks, Inc., et
al., Case No. _____ (Mo. Cir. Ct., Jackson Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/07/14/FakeNews.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Williams G. Crowe, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF BILL CROWE
          3259 East Sunshine, Suite I
          Springfield, MO 65804-2143
          Telephone: 417-883-8000
          E-mail: wcrowe1415@gmail.com

               - and -

          Will Haselden, Esq.
          Christopher Dore, Esq.
          EDELSON MCGUIRE, LLC
          350 North LaSalle, Suite 1300
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: 312-589-6370
          E-mail whaselden@edelson.com
                 cdore@edelson.com


PALM INC: Faces Suit in Illinois for Defective Treo Phones
----------------------------------------------------------
Jon Hood, writing for ConsumerAffairs.com, reports that a class
action suit has been filed alleging that two Palm Treo smartphone
models are junk, and that the manufacturer isn't doing enough to
address consumers' complaints.

The suit was filed in the circuit court of Cook County, Illinois,
says that the "premium-priced Palm Treo 700 series and . . . 755p
hand-held devices" are "saddled with malfunctions and problems."
Specifically, the suit alleges that the phones freeze or lock up,
requiring the owner to turn the phone off, remove and reinstall
the battery, and turn the phone back on again, an annoying routine
to perform on a regular basis.  Worse, the defect can wipe out
user data like phone numbers and photos.

The complaint also says that the phones have "poor sound quality,"
rendering them difficult or impossible to use, and that it can be
difficult to "view or download documents or attachments from email
or the internet."

According to the suit, Palm markets the Treos as "speedy, state-
of-the art smartphones," and boasts on its Web site that, "[w]ith
this easy-to-use productivity device in hand, you can stay
connected on your terms."

When Palm started hearing about the problem from customers,
according to the suit, it simply replaced the broken phones with
more of the same model.  As a result, the plaintiffs "cycled
through numerous Treo Phones, none of which provided the
functionality and quality that such phones are supposed to
provide."

Instead of fixing the problem, Palm chose to "continue peddling
its inventories" and "intentionally replace[] defective Treo
Phones with equally defective Treo Phones," according to the
complaint.  This creates a system in which consumers "continue to
receive defective products . . . until they either tire of the
process or their warranties run out."

Suit resembles previous action

The suit also says that Palm has taken no action to effect a
lasting fix of the defects, despite having received scores of
complaints from consumers. The complaint also points out that Palm
has provided "class-wide compensation" to owners of older Treo
models, a claim that appears to reference a 2008 settlement
involving the Treo 600 and 650 models.  That settlement provided a
cash rebate to Treo users who had to replace or repair their
phones at least twice.

That suit, filed in 2005, contained allegations strikingly similar
to those in the Illinois complaint, including frequent restarts,
the loss of stored information, and poor sound quality.  That suit
also said that Palm replaced defective phones with equally
defective "refurbished" phones of the same model.

ConsumerAffairs.com has received several complaints that seem to
echo the claims in the suit.  As Nicole of Marina Del Ray, CA,
wrote in 2008:

"I have had problem after problem with the palm treo.  I have been
given one defective replacement after another.  I have lost work
and clients due to these problems."

Elaine of Warsaw, IN, had a similar experience:

"I purchased a new palm centro online through the palm store. This
phone was unlocked and the cost was 299.99.  After I recieved this
phone it froze within the first 3 days.  The phone was sent back
and a new one was sent to us.  I have had this phone for 4 months
and am now having problems with it again.  The palm store requires
the phone to be sent in (at my expense) to be analyzed and
repaired.  This will take approx. 7 days. (7 days without my only
form of communication).  This is unacceptable.

The suit covers anyone who bought or received, under warranty, a
Treo 700 series or 755p phone. Consumers in California are
excluded from the class. The complaint charges Palm with breach of
express and implied warranty, violations of the Magnuson Moss
Warranty Act, unjust enrichment, and violations of several
California state statutes.


PFIZER INC: Sued in Delaware for Breach of Fiduciary Duty
---------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Pfizer pushed its drugs
illegally for more than a decade, then settled for $2.3 billion
with Uncle Sam, shareholders claim in a class action in Delaware
Chancery Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Bricklayers Local & Plasterers Local
233 Pension Fund v. Pfizer, Inc., et al., Case No. 5631 (Del. Ch.
Ct.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/07/14/SCAPfizer.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph A. Rosenthal, Esq.
          Jessica Zeldin, Esq.
          ROSENTHAL, MONHAIT & GODDESS, P.A.
          919 N. Market St., Suite 1401
          P.O. Box 1070
          Wilmington, DE 19899
          Telephone: (302) 656-4433

               - and -

          Robert M. Roseman, Esq.
          Andrew D. Abramowitz, Esq.
          David Felderman, Esq.
          Daniel J. Mirarchi, Esq.
          Rachel E. Kopp, Esq.
          SPECTOR ROSEMAN KODROFF & WILLIS, P.C.
          1818 Market St., Suite 2500
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 496-0300

               - and -

          Stephen C. Richman, Esq.
          MARKOWITZ & RICHMAN
          1100 North American Bldg.
          121 South Broad St.
          Philadelphia, PA 19107
          Telephone: (215) 875-3100


POTTERY BARN: Recalls 82,000 Pottery Barn Kids Drop-Side Cribs
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Pottery Barn Kids, a division of Williams-Sonoma, Inc., of San
Francisco, Calif., announced a voluntary recall of about 82,000
Pottery Barn Kids drop-side cribs.  Consumers should stop using
recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed.

The cribs' drop-sides can detach when hardware breaks, creating a
space into which a young child can become entrapped, which can
lead to suffocation. A child can also fall out of the crib.  Drop
side incidents also occur due to incorrect assembly and with age-
related wear and tear.

CPSC and Pottery Barn Kids have received 36 reports of drop sides
that have malfunctioned or detached, resulting in seven minor
injuries when children fell out of the cribs or got their legs
caught between the mattress and the drop side.  One child became
entrapped at the head between the drop side and crib mattress but
was freed without injury.

This recall involves all Pottery Barn Kids drop-side cribs
regardless of the model number.  Pottery Barn Kids is printed on a
label attached to the crib headboard or footboard.  Pictures of
the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10302.html

The recalled products were manufactured in Canada, Malaysia,
China, Taiwan, Vietnam, Indonesia and Italy and sold exclusively
through the Pottery Barn Kids catalog,
http://www.potterybarnkids.com/ and at Pottery Barn Kids retail
stores nationwide from January 1999 through March 2010 for between
$300 and $600.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled cribs,
inspect the hardware to make sure it is not broken, and contact
Pottery Barn Kids to receive a free fixed-gate conversion kit that
will immobilize the drop side.  For additional information,
contact Pottery Barn Kids at (877) 804-3847 between 7:00 a.m. and
midnight 7 days a week or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.potterybarnkids.com/


PROGRESSIVE MOUNTAIN: Accused of Bad Faith Insurance Practices
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a class action claims
Progressive Mountain Insurance Co. pays "unreasonable, unfair and
bad faith low-ball amounts as diminished-value losses" for auto
accident claims, in Dublin, Ga., Federal Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Hurt v. Progressive Mountain Insurance
Company, Case No. 10-cv-00059 (S.D. Ga.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/07/14/Insure.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by;

          James E. Carter, Esq.
          JAMES E. CARTER & ASSOCIATES, LLC
          400 East President St.
          Savannah, GA 31401
          Telephone: (912) 236-7200
          E-mail: jcarter@carterfirm.net

               - and -

          Thomas W. Tucker, Esq.
          John B. Long, Esq.
          TUCKER, EVERITT, LONG, BREWTON & LANIER
          Post Office Box 2426
          Augusta, GA 30903-2426
          Telephone: (706) 722-0771
          E-mail: ttucker@thefirm453.com
                  jlong@thefirm453.com


ROYAL BANK OF CANADA: Class Suit by Earl Jones Victims Okayed
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Montreal Gazette reports that Superior Court Judge Robert
Mongeon Wednesday approved a request to file a class-action
lawsuit against the Royal Bank of Canada on behalf of the victims
of Earl Jones.  The suit seeks C$40 million in damages.

The thrust of the lawsuit alleges that a suburban bank branch
where  Mr. Jones did business treated him like a VIP and allowed
him to use a personal account for business purposes.

BBC News reports that former clients of the financial advisor
allege a RBC branch where he did business knew about
irregularities in Mr. Jones' account, but did nothing.  None of
the claims against RBC have been proven.

Mr. Jones is currently serving 11 years in jail for fraud.  The
former Montreal financial adviser fell from grace when his ponzi
scheme was revealed in the summer of 2009.  He is thought to have
defrauded clients out of tens of millions of dollars over a
decade.


SOMANETICS CORP: Faces Brower Piven Suit Over Covidien Deal
-----------------------------------------------------------
Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation, announced that a class
action lawsuit has been commenced in the State of Michigan,
Oakland County Circuit Court on behalf of all shareholders of
Somanetics Corporation.

The complaint asserts claims that arise from alleged attempts of
Somanetics' board of directors to complete a squeeze-out of
Somanetics' public shareholders via a tender offer by Covidien DE
Corporation, a Delaware corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary
of United States Surgical Corporation, and a wholly owned indirect
subsidiary of Covidien plc.  According to the complaint, on June
16, 2006, Covidien and Somanetics announced that they had signed a
definitive merger agreement under which Covidien will acquire all
of the outstanding shares of Somanetics for $25.00 per share in
cash, for a total of $250 million, net of cash acquired. The
complaint alleges 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 failing to maximize shareholder value and
failing to engage in a fair sale process, that Somanetics and
Covidien aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary
duties, and that Somanetics failed to adequately disclose material
information regarding the Offer.

If you are a current owner of shares of Somanetics Corporation,
you may obtain additional information about this lawsuit by
contacting:

     Charles J. Piven, Esq.
     BROWER PIVEN PC
     1925 Old Valley Road
     Stevenson, Maryland 21153
     Telephone: (410) 415-6701
     E-mail: piven@browerpiven.com

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.


TEXAS WINDSTORM: Settles Ike "Slab" Claims for $189 Million
-----------------------------------------------------------
Texas Windstorm Insurance Association has agreed to settle
lawsuits by paying $189 million to 2,400 Galveston County property
owners whose insured homes were reduced to their foundations by
Hurricane Ike.

Ian White, writing for Galveston County's The Daily News, explains
the suits are known as "slab" cases because they all involve
properties where Hurricane Ike left little or nothing standing
above ground when it made landfall Sept. 13, 2008.  The policy-
holding property owners are suing the insurance association for
$189 million in Judge Susan Criss' 212th District Court.  They are
divided into two groups of about 1,200 homeowners each.

The first group consists of plaintiffs individually represented by
counsel, of which 517 have filed suit.  The second group consists
of homeowners who have joined in a class-action lawsuit.

One application in the class-action lawsuit was filed on behalf of
206 Bolivar Peninsula homeowners by area attorneys Tony Buzbee and
Darrell Apffel in January.  It joined lawsuits challenging the
windstorm association's offer of 11.2% of the value of each lost
house.  The association based that figure on its assessments of
how much damage had been caused by flooding during the storm, a
figure hotly disputed in court by the plaintiffs' attorneys.  The
cases went to mediation, where lawyers for both sides and mediator
Todd Hunter spent six days negotiating the new deal.

Under the terms of the negotiated settlement, the property owners
will be offered higher settlement figures, plus their attorneys'
fees, in confidential transactions.  For property owners who sued
individually, acceptance of their individual offers will end their
cases.  Class-action plaintiffs must wait until Judge Criss
considers the association's offer in court, which could take
another month or so, state Rep. Craig Eiland, one of the attorneys
involved, said.

Judge Criss said: "We have had more than 100 lawyers, many of them
among the state's leading trial lawyers, involved in the mediation
and, if they all think this is a good resolution, I'm not going to
throw it out. It's $189 million for the county, and that's good
for everyone."

Mr. Eiland said: "The association is making the same offer for all
the plaintiffs, whether individual or class-action. The offer is
calculated based on the value of each property, payments already
made or agreed to by the National Flood Insurance Program and
policy limits.

"I have some individual and some class-action clients. I will be
sending the individual plaintiffs' offers to them in the next day
or two."

In a statement issued by Mostyn Law Firm's Houston office,
plaintiffs' attorney Steve Mostyn, Esq., who serves as the liaison
counsel to the court for all Hurricane-Ike cases filed in
Galveston, said: "We are pleased that TWIA stepped up to the plate
and resolved these cases so that these folks may now get on with
their lives."

Mostyn Law Firm also noted that Judge Criss stated: "I appreciate
all of the hard work by the plaintiffs' lawyers, the TWIA lawyers
and the mediator, Todd Hunter, put into mediating these cases over
a period of six full days.  The Bolivar/Galveston community
deserves closure and the opportunity to rebuild their homes and
lives."

The Daily News reports that another of the class counsel, Mitchell
Toups, Esq., of Beaumont, said: "This is a triumph for 'slab'
owners and the Galveston County economy."

The Daily News also reports that the windstorm association's
general manager, Jim Oliver, said: "These slab claims were very
complicated and numerous, and they required a great deal of time
and analysis in determining the impact from wind and storm surge
damage since TWIA policies only cover direct loss caused by wind.

"TWIA needs to receive information on the amount of reductions due
to flood insurance payments before determining what amount is to
be offered in each individual case."

Altogether, the association, the largest property insurer in
Galveston County and the Texas coast's insurer of last resort for
windstorm and hail coverage, received more than 100,000 claims,
costing $2.1 billion, for damage caused by hurricanes Dolly and
Ike in 2008, The Daily News reports.

Plaintiffs' counsel may be reached at:

     J. Steve Mostyn, Esq.
     THE MOSTYN LAW FIRM
     3810 W. Alabama Street
     Houston, Texas 77027
     Telephone: (713) 861-6616
     Facsimile: (713) 861-8084
     Toll Free: (888) 400-6616


TORO COMPANY: Recalls 35880 Snow Blowers
----------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
The Toro Company, of Bloomington, Minn., announced a voluntary
recall of about 35,700 Power Clear 180 Single Stage Snow Blowers
in the United States and 2,300 in Canada.  Consumers should stop
using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed.

Exposure to ethanol in gasoline can cause the carburetor needle to
become corroded.  A corroded needle can stick in the open position
and allow fuel to leak from the carburetor, posing a fire hazard
to consumers.

Toro has received 2,200 reports of carburetor leaks. No fires or
injuries have been reported.

This recall involves Toro(R) Power Clear 180 Single Stage snow
blowers.  The recalled snow blowers have model numbers 38272 and
38282.  Serial numbers included in the recall range from 310000001
through 310999999.  The model and serial number can be found on a
decal on the lower right side of the snow blower.  Pictures of the
recalled products are available at:

      http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10299.html

The recalled products were manufactured in U.S.A and sold through
Toro dealers and The Home Depot stores nationwide from November
2009 through May 2010 for between $400 and $440.

Consumers should immediately check to see if their snow blowers
are included in this recall and contact an authorized Toro service
dealer to arrange a free repair.  To obtain the location of the
nearest dealer, consumers should contact Toro.  For additional
information, contact Toro toll-free at (877) 738-4440 between 7:30
a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Central Time, Monday through Friday, or visit
the firm's Web site at http://www.toro.com/


VITACOST.COM INC: Kahn Swick Sues Over September 2009 IPO
---------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC, announced that a class action lawsuit has
been commenced in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida on behalf of purchasers of the common
stock of Vitacost.com, Inc. (Nasdaq: VITC) pursuant and/or
traceable to the Company's Initial Public Offering commencing on
or about September 24, 2009, and on behalf of purchasers of the
Company's common stock between September 24, 2009 and April 20,
2010, inclusive.  No class has yet been certified in this action.
Any purchaser of this stock during the class period may inquire
and receive information about this case.  Additionally, anyone who
desires to represent the class as Lead Plaintiff must contact the
firm prior to July 23, 2010 to the extent they want to apply for
Lead Plaintiff.  KSF has significant experience in representing
both individual and institutional clients in securities litigation
matters.

If you would like to discuss your legal rights as a member of the
class and/or the lead plaintiff position and its related
responsibilities including overseeing lead counsel with the goal
of obtaining a fair settlement, you may contact KSF's Director of
Client Relations:

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

Additionally, you can contact KSF's Managing Partner:

     Lewis Kahn, Esq.
     KAHN SWICK & FOTI LLC
     206 Covington St.
     Madisonville, LA 70447
     Telephone: (866) 467-1400, ext. 200
     E-mail: lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com

The complaint accuses the defendants of violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Securities Act of 1933 by
virtue of the Company's failure to disclose during the Class
Period and/or in the offering documents (registration statement
and prospectus) for its initial public offering on or about
September 24, 2009, that the Company was starting a product-mix
shift away from the high-margin proprietary products yet inflated
demand for its proprietary products by pushing out excess product
to customers so that it could mask declining demand; that the
Company was knowingly experiencing logistical issues at its own
plants, lacking adequate oversight processes and procedures and
utilizing ineffective operations software; that the Company lacked
adequate internal and financial controls; and that as a result of
the foregoing, the Company's financial results were materially
inflated at all relevant times.  According to the complaint,
after, on April 20, 2010, the Company announced updated guidance
for revenue for the quarter ending March 31, 2010 and for the full
year 2010, the value of Vitacost.com stock declined significantly.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff in this class action
lawsuit, you must request this position by application to the
court no later than July 23, 2010.  Any member of the putative
class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through
counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an
absent class member.  To learn more about KSF, you may visit
http://www.ksfcounsel.com/  KSF is a law firm focused on
securities class action litigation and other class action
litigation with offices in New York and Louisiana.  KSF's lawyers
have significant experience litigating complex securities class
actions and have recovered tens of millions of dollars over the
past two years for aggrieved investors.


WALT DISNEY: Blind Passholders Sue for ADA Violations
-----------------------------------------------------
Two visually impaired annual pass holders at the Disney theme
parks have filed a nationwide class action against The Walt Disney
Company and its subsidiaries, which own Disneyland, Disney's
California Adventure, and Walt Disney World, alleging violations
of the Americans with Disabilities Act.  On behalf themselves and
others similarly situated, they seek to change various Disney's
policies which unfairly treat the blind.

Cari Shields and Amber Boggs, two visually impaired annual pass
holders at the Disney parks, have filed a nationwide class action
against The Walt Disney Company and its subsidiaries which own
Disneyland, Disney's California Adventure, and Walt Disney World,
alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act.  On
behalf themselves and others similarly situated, Mrs. Boggs and
Ms. Shields seek to change various Disney policies which unfairly
treat the blind.  For example, they demand that Disney change its
policy of not allowing costumed characters to interact with
visually impaired guests who visit the park with their service
animals. This policy is enforced even when Mrs. Boggs visits the
parks with her fully-sighted children.

Mrs. Boggs and Ms. Shields allege other violations of the
Americans with Disabilities Act.  They are not seeking monetary
damages, but only demand that Disney provide more reasonable
accommodations for the visually impaired, such as portable Braille
maps of the parks, areas to cage or leave service animals during
rides, reduced or free admission for service aides, keyed rather
than digital lockers, Braille menus in the park restaurants, and
adequate lodging for service animal while visually impaired guests
visit the park.

"Mrs. Boggs and Ms. Shields simply expect Disney to provide
reasonable and fair accommodations to visually impaired guests who
visit the parks, in compliance with the Americans with
Disabilities Act", said their attorney, Andy Dogali, of the Tampa,
Florida law firm of Forizs & Dogali, P.A.  "The reasonable
accommodations we demand will provide a more joyful experience for
visually impaired guests in Disney's parks, where visitors' dreams
are supposed to come true".

The class action has been filed in Los Angeles County Superior
Court of California, Case No. BC438241.  The law firms of Forizs
and Dogali, P.A. and Eugene Feldman, Attorney at Law, represent
the Mrs. Boggs and Ms. Shields in this class action.  For any
questions, please contact:

     Brian Hohman, Esq.
     FORIZS AND DOGALI, P.A.
     4301 Anchor Plaza Parkway, Suite 300
     Tampa, FL, 33634
     Telephone: (813) 289-0700
     Facsimile: (813) 289-9435
     E-mail: bhohman@forizs-dogali.com

          - and -

     Gene Feldman, Esq.
     EUGENE FELDMAN, ATTORNEY AT LAW
     Telephone: (310) 372-4636
     555 Pier Ave, Suite 4
     Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
     Telephone: (866) 920-8349

                           *********

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  * * *