CAR_Public/100721.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Wednesday, July 21, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 142

                            Headlines

AIR CANADA: Complaints About How Fares Are Displayed on Tickets
AIR CARRIERS: Korean FTC Charges 19 Airlines with Price-Fixing
AMERICAN INT'L GROUP: Inks $725 Mil. Securities Settlement
AMERICAN INT'L GROUP: Ohio A.G. Comments on $725 Mil. Settlement
AMERICAN ITALIAN: Agrees to Settle Consolidated Shareholder Suit

AMERICAN ITALIAN: "Foley" Suit Stayed by Missouri Court
AMERICAN ITALIAN: Plaintiffs' Request for TRO on Offer Denied
CARE INVESTMENT: Court Sets Summary Judgment Briefing Schedule
CHASE BANK: Settles Calif. Collection Letter Lawsuit for $125,000
CHR. HANSEN: U.S. Dist. Court Dismisses "Popcorn Lung" Lawsuit

COMPANHIA DE SANEAMENTO: Civil Class Action Remains Pending
CSX CORP: Consolidated Antitrust Suit Still Pending in Columbia
CYBERSOURCE CORP: Agrees to Settle California Shareholder Suit
CYTEC INDUSTRIES: Sued in E.D. La. Over 2009 Ammonia Leak
EVERGREEN ROYALLE: Calif. Court Certifies Short-Stay Tenant Class

EMMIS COMMS: Faces Consolidated Shareholder Suit in Indiana
EMMIS COMMS: Motion to Consolidate "Frank" with "Ross" Pending
EMMIS COMMS: Faces "Primich" Action Over JS Tender Offer
ENTERGY CORP: Settlement Negotiations Start in 11-Year-Old-Case
FEDEX CORP: Class in "Wiegele" Wage-and-Hour Suit Decertified

FEDEX CORP: Faces Claim of Failure to Pay Regular Wages
FEDEX CORP: Express Continues to Defend "Bibo" Wage & Hour Suit
FEDEX CORP: FedEx Freight Defends "Taylor" Wage-and-Hour Lawsuit
FEDEX CORP: "Anfinson" Suit v. FedEx Ground Pending in Wash.
FEDEX CORP: FedEx Ground's Motion for Summary Judgment Pending

H&R BLOCK: Dist. Ct. Rejects "Peace of Mind" Plaintiff Class
INCO LIMITED: Ont. Ct. Awards C$36 Mil. in Environmental Damages
LAKE COUNTY: District Court Okays Prisoner Class Action Lawsuit
LAWSON SOFTWARE: Motion to Decertify FLSA Claim Pending
ORCHARDS HOTEL: Settles 150 Employee Wage Claims for $240,000

PATRIOTS FEDERAL: Settles Calif. ATM Fee Lawsuit for $25,500
PLAYBOY ENTERPRISES: Two More Derivative Suits Filed in Ill.
RALCORP HOLDINGS: Agrees to Settle Consolidated Shareholder Suit
RALCORP HOLDINGS: "Foley" Suit Stayed by Missouri Court
RALCORP HOLDINGS: Plaintiffs' Request for TRO on Offer Denied

RAPTOR PHARMA: Deadline to Appeal Suit Dismissal to SC Over
SOCORRO ELECTRIC: Lawsuit Seeks to Block Implementation of Bylaws
SONY OPTIARC: 18th Optical Disc Drive Price-Fixing Suit Filed
TARGET CORP: D. Minn. Disqualifies Employee-Plaintiffs' Counsel
TRANSITIONS OPTICAL: Sued for Engaging in Monopolistic Activities

TULSA, OKLAHOMA: Progress Seen in Discrimination Suit

                            *********

AIR CANADA: Complaints About How Fares Are Displayed on Tickets
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Montreal Gazette reports that a Montreal group is seeking
permission to launch a class-action lawsuit against Air Canada
for failing to comply with new consumer laws that went into force
at the beginning of the month.

The suit was filed Friday afternoon in Quebec Superior Court on
behalf of the Union des consommateurs and Notre Dame de Grace
resident Michael Silas.

It claims that Air Canada has violated the new consumer
protection law because the airline does not include all extra
fees, like a fuel surcharge, in the price of a ticket when
advertised online, which is against the new consumer law.

If the suit is successful, anyone who bought a ticket online
would be eligible for a reward:

          Paul Unterberg, Esq.
          UNTERBERG, LABELLE, LEBEAU
          1980 Sherbrooke O
          Montreal, Quebec H3H 1E8
          CANADA

told the newspaper.  The suit is asking Air Canada to pay the
difference between the advertised price and the actual price to
all people who have made purchases online from July 1 until the
company's pricing policy changes.


AIR CARRIERS: Korean FTC Charges 19 Airlines with Price-Fixing
--------------------------------------------------------------
etravelblackboard.com reports that 21 international carriers are
facing a class-action lawsuit in Korea for years of allegedly
price fixing foreign freight services for years.

The class-action follows the issuing of a combined 120 billion
won (US$98.9 million) in fines to 19 local and foreign freight
companies by the Fair Trade Commission (FTC) for years of price
fixing, reports the Korea Herald.

Two international carriers also received warnings from the FTC,
who described the companies involved as part of the "biggest
global cartel", following their practices of unfairly introducing
or changing fuel surcharges between 1999 and 2007.

A group of Korean cargo transport companies are heading the
class-action, which is one of only two class-action lawsuits ever
to be brought against Korean cartel members by a consumer group.
The second consumer group led class-action is still in progress
and accuses LPG companies of fixing LPG prices between 2003 and
2008, according to legal and retail officials.

The FTC has said that it will work with the consumer groups
towards compensation.

"Cargo companies were seriously damaged by carriers' price-fixing
practices over the years and we are to bring an action for
damages against them," said Lee Dae-soon, a lawyer representing
the consumer group.

"The level of disciplinary action taken by the FTC was lower than
what we expected in the beginning for they even reduced the
amount of fines to carriers that self-reported their business
malpractices," he added.

The original fines imposed by the FTC were the first of their
kind to be given to a global cartel by the state-run watchdog.
But legal experts have reportedly cast doubt on the class-
actions' chances of success, as only securities-related class-
action lawsuits are recognized in current Korean law.

The 19 airlines listed by the Korea Herald as having received
fines are Korean Air, Asiana Airlines, Lufthansa, Malaysia
Airlines, Swiss International Air Lines, Singapore Airlines, Air
France, Air France-KLM, Air Hong Kong, British Airways, Japan
Airlines, Nippon Cargo Airlines, All Nippon Airways, Cargolux
Airlines, Cathay Pacific, KLM Airlines, Qantas Airways, Thai
Airlines and Polar Airlines.


AMERICAN INT'L GROUP: Inks $725 Mil. Securities Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------
American International Group, Inc., on July 14, 2010, approved
the terms of a settlement with the lead plaintiffs in the
putative securities fraud class actions filed beginning in
October 2004 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York.  The suit is titled In re AIG Securities Litigation,
according to the company's July 16, 2010, Form 8-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Settlement is conditioned on, among other things, court
approval and a minimum level of shareholder participation.

Under the terms of the Settlement, if consummated, AIG will pay
an aggregate of $725 million, $175 million of which is to be paid
into escrow within ten days of preliminary court approval.  AIG's
obligation to fund the remainder of the settlement amount is
conditioned on its having consummated one or more common stock
offerings raising net proceeds of at least $550 million prior to
final court approval.

AIG has agreed to use best efforts, consistent with the fiduciary
duties of AIG's management and Board of Directors, to effect a
Qualified Offering, but the decision as to whether market
conditions or pending or contemplated corporate transactions make
it commercially reasonable to proceed with such an offering will
be within AIG's unilateral discretion.

In the event that AIG effects a registered secondary offering of
common stock on behalf of the U.S. Department of the Treasury
resulting in Treasury receiving proceeds of at least $550
million, then market access will be deemed to have been
demonstrated and AIG shall be deemed to have consummated a
Qualified Offering.  AIG, in its sole discretion, also may fund
the $550 million from other sources.  If AIG does not fund the
$550 million before final court approval of the Settlement, the
plaintiffs may terminate the agreement, elect to acquire freely
transferable shares of AIG common stock with a market value of
$550 million provided AIG is able to obtain all necessary
approvals, or extend the period for AIG to complete a Qualified
Offering.

Based in New York, American International Group, Inc., is an
international insurance organization with operations in more than
130 countries and jurisdictions.  AIG companies serve commercial,
institutional, and individual customers through one of the most
extensive worldwide property-casualty networks of any insurer.  
In addition, AIG companies provide life insurance and retirement
services around the world.  AIG common stock is listed on the New
York Stock Exchange, as well as the stock exchanges in Ireland
and Tokyo.


AMERICAN INT'L GROUP: Ohio A.G. Comments on $725 Mil. Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray announced a $725 million
securities class action settlement against international
insurance and financial services organization American
International Group, Inc. (AIG) and certain individual directors
and officers.  The settlement resolves allegations of AIG's wide-
ranging fraud from October 1999 to April 2005 involving anti-
competitive market division, accounting violations and stock
price manipulation, and brings total expected recovery for AIG
shareholders to over $1 billion.  The settlement is subject to
court approval.

"This historic settlement is an excellent result for all
shareholders harmed by AIG's misconduct, including Ohio's
teachers, firefighters, police officers, and public employees.
Ohio is determined to send a strong message to the marketplace
that companies who don't play by the rules will pay a steep
price," said Cordray.

Three Ohio public pension funds, represented by the Attorney
General, led the class action suit: the Ohio Public Employees
Retirement System (OPERS), the State Teachers Retirement System
of Ohio and the Ohio Police and Fire Pension Fund (collectively
the "Ohio Funds").

"The OPERS Board of Trustees has been an active participant in
securities litigation cases on behalf of our members and
retirees," said Ken Thomas, OPERS board chair. "This is a
fiduciary responsibility that the board takes very seriously, and
it is consistent with past actions the board has taken to
encourage corporate governance reform and to seek compensation
for unlawful behavior. We intend to continue an aggressive
posture to protect the integrity of the marketplace for all
investors and the citizens of Ohio."

William J. Estabrook, Executive Director of the Ohio Police and
Fire Pension Fund said: "Our Board of Trustees authorized this
action on behalf of Ohio's police and firefighters not just to
recover our fund's losses, but to help ensure the integrity of
the public markets on which both institutional and private
investors rely. We are pleased that after years of fighting for
this principle the Attorney General was able to secure a monetary
expression that the corporate behavior at issue in this
litigation is unacceptable and will not be tolerated."

Taken together, recovery for AIG shareholders in this case is
expected to be $1.0095 billion, Cordray said. It is the tenth-
largest securities class action settlement in U.S. history, and
the first and only billion-dollar class action settlement since
the financial crisis began to unfold in 2008.

As part of the total case involving AIG, the Ohio Funds and the
Ohio Attorney General's Office previously announced a $72 million
settlement with General Reinsurance Corporation, a $97.5 million
settlement with PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP and a $115 million
settlement with CEO Maurice R. "Hank" Greenberg and other AIG
executives (Howard I. Smith, Christian M. Milton and Michael J.
Castelli) and related corporate entities (C.V. Starr & Co., Inc.
and Starr International Co., Inc.).

AIG has agreed to pay $725 million to the shareholder class in
the primary settlement. An initial payment of $175 million will
be payable after entry of a court order granting preliminary
approval of the settlement. The remaining $550 million may be
funded by AIG through one or more common stock offerings. If AIG
does not fund the $550 million before court approval of the
settlement, the plaintiffs may terminate the agreement, elect to
acquire freely transferable shares of AIG common stock with a
market value of $550 million provided AIG is able to obtain all
necessary approvals, or extend the period for AIG to complete a
stock offering in order to fund the remainder of the settlement.

This case involved three types of claims:

AIG engaged in accounting fraud, culminating in a $3.9 billion
restatement in May 2005 that included numerous different types of
transactions, including allegations relating to a $500 million
no-risk fraudulent reinsurance transaction that AIG entered into
with General Reinsurance Corp. in order to artificially boost
AIG's reported claims reserves. One AIG executive and four Gen Re
executives were found guilty of securities fraud in relation to
that transaction.

AIG paid tens of millions of dollars in undisclosed contingent
commissions to insurance brokers and participated in a bid-
rigging scheme with insurance brokers and certain insurance
companies in order to divide the market for certain types of
insurance.

AIG engaged in straightforward stock price manipulation, in which
company executives ordered company traders to inflate AIG stock
price.

Labaton Sucharow LLP, in New York City, and Hahn Loeser & Parks,
LLP, which has offices in Cleveland and Columbus, represented the
Ohio Attorney General and the Ohio Funds in the case.

Since taking office in January 2009, Attorney General Cordray has
aggressively sought accountability of Wall Street institutions
and executives who violated laws and harmed Ohio investors,
workers, retirees and families. Cordray has pursued eight major
lawsuits including those against Bank of America, Fannie Mae,
Freddie Mac, Marsh, Merrill Lynch, the Rating Agencies and United
Health Care. With today's announcement, more than $2.7 billion
has been recovered through these suits.


AMERICAN ITALIAN: Agrees to Settle Consolidated Shareholder Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------   
The parties to In Re American Italian Pasta Company Shareholder
Litigation, Consolidated C.A. No. 5610-VCN, executed a Memorandum
of Understanding to settle the class action claims and subject to
the approval of the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware,
according to American Italian's July 16, 2010, Form 8-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Ralcorp Holdings, Excelsior Acquisition Co., a wholly owned
subsidiary of Ralcorp, and American Italian Pasta Company are
parties to that certain Agreement and Plan of Merger dated as of
June 20, 2010, pursuant to which Excelsior, on June 24, 2010,
commenced a tender offer to purchase all of the outstanding
shares of AIPC's Class A Convertible Common Stock, par value
$0.001 per share, for $53.00 per Share, to the sellers thereof in
cash without interest thereon, and less any required withholding
taxes.

On July 12, 2010, the parties to In Re American Italian Pasta
Company Shareholder Litigation executed a Memorandum of
Understanding reflecting their agreement to settle the class
action claims asserted in the Consolidated Action on the terms
and conditions set forth in the Memorandum and subject to the
approval of the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware.

Pursuant to the Memorandum, the company, Excelsior and AIPC
agreed to enter into the Amendment.  Additionally, the company,
Excelsior and AIPC agreed to make certain additional disclosures
regarding the Amendment, the Merger Agreement and the Offer in
the company and Purchaser's Amendment No. 4 to Schedule TO and
AIPC's Amendment No. 4 to Schedule 14D-9, each as filed with
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 16, 2010.

The Memorandum provides that the parties will present to the
Court a Stipulation of Settlement and any other necessary
documents to obtain prompt approval by the Court of the
settlement and the dismissal with prejudice of the Consolidated
Action.  The Memorandum further provides that the Stipulation of
Settlement will include a release by the plantiffs and class
members of all claims against all defendants.

Founded in 1988 and based in Kansas City, Missouri, American
Italian Pasta Company -- http://www.aipc.com/-- is a leading  
producer of dry pasta in North America. AIPC has four plants that
are located in Columbia, South Carolina; Excelsior Springs,
Missouri; Tolleson, Arizona and Verolanuova, Italy.  AIPC has
approximately 675 employees located in the United States and
Italy.


AMERICAN ITALIAN: "Foley" Suit Stayed by Missouri Court
-------------------------------------------------------
The Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri, on July 15, 2010,
stayed the class action lawsuit filed by John Foley alleging
certain breaches of the fiduciary duties by the directors of
American Italian Pasta Company and the aiding and abetting of
such breaches by Ralcorp Holdings, Inc., and seeking to enjoin
the Offer and the Merger, according to American Italian's July
16, 2010, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.  The suit was filed on June 21, 2010.

Ralcorp Holdings, Excelsior Acquisition Co., a wholly owned
subsidiary of the Ralcorp, and American Italian are parties to
that certain Agreement and Plan of Merger dated as of June 20,
2010, pursuant to which Excelsior, on June 24, 2010, commenced a
tender offer to purchase all of the outstanding shares of AIPC's
Class A Convertible Common Stock, par value $0.001 per share, for
$53.00 per Share, to the sellers thereof in cash without interest
thereon, and less any required withholding taxes.

Founded in 1988 and based in Kansas City, Missouri, American
Italian Pasta Company -- http://www.aipc.com/-- is a leading  
producer of dry pasta in North America. AIPC has four plants that
are located in Columbia, South Carolina; Excelsior Springs,
Missouri; Tolleson, Arizona and Verolanuova, Italy.  AIPC has
approximately 675 employees located in the United States and
Italy.


AMERICAN ITALIAN: Plaintiffs' Request for TRO on Offer Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri, on July 15, 2010,
denied the request of the plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit
filed by Adriana Apolito-Bevis for a temporary restraining order
to enjoin the closing of Ralcorp Holdings, Inc.'s offer acquire
American Italian Pasta Company, according to American Italian's
July 16, 2010, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.  The suit was filed on June 29, 2010.

Ralcorp Holdings Inc., Excelsior Acquisition Co., and American
Italian are parties to that certain Agreement and Plan of Merger
dated as of June 20, 2010, pursuant to which Excelsior, on June
24, 2010, commenced a tender offer to purchase all of the
outstanding shares of AIPC's Class A Convertible Common Stock,
par value $0.001 per share, for $53.00 per Share, to the sellers
thereof in cash without interest thereon, and less any required
withholding taxes.

Founded in 1988 and based in Kansas City, Missouri, American
Italian Pasta Company -- http://www.aipc.com/-- is a leading  
producer of dry pasta in North America. AIPC has four plants that
are located in Columbia, South Carolina; Excelsior Springs,
Missouri; Tolleson, Arizona and Verolanuova, Italy.  AIPC has
approximately 675 employees located in the United States and
Italy.


CARE INVESTMENT: Court Sets Summary Judgment Briefing Schedule
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has
set a summary judgment briefing schedule in a class action
complaint against Care Investment Trust Inc., according to the
company's July 15, 2010, Form 10-K/A filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31,
2010.  Under the schedule:

     -- Defendants must file their motion for summary judgment
        on July 9, 2010;

     -- Plaintiffs must file their opposition on Aug. 6, 2010,
        and

     -- Defendants must file their reply on Aug. 27, 2010.

On Sept. 18, 2007, a class action complaint for violations of
federal securities laws was filed in the U.S. District Court,
Southern District of New York alleging that the Registration
Statement relating to the initial public offering of shares of
the company's common stock, filed on June 21, 2007, failed to
disclose that certain of the assets in the contributed portfolio
were materially impaired and overvalued and that the company was
experiencing increasing difficulty in securing our warehouse
financing lines.

On Jan. 18, 2008, the court entered an order appointing co-lead
plaintiffs and co-lead counsel.  On Feb. 19, 2008, the co-lead
plaintiffs filed an amended complaint citing additional
evidentiary support for the allegations in the complaint.

The company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on April 22,
2008.  The plaintiffs filed an opposition to the motion to
dismiss on July 9, 2008, to which the company filed its reply on
Sept. 10, 2008.

On March 4, 2009, the court denied the company's motion to
dismiss.  The company filed its answer on April 15, 2009.

At a conference held on May 15, 2009, the Court ordered the
parties to make a joint submission setting forth:

     (i) the specific statements that the plaintiffs' claim are
         false and misleading;

    (ii) the facts on which the plaintiffs rely as showing each
         alleged misstatement was false and misleading; and

   (iii) the facts on which the defendants rely as showing those
         statements were true.

The parties filed the Joint Statement on June 3, 2009.

On July 31, 2009, the parties entered into a stipulation that
narrowed the scope of the proceeding to the single issue of the
warehouse financing disclosure in the Registration Statement.  
Fact discovery closed on April 23, 2010.

The Court ordered the parties to file an abbreviated joint pre-
trial statement on June 9, 2010, and scheduled a pre-trial
conference for June 11, 2010.

At the conclusion of the pre-trial conference, the Court asked
the parties to agree on a summary judgment briefing schedule.

The parties have since agreed, and the Court has ordered, that
the Defendants file their motion for summary judgment on July 9,
2010, Plaintiffs file their opposition on Aug. 6, 2010, and
Defendants file their reply on Aug. 27, 2010.

The outcome of this matter cannot currently be predicted.  As of
July 15, Care has incurred approximately $1.0 million to defend
against this complaint and any incremental costs to defend will
be paid by Care's insurer.  No provision for loss related to this
matter has been accrued at Dec. 31, 2009.

Care Investment Trust Inc. -- http://www.carereit.com/-- is a  
real estate investment trust (REIT) formed principally to invest
healthcare-related real estate and mortgage debt.  The company's
investments in healthcare real estate include medical office
buildings and assisted and independent living facilities and
Alzheimer facilities.  As of Dec. 31, 2008, its portfolio of
assets consisted of real estate and mortgage related assets for
senior housing facilities, skilled nursing facilities, medical
office properties and first mortgage liens on healthcare related
assets.  Care is externally managed and advised by CIT Healthcare
LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of CIT Group Inc.


CHASE BANK: Settles Calif. Collection Letter Lawsuit for $125,000
-----------------------------------------------------------------
                   COURT-AUTHORIZED NOTICE OF
                PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

TO: All persons who, between February 8, 2004, and May 25, 2010,
    received correspondence from the "JPMorgan Chase Legal
    Department," regarding a delinquent credit card balance on a
    credit card issued or owned by Chase Bank USA, N.A.
    ("Chase"), and who were residents of California at the time
    of receiving such correspondence (the "Settlement Class").

What is this case about?  The lawsuit claims that Chase's in-
house legal department sent letters and other documents to
certain of Chase's delinquent credit card account holders
relating to unpaid balances on such credit card accounts that
violated state and federal law. Chase vigorously denies the
claims asserted in the lawsuit.

What relief is provided by the settlement?  Although Chase denies
all allegations against it and asserts numerous defenses, it has
agreed to settle this lawsuit with plaintiff and the Settlement
Class, which the Court has preliminarily approved. Chase has
agreed to pay $125,000 in complete and final settlement of this
lawsuit as follows: (i) up to $100 each will be paid to members
of a Settlement Subclass (to an aggregate of $25,000) identified
by Chase who submit valid claim forms; and (ii) a donation will
be made to charity of not less than $100,000 on behalf of the
Settlement Class. Chase has also agreed to make certain changes
to its practices for collecting outstanding credit card debt in
California. Subject to court approval, attorneys' fees and costs
not to exceed $200,000 will be paid to Class Counsel and an
incentive award not to exceed $5,000 will be paid to plaintiff.
These awards will not affect the amount of the settlement being
paid to, and on behalf of, the Settlement Class.

What are my options?  You can file a claim form, opt-out of the
settlement, object to the settlement, or do nothing. To receive a
payment, you must submit a valid claim. If you are a Settlement
Subclass member eligible to make a claim for a monetary payment,
you will receive a claim form by mail.

How can I learn more?  To learn more about the settlement, visit
http://www.lexlawgroup.com/or contact Class Counsel:

          Howard Hirsch, Esq.
          LEXINGTON LAW GROUP
          1627 Irving Street
          San Francisco, CA 94122
          Telephone: 415-759-4111

How can I object?  Settlement Class members may object to the
proposed settlement by filing their objection with the Court and
serving it on Class Counsel (at the address above) and Chase's
counsel:

          STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN LLP
          2029 Century Park East, Suite 1600
          Los Angeles, CA 90067

postmarked on or before August 9, 2010.

How can I opt out? Settlement Class members who wish to be
excluded from the proposed settlement must "opt-out" by
personally signing and submitting a written request to:

          Gardner Settlement Administrator
          PO Box 12723
          Birmingham, AL 35202-2723

postmarked on or before August 9, 2010. The opt-out must contain
your name and address, be signed and state "I/we request to be
excluded from the class settlement in Shem J. Gardner v. Chase
Bank USA, N.A., Sonoma County Superior Court, Case No. SCV
242322."

Once finally approved, the settlement will be binding on all
Settlement Class members who do not opt-out and will constitute a
release of all claims alleged or which could have been alleged in
the lawsuit, as set forth in the settlement agreement.

A final approval hearing will be held on September 21, 2010 at
8:30 a.m. at 3055 Cleveland Avenue, Santa Rosa, California 95403,
Department 18, but this hearing date and time may be changed
without further notice.

    PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT, CHASE OR CHASE'S COUNSEL.


CHR. HANSEN: U.S. Dist. Court Dismisses "Popcorn Lung" Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad at The National Law Journal reports that a
federal judge in Washington state has thrown out a lawsuit filed
by a man who claimed that he contracted a severe respiratory
illness after eating up to seven bags of microwave popcorn each
day for 11 years.

A lawyer for one of the defendants, Chr. Hansen Inc., the U.S.
division of Chr. Hansen A/S, said the ruling was the first among
a handful of consumer suits that attempt to tie microwave popcorn
to a disease called bronchiolitis obliterans, or "popcorn lung,"
which causes extreme shortness of breath. Several verdicts have
been issued in recent years in similar cases involving workers at
factories that make microwave popcorn. Many of those have awarded
damages to the plaintiffs, with verdicts as high as $20 million.

Larry Newkirk and his wife, Ruth, pressed claims for negligence,
strict liability and failure to warn of the chemical dangers of
microwave popcorn. Newkirk claimed that he began eating microwave
popcorn during the late 1980s, after he quit smoking. He began
experiencing shortness of breath between 2000 and 2003.

Newkirk alleged that diacetyl, an ingredient used in the
popcorn's butter flavoring, causes the disease. The Newkirks sued
the popcorn manufacturer, Omaha-based ConAgra Foods Inc., and its
suppliers, including Chr. Hansen. ConAgra stopped using diacetyl
in about 2007, according to court documents.

The defendants moved for summary judgment and to throw out the
Newkirks' expert witnesses. Ruling on July 2, U.S. District Judge
Rosanna Peterson found that the experts, particularly Dr. David
Egilman, were inadmissible -- leaving the Newkirks without
sufficient causation to pursue their case.

"The law is clear that if you do not have reliable expert
testimony showing causal relationships between the alleged
hazardous substance and the plaintiff's disease, then the case
must be dismissed," said Chris Angius, a partner in the Portland,
Ore., office of Holland & Knight who represented Chr. Hansen.

The judge took particular issue with Egilman, who was the key
expert on proving that the hazardous substance caused their
injuries. The judge, Angius said, concluded that "he did not have
the facts, he did not have the scientific data, and the
scientific methodology he applied was flawed."

ConAgra's lawyer, Corey Gordon, a shareholder at Minneapolis-
based Blackwell Burke, did not return a call for comment.

The Newkirks have the option to appeal the ruling. The lead
plaintiffs attorney, Kenneth McClain, name partner of Humphrey,
Farrington & McClain in Independence, Mo., did not return a call
for comment.


COMPANHIA DE SANEAMENTO: Civil Class Action Remains Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
A civil class action against Companhia de Saneamento Basico do
Estado de Sao Paulo filed by the Sao Paulo Public Prosecution
Office remains pending, according to the company's July 15, 2010,
Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended Dec. 31, 2010.

The Sao Paulo Public Prosecution Office filed a civil class
action against SABESP and the City of Itatiba claiming the
defendants to:

     1) stop discharging in the environment untreated sewage
        collected in Itatiba, subject to a daily fine of R$10;

     2) fully restore, within one year, the original soil,
        surface and underground water, and vegetation conditions
        contaminated by the sewage discharges contrary to
        environmental regulations, subject to a daily fine of
        R$10;

     3) pay compensation, to be quantified by experts, for the
        damages caused to natural resources that can possibly
        not be recovered;

     4) pay compensation not lower than R$2.0 million for pain
        and suffering caused to the community for the
        degradation of the environmental quality.

This lawsuit is in its initial stage and is pending judgment from
the lower court.

As of Dec. 31, 2009, the restated amount of this lawsuit is
R$20.0 million.  The company's legal advisors assessed it as a
possible loss.

according to the company's July 15, 2010, Form 20-F filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
Dec. 31, 2010.

Companhia de Saneamento Basico do Estado de Sao Paulo, a.k.a.
Sabesp (Bovespa: SBSP3; NYSE: SBS) -- http://www.sabesp.com.br/
-- is one of the largest water and sewage service providers in
the world based on the population served in 2005.  It operates
water and sewage systems in Sao Paulo, Brazil.


CSX CORP: Consolidated Antitrust Suit Still Pending in Columbia
---------------------------------------------------------------
CSX Corp. and three other major U.S. railroads continue to face a
consolidated class-action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Columbia over allegations that the individual
railroads violated the U.S. antitrust laws.

Since 2007, at least 30 putative class action suits have been
filed in various federal district courts against CSX
Transportation, CSX Corp.'s principal operating company, and
three other U.S.-based Class I railroads.  The lawsuits contain
substantially similar allegations to the effect that the
defendants' fuel surcharge practices relating to contract and
unregulated traffic resulted from an illegal conspiracy in
violation of antitrust laws.

The suits seek unquantified treble damages, three times the
amount of actual damages, allegedly sustained by purported class
members, attorneys' fees and other relief.  All but three of the
lawsuits purport to be filed on behalf of a class of shippers
that allegedly purchased rail freight transportation services
from the defendants through the use of contracts or through other
means exempt from rate regulation during defined periods
commencing as early as June 2003 and that were assessed fuel
surcharges.  Three of the lawsuits purport to be on behalf of
indirect purchasers of rail services.

The class action suits have been consolidated in federal court in
the District of Columbia.

The defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss and oral arguments were
heard in October 2008.

On Nov. 7, 2008, the Court denied the railroads' Motion to
Dismiss the claims of shippers who directly purchased
transportation services.  On Dec. 31, 2009, the Court granted in
part the railroads' Motion to Dismiss the claims of indirect
purchasers who made purchases from railroad shippers rather than
directly from the railroads.

While the Court found that indirect purchasers' state law claims
for money damages are preempted by federal law, it also found
that they had stated a federal antitrust claim for injunctive
relief.

On Jan. 16, 2009, on motion by the indirect plaintiffs, the Court
entered final judgment on the state law claims which allow the
indirect plaintiffs to seek an immediate appeal.  The Court also
stayed proceedings relating to the claim for injunctive relief
appeal.

Now that the Motion to Dismiss has been decided, discovery will
move forward.  The railroads intend to ask the Court to first
proceed with discovery relating to whether the case is
appropriate to certify as a class action and only if a class is
certified would merit discovery takes place.

No further updates were reported in the company's July 15, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 25, 2010.

CSX Corporation, based in Jacksonville, Fla., is a leading
transportation company providing rail, intermodal and rail-to-
truck transload services. The company's transportation network
spans approximately 21,000 miles with service to 23 eastern
states and the District of Columbia, and connects to more than 70
ocean, river and lake ports.


CYBERSOURCE CORP: Agrees to Settle California Shareholder Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
CyberSource Corporation has agreed to settle the class action
lawsuit captioned In re CyberSource Shareholder Litigation,
currently pending in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Santa Clara County challenging the proposed
merger between CyberSource Corporation and Visa Inc., according
to the company's July 16, 2010, Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

CyberSource says that it believes the class action lawsuit is
without merit.  Nevertheless, in an effort to minimize the
further cost, expense, burden and distraction of litigating the
class action lawsuit, on July 13, 2010, the parties filed with
the Court a Notice of Settlement and attached Memorandum of
Understanding agreeing in principle to the settlement of the
lawsuit based upon, among other things, certain additional
disclosures requested by the plaintiffs and included by
CyberSource in its definitive proxy statement filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 11, 2010.

The agreed-upon settlement is subject to the execution of
definitive documentation, confirmatory discovery, notice to the
shareholder class and final approval by the Superior Court.  Upon
final approval, the class action lawsuit will be dismissed with
prejudice and all claims of the plaintiffs will be released.

CyberSource Corporation -- http://www.cybersource.com/-- is a  
provider of electronic payment and risk management solutions. Its
solutions enable electronic payment processing for Web, call
center, and point-of-sale environments.  CyberSource partners
with and connects to a network of payment processors and other
payment service providers to offer merchants a single source
solution.  Its payment solutions allow e-Commerce merchants to
accept a range of online payment options, from credit cards and
electronic checks, to global payment options and payment types.  
CyberSource also offers industry risk management solutions to
help online merchants address complexities, such as credit card
fraud, online tax requirements, and export controls.  Its
Professional Services help to design, integrate, and optimize
commerce transaction processing systems for merchants.   
CyberSource markets its solutions under two brands: CyberSource
Advanced for and Authorize.Net.


CYTEC INDUSTRIES: Sued in E.D. La. Over 2009 Ammonia Leak
---------------------------------------------------------
Michelle Massey at The Louisiana Record reports that a recently
filed class action blames faulty equipment and negligent
operation for a July 2009 ammonia leak at a Cytec plant.

On behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Carol
Bernhard filed suit against Cytec Industries, Cytec Ammonia and
Cytec Melamine July 6 in federal court in New Orleans.

In July 2009, a power failure at the Cytec plant in Waggaman,
caused an ammonia leak. However, Bernhard says this is not the
first ammonia leak at the plant and that the company had a
history of discharging ammonia into the environment because of
faulty equipment and negligent operation.

"Cytec was aware that a power outage would cause multiple
equipment failure at the plant, but did not provide for automatic
shutoff or backup power," the lawsuit reads.

The defendants are accused of negligence for releasing a
hazardous, harmful and toxic substance into the atmosphere,
failing to properly handle and contain the harmful substance and
for allowing to exist a hazardous situation consisting of faulty
and insufficient procedures and work practices.

Bernhard also argues Cytec failed to properly warn the public to
keep away from the substance, failed to timely warn, failed to
timely bring the situation under control, failed to properly
inspect their equipment and plant facility to assure equipment
and personnel were fit for their intended purposes, and acted in
a careless and negligent manner without due regard for the safety
of others.

The lawsuit claims Cytec is negligent for conducting an
abnormally dangerous and ultra-hazardous activity and strict
liability for creating a public and private nuisance.

On behalf of the class, Bernhard is seeking more than $5 million
in damages for personal injuries, emotional distress,
inconvenience, loss of income, loss of the beneficial use,
enjoyment and exclusive possession of their property, physical
and emotional pain and suffering, attorney fees, interest and
court costs.

The proposed class is represented by Jennifer Willis and William
Buckley of Willis & Buckley in New Orleans.

U.S. District Judge Martin L.C. Feldman is assigned to the case.

Case No. 2:10cv01905


EVERGREEN ROYALLE: Calif. Court Certifies Short-Stay Tenant Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
         LEGAL NOTICE TO CURRENT OR FORMER RESIDENTS OF
                  EVERGREEN ROYALLE APARTMENTS

TO: All persons who rented apartments at Evergreen Royalle in
    Anaheim, California, on or after October 9, 2005 and signed
    Occupancy Agreements limiting their stay to a period of 28
    days or less.

A lawsuit is pending in the Orange County Superior Court that may
impact you.  The case is Joleen Lavergne v. Evergreen Royalle,
Ltd., case number 30-2008-00212468.  The Court has ordered that
this case proceed as a class action.  You may be a member of the
class and may be entitled to compensation if the lawsuit is
successful in the future.  For important information regarding
this lawsuit, you should view the entire Class Notice at
http://www.lakeshorelaw.org/and then click on the link to  
Evergreen Royalle on the home page.  If you do not have access to
the Internet, call 1-888-221-2292 for further information.  There
are pending legal deadlines so you should follow these
instructions as soon as possible.

                                   BY ORDER OF THE COURT:
     Dated: July 6, 2010           by Thierry P. Colaw
                                   Judge of the Superior Court


EMMIS COMMS: Faces Consolidated Shareholder Suit in Indiana
-----------------------------------------------------------
Emmis Communications Corporation defends a consolidated suit
captioned In re: Emmis Shareholder Litigation, according to the
company's July 15, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended May 31,
2010.

On April 26, 2010, JS Acquisition, Inc., a corporation then owned
entirely by the company's Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and
President, Mr. Jeffrey H. Smulyan, and Alden Global Capital
entered into a non-binding Letter of Intent with respect to a
series of transactions relating to the equity securities of
Emmis.

As a result of the proposed tender offer, a number of purported
class actions were filed against various combinations of Emmis,
JS Acquisition, Alden, and members of the board of directors.  
Five such class actions are:

     (1) Fritzi Ross, on behalf of herself and all others
         similarly situated vs. Jeffrey H. Smulyan, Susan B.
         Bayh, Gary L. Kaseff, Richard A. Leventhal, Peter A.
         Lund, Greg A. Nathanson, Lawrence B. Sorrel, Patrick M.
         Walsh, Emmis Communications Corporation, JS
         Acquisition, Inc., and Alden Global Capital;
         Cause No. 49D13 1004 MF 019005, filed April 27, 2010;

     (2) Charles Hinkle, on behalf of himself and all others
         similarly situated vs. Susan Bayh, Gary Kaseff, Richard
         Leventhal, Peter Lund, Greg Nathanson, Jeffrey H.
         Smulyan, Lawrence Sorrel, Patrick Walsh, and Emmis
         Communications Corporation;
         Cause No. 49D10 1004 PL 019747, filed April 30, 2010;

     (3) William McQueen, on behalf of himself and all others
         similarly situated vs. Jeffrey H. Smulyan, Susan B.
         Bayh, Gary L. Kaseff, Richard A. Leventhal, Peter A.
         Lund, Greg A. Nathanson, Lawrence B. Sorrel, Patrick M.
         Walsh, JS Acquisition, Inc., and Alden Global Capital;
         Cause No. 49D02 1005 MF 020013, filed May 3, 2010;

     (4) David Jarosclawicz, on behalf of himself and all others
         similarly situated vs. Jeffrey H. Smulyan, Susan B.
         Bayh, Gary L. Kaseff, Richard A. Leventhal, Peter A.
         Lund, Greg A. Nathanson, Lawrence B. Sorrel, Patrick M.
         Walsh, JS Acquisition, Incorporated, and Emmis
         Communications Corporation; Cause No. 49D03 1005 PL
         020506, filed May 6, 2010; and

     (5) Timothy Stabosz, on behalf of himself and all others
         similarly situated vs. Susan Bayh, Gary Kaseff, Richard
         Leventhal, Peter Lund, Greg Nathanson, Jeffrey H.
         Smulyan, Lawrence Sorrel, Patrick Walsh, and Emmis
         Communications Corporation; Cause No. 49D11 1005 PL
         021432, filed May 12, 2010;

On May 6, 2010, Plaintiffs in the Jarosclawicz action served
initial discovery requests on Defendants.

On May 10, 2010, Plaintiffs in the Ross and McQueen actions moved
to consolidate those two actions into one and also moved for the
appointment of Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation and
Kroger Gardis & Regas, LLP as Interim Co-Lead Counsel.  By order
dated May 11, 2010, the Court conditionally approved the
consolidation and set a hearing for June 1, 2010 on the issue of
lead counsel.

On May 14, 2010, Plaintiffs in the Stabosz action served initial
discovery requests on Defendants.

On May 20, 2010, Plaintiffs in the Stabosz action filed a Motion
for Expedited Response to certain document requests.

On May 20, 2010, Plaintiffs in the Hinkle, Jarosclawicz, and
Stabosz actions moved to consolidate those actions into the
Ross/McQueen action.

On May 21, 2010, certain of the Defendants in the Ross action
filed a Motion for Change of Venue from the Judge. By Order dated
May 24, 2010, the Court granted the motion, and a new judge has
qualified.

On May 26, 2010, the law firms representing the Stabosz and
Hinkle Plaintiffs filed in the Ross, Stabosz, and Hinkle actions
motions to appoint Cohen & Malad LLP and Wolf Popper LLP as co-
lead counsel and in opposition to the appointment of Brower Piven
and Kroger Gardis & Regas, LLP as co-lead counsel.

On May 28, 2010, the law firms representing the plaintiffs in the
Ross and McQueen cases filed a memorandum in opposition to the
consolidation of the Stabosz, Hinkle and Jarosclawicz cases and
further moved to stay those two actions.  In addition, those
firms moved for expedited discovery from the defendants.

Also on May 28, 2010, the plaintiff in Hinkle filed an emergency
motion for preliminary injunction to enjoin the defendants from
taking any steps to complete the transaction.  That plaintiff
also requested expedited discovery from the defendants and the
setting of an expedited briefing schedule.

On June 8, 2010, Defendants filed an Objection to Plaintiffs'
Motion for Expedited Discovery. Also on June 8, Plaintiffs in the
Hinkle and Stabosz actions filed Amended Complaints.

On June 9, 2010, the Court in the Ross action granted Plaintiffs'
Motion to Consolidate Related Actions, consolidating the Hinkle,
McQueen, Jarosclawicz, and Stabosz actions into the Ross action
before Judge Moberly.  The consolidated action was re-captioned
In re: Emmis Shareholder Litigation by order of the Court dated
June 15, 2010.

Also, on June 9, 2010, Plaintiffs Stabosz and Hinkle filed a
Reply in Further Support of Their Motions for Expedited Discovery
and Preliminary Injunction.  On June 10, 2010, Defendants moved
to dismiss the five consolidated purported class actions.

On June 11, 2010, Defendants filed a Sur-Reply in Opposition to
Motions for Expedited Discovery by Plaintiffs Stabosz and Hinkle.  
On June 14, 2010, Plaintiffs Stabosz and Hinkle filed their
Response to Defendants' Sur-Reply in Opposition to Motions for
Expedited Discovery.

On June 15, 2010, the Court issued an Order Appointing Cohen &
Malad, LLP and Wolf Popper LLP as Co-Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs,
and also issued an Order Granting Plaintiff's Motion to Expedite
Response to Document Requests and For Four Depositions of
Defendants and their Representatives Relating to Emergency Motion
for Preliminary Injunction.  The parties currently are exchanging
discovery in accordance with the latter order pursuant to an
agreed-upon schedule.

On June 25, 2010, Alden filed a joinder in the Motion to Dismiss
filed on June 10, 2010. The joinder was filed in the four actions
in which Alden was named as a defendant - the Ross, Hinkle,
McQueen, and Stabosz actions.

The parties agreed to a Stipulation and Proposed Order Relating
to the Scheduling of Depositions, Briefing, and Hearing on
Plaintiffs' Emergency Motion for Preliminary Injunction and
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss in In re: Emmis Shareholder
Litigation, which was entered by the Court on July 2, 2010.
Pursuant to the Scheduling Stipulation, depositions were taken
and concluded by June 30, 2010.

On July 3, 2010, also pursuant to the Scheduling Stipulation,
Plaintiffs served on Defendants their Memorandum of Law in
Support of Their Motion for Preliminary Injunction and in
Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss.  Pursuant to the
Scheduling Stipulation, Defendants' response is due on July 10,
2010, and Plaintiff's reply is due on July 14, 2010.

A hearing on Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction in In
re: Emmis Shareholder Litigation was scheduled for July 19, 2010.

Headquartered in Indianapolis, Indiana, Emmis Communications
Corporation -- http://www.emmis.com/-- owns and operates radio
stations and magazine publications in the U.S. and in Europe.


EMMIS COMMS: Motion to Consolidate "Frank" with "Ross" Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
The motion of Richard Frank to have his suit against Emmis
Communications Corporation consolidated with the suit filed by
Fritzi Ross, remains pending, according to the company's
July 15, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended May 31, 2010.

On April 26, 2010, JS Acquisition, Inc., a corporation then owned
entirely by the company's Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and
President, Mr. Jeffrey H. Smulyan, and Alden Global Capital
entered into a non-binding Letter of Intent with respect to a
series of transactions relating to the equity securities of
Emmis.

As a result of the proposed tender offer, a number of purported
class actions were filed against various combinations of Emmis,
JS Acquisition, Alden, and members of the board of directors.

On June 4, 2010, a purported class action complaint was filed,
styled Richard Frank v. Jeffrey H. Smulyan, Susan Bayh, Gary
Kaseff, Richard Leventhal, Peter Lund, Greg Nathanson, Lawrence
Sorrel, Patrick Walsh, Emmis Communications Corporation, JS
Acquisition, Inc., JS Acquisition, LLC, and Alden Global Capital,
Cause No. 49D10 1006 PL 025149.

The Frank action was filed in the Marion Superior Court in
Indiana.  Since that time, Plaintiff Frank has filed motions
seeking to have his case consolidated into the Ross matter and to
have his counsel appointed as lead counsel for a Preferred Stock
Class, the latter having been opposed by Plaintiffs Hinkle and
Stabosz.  The motions filed by Plaintiff Frank remain pending.

Headquartered in Indianapolis, Indiana, Emmis Communications
Corporation -- http://www.emmis.com/-- owns and operates radio
stations and magazine publications in the U.S. and in Europe.


EMMIS COMMS: Faces "Primich" Action Over JS Tender Offer
--------------------------------------------------------
Emmis Communications Corporation faces a purported class action
complaint styled Ted Primich v. Jeffrey Smulyan, Patrick Walsh,
Susan Bayh, Gary Kaseff, Richard Leventhal, Lawrence Sorrel, Greg
Nathanson, Peter Lund, Emmis Communications Corporation, JS
Acquisition, Inc., and JS Acquisition, LLC, action number 1:10-
cv-0782SEB-TAB, according to the company's July 15, 2010, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended May 31, 2010.

On April 26, 2010, JS Acquisition, Inc., a corporation then owned
entirely by the company's Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and
President, Mr. Jeffrey H. Smulyan, and Alden Global Capital
entered into a non-binding Letter of Intent with respect to a
series of transactions relating to the equity securities of
Emmis.

As a result of the proposed tender offer, a number of purported
class actions were filed against various combinations of Emmis,
JS Acquisition, Alden, and members of the board of directors.

The Primich action was filed on June 18, 2010, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Indiana.  This is the
seventh purported class action against the company in connection
with the proposed tender offer of JS Acquisition.

Headquartered in Indianapolis, Indiana, Emmis Communications
Corporation -- http://www.emmis.com/-- owns and operates radio
stations and magazine publications in the U.S. and in Europe.


ENTERGY CORP: Settlement Negotiations Start in 11-Year-Old-Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alejandro de los Rios at The Louisiana Record reports that an 11-
year-old class action suit against the New Orleans energy company
Entergy has entered settlement negotiations in Orleans Parish
Civil District Court, according to court records.

Reverend C.S. Gordon Jr. on behalf of the New Zion Baptist
Church, Michael Malek, Darryl Malek-Wiley, Willie Webb Jr. and
Quality Inn Maison St. Charles are the lead plaintiffs in a case
over claims that Entergy violated Louisiana anti-trust laws and
overcharged customers after a rate adjustment in 1999.

The case had been scheduled for a hearing July 12 on several
motions for broad exceptions filed by the defendants, but was
continued without date. Court documents showed that the parties
had entered negotiations for a settlement.

New Orleans attorney Walter Thompson Jr. is the lead counsel for
the class. New Orleans attorneys Mark Seyler, Edwin Murray,
Michael Darnell; Baton Rouge attorneys Larry Roedel, Kenton
Parson, C.J. Blache, Luke Piontek; and Lafayette attorneys Bob
Wright, and James Parkerson Roy are also acting as class counsel.

The named defendants are Entergy New Orleans Inc. (ENO), Entergy
Corp., Entergy Services Inc., and Entergy Power Inc.

New Orleans attorneys Marcus Brown, Ewell Eagan Jr., Philip Antis
Jr., Brian Guillot, Richard Stanley, William Ross and Thomas Owen
Jr. are acting as defense counsel.

Judge Robin Giarusso is overseeing this case.

In February 2005, the case went before the New Orleans City
Council, which voted unanimously on Resolution No. R-04-66, that
while Entergy had overcharged customers in excess of $27 million,
ratepayers were not entitled to a full refund.

In May 2005, Judge Giarusso signed a judgment affirming the City
Council's decisions, stating: "Council's decision not to order
refunds resulting from the system's use of a margin in making
power purchases in the wholesale market is supported by the
evidence in the record, and is affirmed. The Council's decision
to require ENO to provide and annual analysis of third-party
offers to demonstrate that the use of the margin remains an
effective tool to secure power at the lowest reasonable cost is
supported by the evidence in the record and is affirmed."

The class appealed the City Council's decision to the Louisiana
Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, claiming that Entergy's
"improper or imprudent fuel adjustment charges exceeded $90
million since 1985."

The class counsel also claimed that, during the City Council
hearings, the Council's own experts determined that Entergy's
overcharges exceeded $34 million and they recommended a refund.

The Fourth Circuit overturned the City Council's ruling, stating
that the Council had acted arbitrarily in denying refunds for the
full amount of improper charges.

After Hurricane Katrina struck New Orleans, Entergy filed for
Chapter 11 bankruptcy and pleaded in bankruptcy court that the
case be withdrawn.

The class action was removed to Federal court in 2006 (Case No.
2006-0846).

In February 2006, the bankruptcy court lifted a stay to permit
plaintiffs to go through appeal and in October 2006, the Federal
Court of the Eastern District of Louisina affirmed the bankruptcy
court's decision without prejudice.

Orleans Parish Case 1999-05707


FEDEX CORP: Class in "Wiegele" Wage-and-Hour Suit Decertified
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class in a suit styled Wiegele v. FedEx Ground, filed against
FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., has been decertified,
according to FedEx Corporation's July 15, 2010, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended May 31, 2010.  FedEx Ground is one of FedEx Corp.'s
business segments.

In February 2008, the suit was certified as a class action by a
California federal court, and in April 2008, the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied the company's petition to
review the class certification ruling.

The certified class initially included FedEx Ground sort managers
and dock service managers in California from May 10, 2002 to the
present, but the court subsequently approved the dismissal of the
sort managers, leaving only the dock service managers in the
class.

The plaintiffs allege that FedEx Ground has misclassified the
managers as exempt from the overtime requirements of California
wage-and-hour laws and is correspondingly liable for failing to
pay them overtime compensation and provide them with rest and
meal breaks.

In April 2010, the court granted the company's motion to
decertify the class, and thus the lawsuit continues as a non-
class matter. Therefore, the company says, any potential loss in
this matter is immaterial.

FedEx Corp. -- http://www.fedex.com/-- provides a portfolio of  
transportation, e-commerce and business services through
companies that compete collectively, operate independently and
manage collaboratively, under the respected FedEx brand.  These
companies are included in four segments: FedEx Express, Federal
Express Corp., is an express transportation company, offering
time-certain delivery within 1 to 3 business days; FedEx Ground,
FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., is a provider of small-package
ground delivery service; FedEx Freight, FedEx Freight Corp., is a
provider of less-than-truckload (LTL) freight services through
its FedEx Freight business (regional next-day and second-day and
interregional LTL freight services) and its FedEx National LTL
business (long-haul LTL freight services), and FedEx Services,
FedEx Corporate Services, Inc. provides sales, marketing and
information technology support, as well as customer service
support through FedEx Customer Information Services, Inc.


FEDEX CORP: Faces Claim of Failure to Pay Regular Wages
-------------------------------------------------------
FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., one of FedEx Corporation's
business segments, continues to face a class claim of failure to
pay regular wages due under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act
in the matter Tidd v. Adecco USA, Kelly Services and FedEx
Ground, according to the company's July 15, 2010, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended May 31, 2010.

In September 2008, a Massachusetts federal court conditionally
certified a class limited to individuals who were employed by two
temporary employment agencies and who worked as temporary pick-
up-and-delivery drivers for FedEx Ground in the New England
region within the past three years.  Potential claimants must
voluntarily "opt in" to the lawsuit in order to be considered
part of the class.

In addition, in the same opinion, the court granted summary
judgment in favor of FedEx Ground with respect to the plaintiffs'
claims for unpaid overtime wages.  The court has since granted
judgment in favor of the other two defendants with respect to the
overtime claims.

Accordingly, the conditionally certified class of plaintiffs is
now limited to a claim of failure to pay regular wages due under
the federal Fair Labor Standards Act.

FedEx Corp. -- http://www.fedex.com/-- provides a portfolio of  
transportation, e-commerce and business services through
companies that compete collectively, operate independently and
manage collaboratively, under the respected FedEx brand.  These
companies are included in four segments: FedEx Express, Federal
Express Corp., is an express transportation company, offering
time-certain delivery within 1 to 3 business days; FedEx Ground,
FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., is a provider of small-package
ground delivery service; FedEx Freight, FedEx Freight Corp., is a
provider of less-than-truckload (LTL) freight services through
its FedEx Freight business (regional next-day and second-day and
interregional LTL freight services) and its FedEx National LTL
business (long-haul LTL freight services), and FedEx Services,
FedEx Corporate Services, Inc. provides sales, marketing and
information technology support, as well as customer service
support through FedEx Customer Information Services, Inc.


FEDEX CORP: Express Continues to Defend "Bibo" Wage & Hour Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
A business segment of FedEx Corporation, Federal Express
Corporation continues to defend the wage-and-hour case captioned
Bibo v. FedEx Express.

In April 2009, a California federal court granted class
certification, certifying several subclasses of FedEx Express
couriers in California from April 14, 2006 (the date of the
settlement of the Foster class action) to the present.

The plaintiffs allege that FedEx Express violated California
wage-and-hour laws after the date of the Foster settlement.  In
particular, the plaintiffs allege, among other things, that they
were forced to work "off the clock" and were not provided with
required meal breaks or split-shift premiums.

The company asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
to accept a discretionary appeal of the class certification
order, but the court refused to accept it at this time, according
to the company's July 15, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended May
31, 2010.

FedEx Corp. -- http://www.fedex.com/-- provides a portfolio of  
transportation, e-commerce and business services through
companies that compete collectively, operate independently and
manage collaboratively, under the respected FedEx brand.  These
companies are included in four segments: FedEx Express, Federal
Express Corp., is an express transportation company, offering
time-certain delivery within 1 to 3 business days; FedEx Ground,
FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., is a provider of small-package
ground delivery service; FedEx Freight, FedEx Freight Corp., is a
provider of less-than-truckload (LTL) freight services through
its FedEx Freight business (regional next-day and second-day and
interregional LTL freight services) and its FedEx National LTL
business (long-haul LTL freight services), and FedEx Services,
FedEx Corporate Services, Inc. provides sales, marketing and
information technology support, as well as customer service
support through FedEx Customer Information Services, Inc.


FEDEX CORP: FedEx Freight Defends "Taylor" Wage-and-Hour Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
One of FedEx Corporation's subsidiaries, FedEx Freight
Corporation, defends a purported class action suit over alleged
violation of California wage and hour laws captioned Taylor v.
FedEx Freight, according to the company's July 15, 2010, Form 10-
K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended May 31, 2010.

In September 2009, in the wage-and-hour case, a California state
court granted class certification, certifying a class of all
current and former drivers employed by FedEx Freight in
California who performed line haul services since June 2003.

The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that they were forced
to work "off the clock" and were not provided with required rest
or meal breaks.

In May 2010, the company filed a notice to remove this matter to
federal court in California.

FedEx Corp. -- http://www.fedex.com/-- provides a portfolio of  
transportation, e-commerce and business services through
companies that compete collectively, operate independently and
manage collaboratively, under the respected FedEx brand.  These
companies are included in four segments: FedEx Express, Federal
Express Corp., is an express transportation company, offering
time-certain delivery within 1 to 3 business days; FedEx Ground,
FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., is a provider of small-package
ground delivery service; FedEx Freight, FedEx Freight Corp., is a
provider of less-than-truckload (LTL) freight services through
its FedEx Freight business (regional next-day and second-day and
interregional LTL freight services) and its FedEx National LTL
business (long-haul LTL freight services), and FedEx Services,
FedEx Corporate Services, Inc. provides sales, marketing and
information technology support, as well as customer service
support through FedEx Customer Information Services, Inc.


FEDEX CORP: "Anfinson" Suit v. FedEx Ground Pending in Wash.
------------------------------------------------------------
One of FedEx Corporation's business segments, FedEx Ground
Package System, Inc., continues to face a contractor-model
lawsuit, Anfinson v. FedEx Ground.

In January 2008, the Anfinson suit was certified as a class
action by a Washington state court.  The lawsuit is not part of
the multidistrict litigation against FedEx Ground.

The plaintiffs in Anfinson represent a class of FedEx Ground
single-route, pickup-and-delivery owner-operators in Washington
from Dec. 21, 2001 through Dec. 31, 2005, and allege that the
class members should be reimbursed as employees for
their uniform expenses and should receive overtime pay.

In March 2009, a jury trial in the Anfinson case was held, and
the jury returned a verdict in favor of FedEx Ground, finding
that all 320 class members were independent contractors, not
employees.

The plaintiffs have appealed the verdict.

The other contractor-model lawsuits that are not part of the
multidistrict litigation are not as far along procedurally as
Anfinson and all but one of the lawsuits are currently stayed
pending further developments in the multidistrict litigation.

No further updates were reported in the company's July 15, 2010,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended May 31, 2010.

FedEx Corp. -- http://www.fedex.com/-- provides a portfolio of  
transportation, e-commerce and business services through
companies that compete collectively, operate independently and
manage collaboratively, under the respected FedEx brand.  These
companies are included in four segments: FedEx Express, Federal
Express Corp., is an express transportation company, offering
time-certain delivery within 1 to 3 business days; FedEx Ground,
FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., is a provider of small-package
ground delivery service; FedEx Freight, FedEx Freight Corp., is a
provider of less-than-truckload (LTL) freight services through
its FedEx Freight business (regional next-day and second-day and
interregional LTL freight services) and its FedEx National LTL
business (long-haul LTL freight services), and FedEx Services,
FedEx Corporate Services, Inc. provides sales, marketing and
information technology support, as well as customer service
support through FedEx Customer Information Services, Inc.


FEDEX CORP: FedEx Ground's Motion for Summary Judgment Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
FedEx Ground Package System, Inc.'s motions for summary judgment
on the classification issue are pending in all 28 of the pending
multidistrict litigation cases that are certified as class
actions, according to FedEx Corporation's July 15, 2010, Form 10-
K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended May 31, 2010.

FedEx Ground is involved in approximately 50 class-action
lawsuits (including 29 that are certified as class actions),
several individual lawsuits and approximately 40 state tax and
other administrative proceedings that claim that the company's
owner-operators should be treated as employees, rather than
independent contractors.

Most of the class-action lawsuits have been consolidated for
administration of the pre-trial proceedings by a single federal
court, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Indiana.  With the exception of more recently filed cases that
have been or will be transferred to the multidistrict litigation,
discovery on class certification and classification issues is now
complete.  Thus far, the court has granted class certification in
28 cases and denied it in 14 cases.

In June 2010, the court dismissed without prejudice the
previously certified nationwide class claim under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 based on the plaintiff's
failure to exhaust administrative remedies; this claim had been
asserted as part of a Kansas case, and the judge has not yet
issued a summary judgment decision on the remaining state law
claims in that case.

Motions for summary judgment on the classification issue (i.e.,
independent contractor vs. employee) are pending in all 28 of the
pending multidistrict litigation cases that are certified as
class actions.

FedEx Corp. -- http://www.fedex.com/-- provides a portfolio of  
transportation, e-commerce and business services through
companies that compete collectively, operate independently and
manage collaboratively, under the respected FedEx brand.  These
companies are included in four segments: FedEx Express, Federal
Express Corp., is an express transportation company, offering
time-certain delivery within 1 to 3 business days; FedEx Ground,
FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., is a provider of small-package
ground delivery service; FedEx Freight, FedEx Freight Corp., is a
provider of less-than-truckload (LTL) freight services through
its FedEx Freight business (regional next-day and second-day and
interregional LTL freight services) and its FedEx National LTL
business (long-haul LTL freight services), and FedEx Services,
FedEx Corporate Services, Inc. provides sales, marketing and
information technology support, as well as customer service
support through FedEx Customer Information Services, Inc.


H&R BLOCK: Dist. Ct. Rejects "Peace of Mind" Plaintiff Class
------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Korris at The St. Clair Record reports that class action
lawyers complain that H&R Block Tax Services introduced new
evidence in an old case, and Block's lawyers insist they did it
because the class action lawyers introduced new theories.

The dispute taxes the patience of U.S. District Judge Michael
Reagan, who must decide whether to certify a class action over
Block's "peace of mind" coverage.

At a class certification hearing in April, Reagan pronounced a
pox on both houses for introducing new arguments.

He asked for briefs and affidavits to help him make up his mind,
but the responses have only increased the difficulty in the
decision.

On June 24, plaintiff lawyer Frank Janecek of San Diego moved to
strike 50 exhibits and six affidavits that Block submitted after
the hearing.

Janecek wrote that Block should have submitted the exhibits and
affidavits in January, with its memorandum opposing class
certification.

He wrote that "there has been no change in the law or facts to
warrant the submission of new evidence."

"Block's new affidavits describe and comment on entirely new
documents that were not in the record at the time of the
hearing," he wrote.

On June 29, Block lawyer John Clear of St. Louis wrote that the
materials establish beyond doubt that allegations against Block
are absolutely untrue.

He wrote that plaintiffs asked Reagan to find that preparers
followed a uniform script and uniformly omitted information about
the likelihood of needing peace of mind.

"Block was timely in presenting these materials to the court, and
is entitled to rebut the mistaken assertions of fact which had
never been made before," Clear wrote.

"Block moreover acted in compliance with specific instructions
from the court," he wrote.

Preventing the court from considering vital evidence is
hypocritical and unfair when plaintiffs have yet to plead their
claims, he wrote.

The current complaint claims Block failed to disclose that peace
of mind had little or no value, he wrote.

"That has been the way plaintiffs have couched their theory since
2002: an attack on the product itself, not on statistical details
as to tax audits or error rates," Clear wrote.

"Plaintiffs had never asserted a theory that there were omissions
to disclose error and claims rates or sales commissions until
they moved for class certification on these theories on December
3, 2009."

He wrote that on Jan. 19, plaintiffs for the first time espoused
a theory that preparers followed a single uniform script on
computer screens throughout the class period.

The class certification hearing was Block's first opportunity to
respond, he wrote, and Block advised the court that its screen
shots changed every year.

"Plaintiffs complained that it was for some reason unfair for
Block to bring these facts to the court's attention because, they
claimed, they had no prior notice despite the fact that other
screen shots had been produced years before in discovery," he
wrote.

Block also demonstrated that it expected preparers to discuss
peace of mind in their own words, he wrote.

Plaintiffs then asserted that the court could certify a class on
an omission theory because Block failed to provide statistical
information to preparers, he wrote.

"This was the first time such an assertion was made as the basis
for class treatment of an omissions theory," he wrote.

"Block would violate duties to the court if it permitted the
court to make findings of fact on a record that both plaintiffs
and Block know to be incomplete," he wrote.

On July 9, Mark Brown of LakinChapman replied that plaintiffs
misinterpreted Reagan.

"The parties have wildly divergent interpretations of the court's
invitation to submit affidavits authenticating documents on which
either party wished the court to rely in the forthcoming class
certification order," he wrote.

"First, although the same uniform scripts were used for all
customers in any given year, plaintiffs did not mean to suggest
that the scripts went unchanged from year to year," he wrote.

"Second, this argument is a red herring, because whatever the
disclosures may have been from year to year, it is undisputed
that the scripts uniformly omitted the same information at issue
and which plaintiffs consider to be material," he wrote.

"Third, any dispute about the scripts could not even remotely
justify the post hearing submission of defendant's other non
script related documents not previously part of the record," he
wrote.

The former Lakin Law Firm sued Block in Madison County circuit
court in 2002, on behalf of Lorie Marshall and Debra Ramirez.

Associate Judge Ralph Mendelsohn certified a national class
action, and he certified Block Tax Services to represent all
Block entities.

Block Tax Services moved to decertify the class, and Mendelsohn
shrank it to 13 states.

He decertified the defense class, prompting Block to remove the
suit to federal court.

Block claimed Mendelsohn turned it into a new case for purposes
of the national Class Action Fairness Act.

Reagan remanded it to Mendelsohn, but Seventh Circuit appeals
judges in Chicago reversed Reagan.

They wrote that Marshall and Ramirez took Block Tax Services by
surprise in pinning all liability of the former defendant class
on it.

When the case returned to Reagan, he ruled that he would not
honor Mendelsohn's ruling on class certification.


INCO LIMITED: Ont. Ct. Awards C$36 Mil. in Environmental Damages
----------------------------------------------------------------
James Sullivan, Esq., and Robert Fishlock, Esq., at Blake,
Cassels & Graydon LLP, reports that on July 6, 2010, The
Honourable Mr. Justice J. R. Henderson of the Ontario Superior
Court of Justice awarded C$36-million to a class of residents
against Inco Limited (now Vale) for having contaminated their
lands with airborne metals, particularly nickel. This is one of
the first class actions to have gone to trial and the trial judge
had to deal with several novel issues, such as how to calculate
damages on a class-wide basis and how to apply a limitation
period to the entire class. Further, it demonstrates the
potential viability of environmental class actions.

The class action arose as a result of allegations of nickel-soil
contamination in the city of Port Colborne, Ontario (near Niagara
Falls), where Inco had operated a nickel refinery between 1918
and 1984. The class was defined as:

all persons owning residential property since September 20, 2000,
within the area of the City of Port Colborne bounded by Lake Erie
to the north, Neff Road/Michael Road to the east, Third
Concession to the north, Cement Road/Main Street West/Highway 58
to the west, or where such a person is deceased, their heir(s),
executor(s), administrator(s), assign(s) or personal
representative(s) of the estate of the deceased person.

The court estimated that the class was comprised of the owners of
approximately 7,000 residential properties or their
representatives. The defined area encompassed almost all of the
urban area of Port Colborne and some of the rural area located
east of the Welland Canal.

The plaintiffs claimed damages for the diminution of their
property values arising from contamination caused by the Inco
refinery based upon the civil causes of action of trespass,
nuisance and the strict liability doctrine set out in Rylands v.
Fletcher, which concerns the escape of dangerous things. The
plaintiffs had initially included additional claims for personal
injury and adverse health effects. However, it was only after the
plaintiff class members had limited their claim to the diminution
in value of their properties that the action was certified as a
class action (see Pearson v. Inco Limited, 78 O.R. (3d) 278 (Ont.
C.A.)). Hence, the action was concerned solely with the alleged
negative effect of the contamination, if any, on property values
and a corresponding claim for punitive damages.

Although Inco acknowledged that its refinery was the source of
the vast majority of elevated levels of nickel found on the class
members' lands, it denied that it was liable for any of the
causes of action. Inco also raised limitation defences to the
class' claims.

Background

Port Colborne is a city of approximately 18,000 residents,
located on the north shore of Lake Erie bisected by the Welland
Canal. The Inco facility is located in the southeast portion of
the city near Lake Erie, and between 1918 and 1984, when the
nickel refinery ceased operation, nickel and other metal
particles were released into the air and eventually settled onto
the soil of neighbouring properties. In 1998, the Ontario
Ministry of the Environment conducted soil testing in Port
Colborne as part of a phytotoxicological study and, in January
2000, released a report containing the results. This publication
resulted in public disclosure that nickel-soil contamination
existed in a widespread area of the city. The plaintiffs alleged
that the negative publicity and public disclosure concerning the
nickel-soil contamination negatively affected the property values
of the class members. The date of September 20, 2000, which was
used in the class definition, arose from the date the
representative plaintiff received soil test results for its
property, following the release of the Ministry of the
Environment report.

Inco disputed that the negative publicity caused diminution in
the property values and claimed that it was well known prior to
2000 that there was a property with nickel-soil contamination in
the Port Colborne area and that there was no significant
difference between the publicity before and after the report was
released in 2000. Inco also denied it was responsible for any
punitive damages.

Liability

The trial judge found that because there was no intentional
intrusion onto the class members' property, the class members'
claim of trespass was dismissed. However, the trial judge found
that the continued deposit of nickel onto the class members'
property by Inco did fall within the strict liability
requirements of a claim in Rylands v. Fletcher and also in
private nuisance as a consequence of material physical damage to
the class members' properties.

Did the Limitation Period Apply?

Inco ceased refining nickel in Port Colborne in 1984, and the
parties agreed there was no relevant nickel emissions from Inco
after that date. Therefore, Inco argued that the cause of action
arose in 1984, and hence the limitation period had expired by the
end of 1990. As the statement of claim was issued inMarch 2001,
Inco argued that the plaintiff class was statute barred from
maintaining the action.

The plaintiff relied upon the discoverability principle and said
that the cause of action did not arise until sometime after the
year 2000, when the class members first acquired knowledge that
Inco's conduct had caused damage to the value of their property.
The discoverability principle sets out that the limitation period
will not commence until all of the material facts upon which the
action is based have been discovered by the plaintiff or when
they ought to have been discovered by the exercise of reasonable
diligence.

When considering the discoverability issue, the trial judge
considered the fact that the Ministry of the Environment's
phytotoxicological study was publicly released on January 26,
2000, and that after a meeting of real estate board members on
February 15, 2000, most real estate agents in the Port Colborne
area started to insert clauses concerning nickel-soil
contaminations into agreements of purchase and sale. The trial
judge concluded that it was only after the Ministry of the
Environment's phytotoxicological study was released that the
general public became aware of the potential impact of nickel-
soil contamination on property values. The trial judge noted that
if real estate agents were not aware until January 2000 of the
potential effect of nickel-soil contamination on property values,
it is extremely unlikely that most members of the public knew or
ought to have known the effect of nickel-soil contamination on
property values until at least that time.

The trial judge went on to consider whether the limitation period
in a class action started to run when all of the class members
knew or ought to have known of the material facts or only when
one of the class members knew or ought to have known of the
material facts. The trial judge held that even if there were a
few class members who knew or ought to have known the material
facts upon which the claims were based prior to February 15,
2000, those class members would constitute only an insignificant
minority of the members of the class. The trial judge found that
the overwhelming majority of the class members did not know, and
ought not to have known, of the material facts until
approximately February 15, 2000. Therefore, in the context of the
class proceeding, the trial judge held that the cause of action
arose as of February 15, 2000, and therefore that the action was
not barred by the limitation period.

Calculation of Damages

Both the plaintiff and Inco called expert evidence on the mass
valuation of real property. They also tendered statistical
analyses of the mass valuation evidence. The trial judge
considered the expert evidence when determining whether the
negative publicity concerning nickel contamination on the real
property in Port Colborne had a negative effect on the property
values. He followed expert evidence that recommended that
Welland, Ontario, was a comparative city for the purposes of
analyzing the changes in property values in Port Colborne.
Ultimately, the trial judge found that there had been a downward
drop in property values in Port Colborne starting in the year
2000. This was evidenced by a decrease in sales volume and a
decrease in property values. The trial judge calculated the loss
of the value of the properties to average C$4,514 per property
for the 7,165 residential properties impacted for a total of
C$35,954,010, which he rounded up to C$36-million.

Punitive Damages

The court held that Inco's conduct in the case did not justify an
award of punitive damages. While Inco's conduct had caused
widespread damage to the class and effected several thousand
people, its conduct could not be seen as so malicious or
oppressive that it offended the court's sense of decency and
warranted an award of punitive damages.

Conclusion

This is one of the first class actions in Canada to go through a
full common-issues trial. The reasons for judgment, which are
lengthy (97 pages), indicate the difficulty of calculating
damages on a class-wide basis. The award of significant damages
arising from operations that ceased in 1984 will be of concern
for any current or past commercial operation. Given the novel
issues determined in this class action trial, it is likely that
it will be appealed.

Historically, it has been difficult to certify environmental
class actions in any province, other than Quebec. This decision
will undoubtedly embolden plaintiffs' counsel to bring more
environmental class-action claims.


LAKE COUNTY: District Court Okays Prisoner Class Action Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Susan Brown at NWI.com reports that the court has approved a
class action lawsuit as the way to resolve the federal lawsuit
initially filed by seven former detainees at the Lake County
Jail.

Since the original filing, dozens of additional people have
contacted the plaintiffs' Chicago-based law firm of Loevy and
Loevy with similar complaints about conditions at the jail.
"There's over 40 people who have filed sworn statements
describing the same brutal and inhumane treatment taking place at
that jail," said Mike Kanovitz, lead attorney on the case for
Loevy and Loevy.

The decision by Chief Judge Philip Simon, filed late Thursday,
could potentially capture tens of thousands of people detained in
the jail's holding cells.

Lake County Sheriff Rogelio "Roy" Dominguez declined comment,
deferring to the department's attorney, John Kopack.

Kopack said he and County Attorney John Dull will be meeting with
their clients Tuesday to discuss their options, which include
appealing the court's decision.

The lawsuit contends certain conditions, such as detaining
defendants in the holding cells for days without a mattress or a
bed, are unconstitutional. The lawsuit also cited unsanitary
conditions and a lack of food.

Simon ruled Loevy and Loevy had met the federal requirements for
the court to certify a class action. He defined the class as
those detainees confined in the holding cells for more than 24
hours on or after May 13, 2006.

Attorneys for the jail had argued the plaintiffs had failed to
meet the requirements and the complaints should be addressed on
an individual basis.

But Simon concluded class certification to be more efficient than
multiple individual suits.

Attorneys for both sides say the next stage will include the
preparation of the court's notice to potential members of the
class action.

Kanovitz said potential members also may contact the firm by
calling (877) 722-2928 or at lcjail@loevy.com by e-mail.


LAWSON SOFTWARE: Motion to Decertify FLSA Claim Pending
-------------------------------------------------------
Lawson Software, Inc.'s motion to decertify the Fair Labor
Standards Act collective action remains pending, according to the
company's July 16, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended May
31, 2010.


On May 20, 2008, a putative class action lawsuit was filed
against the company in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of current and former business,
systems, and technical consultants.

The suit, Cruz, et. al., v. Lawson Software, Inc. et. al.,
alleged that the company failed to pay overtime wages pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act and state law, and alleged
violations of state record-keeping requirements.  The suit also
alleged certain violations of ERISA and unjust enrichment.  
Relief sought includes back wages, corresponding 401(k) plan
credits, liquidated damages, penalties, interest and attorneys'
fees.

The company successfully moved the case from the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York to the District of
Minnesota.  The Minnesota Federal District Court conditionally
certified the case under the FLSA as a collective action and
granted the company's motion to dismiss the two ERISA counts and
the state wage and hour claims.  Plaintiffs moved for Rule 23
class certification but the Court denied their motion.

At the present time, the size of the class is limited to the 68
consultants who elected to participate in the lawsuit by filing
opt-in forms.  The overtime period at issue is two years, which
would be increased to three years if the plaintiffs proved that
the company intentionally violated the applicable wage and hour
laws.

The plaintiffs' damages expert claims total aggregate damages of
$10.3 million for a two year period for the 68 consultants and an
additional $2.9 million in aggregate damages if the overtime
period is three years.

On June 30, 2010, Lawson filed a motion to de-certify the FLSA
collective action, which, if granted, would limit the action to
the five named plaintiffs.  That motion will not be heard until
No., 2010.

As permitted by the present scheduling order, the company plans
to file a motion for summary judgment asking for dismissal of
remaining class members based on their performance of exempt
duties and/or making more than $100,000 per year.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Llezlie Lloren Green, Esq.
          Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, PLLC
          1100 New York Ave., N.W.
          Suite 500, West Tower
          Washington, D.C., DC 20005
          Phone: 202-408-4600
          Fax: 202-408-4699
          E-mail: lgreen@cmht.com

Representing the defendants are:

          Loretta Mae Gastwirth, Esq.
          Meltzer, Lippe, Goldstein & Breitstone, LLP
          190 Willis Avenue
          Mineola, NY 11501
          Phone: 516-747-0300
          Fax: 516-747-0653
          E-mail: lgastwirth@meltzerlippe.com

               - and -

          Sara Gullickson McGrane, Esq.
          Felhaber, Larson, Fenlon & Vogt, P.A.
          220 S. Sixth Street, Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Phone: 612-373-8511
          Fax: 612-338-0535
          E-mail: smcgrane@felhaber.com


ORCHARDS HOTEL: Settles 150 Employee Wage Claims for $240,000
-------------------------------------------------------------
Meghan Foley at New England Newspapers reports that The Orchards
Hotel has agreed to a $240,000 proposed settlement in a class
action lawsuit involving approximately 150 current and former
hourly employees.

Attorney Paul Holtzman, who is representing the employees, said
Thursday while the settlement still has to receive final approval
from the court, the "range of recovery" some employees will
receive will be thousands of dollars in unpaid wages, tips and
damages.

"We've gotten terrific feedback from members of the class who are
delighted to be able to finally recover wages they earned through
their hard work, but have not yet received," he said.

According to court documents, the settlement involves people
employed by The Orchards Hotel between Aug. 15, 2006, and Aug.
23, 2008.

The Orchards was purchased by current owner HCC Orchards LP on
Aug. 15, 2006, from International Hotel Management and
Development Inc. for approximately $6.3 million, according to
real estate documents.

HCC Orchards LP is listed as a defendant in the case as well as
Hay Creek Hospitality LLC, which has an ownership interest in The
Orchards; Hay Creek Management Company, a New Hampshire
corporation which manages The Orchards; and former General
Manager Scott Frankel.

The lead plaintiff in the case is Deborah Mabey.

With state law ordering food establishments found to be
withholding wages and tips to pay employees up to three times as
much as they're owed, the employees at The Orchards will receive
between two and three times what they were owed in wages and
tips, Holtzman said.

"The settlement is not only the recovery each employee is owed,
but a multiple of what is owed," he said.

He said the case involved a portion of service charges -- which
are added onto bills at the end of banquets, weddings and large
events -- being withheld from servers, and all hotel and
restaurant staff working at least eight-hour shifts were having
30-minute meal breaks deducted from their paychecks even though
they weren't receiving them.

"What we alleged in this case was a portion of [the service
charge] was going to managers, the sales department, and others
who aren't permitted under law to dip into this money intended
for waitstaff," he said.

Of the 20 percent "service charge," one-fourth or 5 percent was
allegedly not going to the waitstaff, he said.

"There were employees who were concerned the numbers didn't seem
to add up. They were also concerned they were not getting clear
answers to their questions," he said.

Efforts to reach a representative from The Orchards Hotel
Thursday afternoon for comment were unsuccessful.

Holtzman said he commends The Orchards Hotel for addressing the
issue promptly.

"Once we brought up the lawsuit, they moved promptly to seek a
settlement and a resolution, and agreed to what we think is
important relief," he said.

In addition to receiving unpaid wages, tips and damages,
requiring transparency in sharing information between the hotel's
managers and waitstaff was included in the settlement, Holtzman
said.

"There can't be any mystery or confusion as to where the money is
going," he said.

The settlement, which was reached on Feb. 4, received preliminary
approval from Berkshire Superior Court in Pittsfield on May 27,
according to court documents.

A fairness hearing on the settlement will be held on Sept. 8 in
Berkshire Superior Court to determine if the court should grant
it final approval, court documents stated.

Holtzman said businesses withholding employee wages and tips is a
widespread problem in Massachusetts and nationwide.

Holtzman is an attorney with Krokidas & Bluestein LLP, the firm
that represented employees of Canyon Ranch in Lenox in a lawsuit
claiming the business unlawfully retained employee wages.


PATRIOTS FEDERAL: Settles Calif. ATM Fee Lawsuit for $25,500
------------------------------------------------------------
              PATRIOTS FEDERAL CREDIT UNION ATM
              NOTICE of CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

Zintel v. Patriots Federal Credit Union, Case No. CV09-5519

IF YOU USED THE PATRIOTS FEDERAL CREDIT UNION ATM REFERENCED IN
THE NEXT PARAGRAPH BETWEEN JULY 29, 2008, AND JULY 28, 2009, AND
WERE CHARGED A FEE FOR THE USE OF THAT ATM, YOU MAY BE A CLASS
MEMBER.  THIS SETTLEMENT MAY AFFECT YOUR RIGHTS.

This Notice relates only to one (1) specific Patriots Federal
Credit Union ATM, located at 431 N. Tustin, Suite A, Santa Ana,
California, and concerns a lawsuit about charging of fees at this
ATM. Mrs. Zintel sued Patriots Federal Credit Union under a law
called the Electronic Funds Transfer Act on the grounds that the
ATM did not have an externally posted fee notice. Patriots
Federal Credit Union denies Mrs. Zintel's claims but has agreed
to a settlement of the case. The settlement includes everyone who
was charged a fee for using the ATM to access a personal (not
business) account between July 29, 2008 and July 28, 2009. These
people are called "Class Members," and the time period that is
covered is called the "Class Period." Under the law, the maximum
that a group of people may recover in a case like this one is the
lesser of 1% of Patriots Federal Credit Union's net worth or
$500,000, plus any actual damages that the class members
suffered. Patriots Federal has stated that during the Class
Period, there were approximately 746 transactions who were
charged ATM fees at the subject ATM(s) during the Class Period.
Patriots Federal Credit Union has agreed to establish a
Settlement Fund of $25,500 to settle the case. Class Members may
make a claim on the Settlement Fund to receive a pro rata share,
up to a maximum of $100, so the attorneys believe that a
settlement allowing Class Members to make a claim for up to $100
is fair and reasonable. The Settlement Fund will also be used to
pay the costs of notifying Class Members of the Settlement and to
process their claims, the Law Offices Of Michael T. Harrison who
filed the lawsuit his reasonable attorney fees which will not be
more than $8,545.50, and Mrs. Zintel $1,000 for her services as
the class representative. The class award amount was arrived at
by ensuring that each class member would be compensated fairly
after all expenses were deducted from the Settlement Fund. After
deducting the class representative fee, notification expenses and
attorney fees, each class member will be entitled to
approximately 500% to 700% of his or her actual damages. On
September 13, 2010 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 14, Judge A. Howard
Matz will hold a hearing to decide where to finally approve this
settlement. Although you have the right to attend if you so
choose, YOU DO NOT NEED TO ATTEND. If the settlement is approved,
all Class Members will be bound by the resting judgment and court
orders, and eligible Class Members will be entitled to claim
benefits under the settlement. You have three choices: (1) If you
want to receive your pro rata share of the Settlement Fund, up to
a maximum of $100.00, you must submit a completed Claim Form,
postmarked by August 18, 2010 to the Settlement Administrator at:

          Law Offices of Michael T. Harrison
          25876 The Old Road, #304
          Stevenson Ranch, CA 91381

Failure to submit a Claim Form will mean you receive no money but
are still governed by a Release of your rights to sue Patriots
Federal Credit Union for the ATM fee notice claims as set forth
in the Settlement Agreement. Download a Claim Form at
http://www.morecaseinfo.com/or call Class Counsel at  
(661) 257-2854 to request a Claim Form. (2) If you do not want to
participate in the Settlement and want to retain any right you
may have to pursue your claim separately, you must write a letter
stating "EXCLUDE ME FROM THE ZINTEL V. PATRIOTS FEDERAL CREDIT
UNION SETTLEMENT." Include your name and address and mail the
letter to the Settlement Administrator at Law Offices Of Michael
T. Harrison, 25876 The Old Road, Stevenson Ranch, CA 91381. Your
letter must be postmarked by August 18, 2010 to be valid. (3) If
you think the Settlement is unfair, you may object to it by
setting forth, in writing, your reasons for any objection with
the Court at 312 N. Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012 on or
before August 18, 2010, and sending a copy to Class Counsel at
25876 The Old Road, #304, Stevenson Ranch, CA 91381 and to
counsel for Patriots Federal Credit Union:

          Colleen Deziel, Esq.
          ANDERSON, MCPHARLIN & CONNERS LLP
          444 South Flower Street, 31st Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071

For more information, visit http://www.morecaseinfo.com/or  
contact Class Counsel Mike Harrison at (661) 257-2854. DO NOT
CONTACT THE COURT FOR INFORMATION AS IT WILL NOT BE ABLE TO
ASSIST YOU.


PLAYBOY ENTERPRISES: Two More Derivative Suits Filed in Ill.
------------------------------------------------------------
David Lorenzini, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. Hugh M. Hefner, et al., Case No. 2010-CH-30171 (Ill.
Cir. Ct., Cook Cty. July 14, 2010), accuses certain of Playboy
Enterprises, Inc.'s officers and directors of self dealing and
breaching their fiduciary duties through their efforts to sell
the Company too cheaply to Hugh M. Hefner, the founder, majority
shareholder, Editor-in-Chief and Chief Creative Officer of
Playboy, for their own benefit, to the exclusion of the Company's
public shareholders.  Mr. Lorenzini also asserts claims against
Playboy for aiding and abetting the individual defendants'
breaches of their fiduciary duties, and against Mr. Hefner, as an
officer and controlling shareholder of the Company, for breaching
his fiduciary duty and participating in the breach of the
fiduciary duties by the individual defendants to better his own
interests at the expense of the Company's shareholders.

Plaintiff David Lorenzini is a shareholder of Playboy.  On
July 12, 2010, Playboy announced that its Board received a letter
from defendant Hugh Hefner proposing to acquire all of the
outstanding common stock of the Company not currently owned by
Mr. Hefner for $5.50 per share in cash.  Mr. Hefner owns 69.5% of
the Company's A common stock and 27.7% of the Company's Class B
common stock.

Mr. Lorenzini says that Mr. Hefner has refused to consider any
other potential offers for the Company.  

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Leigh Lasky, Esq.
          LASKY & RIFKIND, LTD.
          350 N. LaSalle St., Suite 1320
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 634-0057

               - and -

          Marc M. Umeda, Esq.
          S. Benjamin Rozwood, Esq.
          Stephen J. Oddo, Esq.
          Arshan Amiri, Esq.
          ROBBINS UMEDA LLP
          600 B Street, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 525-3990

Steven Braun, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. Playboy Enterprises, Inc., et al., Case No. 2010-CH-30121
(Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty. July 14, 2010), accuses certain of
Playboy Enterprises, Inc.'s officers and directors of breaching
their fiduciary duties in connection with the offer of Hugh
Hefner, Playboy's founder and Chief Creative Officer, as well as
Editor-in-Chief of Playboy magazine, to acquire all of the
outstanding shares of Class A and Class B common stock of the
Company not currently owned by him for too inadequate a
consideration, given the Company's growth and anticipated
operating results, net asset value, and future profitability, and
without adequately considering other premium offers for the
Company.

In a press release dated July 12, 2010, Playboy announced that
its board of directors received a proposal from Hugh Hefner to
acquire all of the outstanding shares of Class A and Class B
common stock of the Company not currently owned by Mr. Hefner for
$5.50 per share in cash.  Mr. Hefner owns 69.5% of the Company's
Class A common stock and 27.7% of the Company's Class B common
stock.

Mr. Braun also accuses Mr. Hefner, as controlling shareholder of
the Company of breaching his fiduciary duties to the Company's
minority shareholders by making an offer to purchase the Company
for too low a price, in clear and material conflict of interest
at the expense of the Company's shareholders.  Mr. Braun asks the
Court to direct the individual defendants to exercise their
fiduciary duties to obtain the highest possible price for the
Company that is in the best interests of the Company's
shareholders.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Norman Rifind, Esq.
          Leigh Lasky, Esq.
          Amelia S. Newton, Esq.
          Heidi VonderHeide, Esq.
          LASKY & RIFKIND, LTD.
          350 North LaSalle St., Suite 1320
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 634-0057

               - and -

          Patricia C. Weiser, Esq.
          Henry J. Young, Esq.
          Kathleen A. Herkenhoff, Esq.
          THE WEISER LAW FIRM, P.C.
          121 N. Wayne Ave., Suite 100
          Wayne, PA 19087
          Telephone: (610) 225-2677

               - and -

          GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG, LLP
          1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 201-9150


RALCORP HOLDINGS: Agrees to Settle Consolidated Shareholder Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------   
The parties to In Re American Italian Pasta Company Shareholder
Litigation, Consolidated C.A. No. 5610-VCN, executed a Memorandum
of Understanding to settle the class action claims and subject to
the approval of the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware,
according to Ralcorp Holdings, Inc.'s
July 16, 2010, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.

Ralcorp Holdings, Excelsior Acquisition Co., a wholly owned
subsidiary of the company, and American Italian Pasta Company are
parties to that certain Agreement and Plan of Merger dated as of
June 20, 2010, pursuant to which Excelsior, on June 24, 2010,
commenced a tender offer to purchase all of the outstanding
shares of AIPC's Class A Convertible Common Stock, par value
$0.001 per share, for $53.00 per Share, to the sellers thereof in
cash without interest thereon, and less any required withholding
taxes.


On July 12, 2010, the parties to In Re American Italian Pasta
Company Shareholder Litigation executed a Memorandum of
Understanding reflecting their agreement to settle the class
action claims asserted in the Consolidated Action on the terms
and conditions set forth in the Memorandum and subject to the
approval of the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware.

Pursuant to the Memorandum, the company, Excelsior and AIPC
agreed to enter into the Amendment.  Additionally, the company,
Excelsior and AIPC agreed to make certain additional disclosures
regarding the Amendment, the Merger Agreement and the Offer in
the company and Purchaser's Amendment No. 4 to Schedule TO and
AIPC's Amendment No. 4 to Schedule 14D-9, each as filed with
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 16, 2010.

The Memorandum provides that the parties will present to the
Court a Stipulation of Settlement and any other necessary
documents to obtain prompt approval by the Court of the
settlement and the dismissal with prejudice of the Consolidated
Action.  The Memorandum further provides that the Stipulation of
Settlement will include a release by the plantiffs and class
members of all claims against all defendants.

Ralcorp Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.ralcorp.com/-- produces  
Post-branded cereals, a variety of value brand and store brand
foods sold under the individual labels of various grocery, mass
merchandise and drugstore retailers, and frozen bakery products
sold to in-store bakeries, restaurants and other foodservice
customers.  Ralcorp's diversified product mix includes: ready-to-
eat and hot cereals; nutritional and cereal bars; snack mixes,
corn-based chips and extruded corn snack products; crackers and
cookies; snack nuts; chocolate candy; salad dressings;
mayonnaise; peanut butter; jams and jellies; syrups; sauces;
frozen griddle products including pancakes, waffles, and French
toast; frozen biscuits and other frozen pre-baked products such
as breads and muffins; and frozen dough for cookies, Danishes,
bagels and doughnuts.


RALCORP HOLDINGS: "Foley" Suit Stayed by Missouri Court
-------------------------------------------------------
The Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri, on July 15, 2010,
stayed the class action lawsuit filed by John Foley alleging
certain breaches of the fiduciary duties by the directors of
American Italian Pasta Company and the aiding and abetting of
such breaches by Ralcorp Holdings, Inc., and seeking to enjoin
the Offer and the Merger, according to the company's July 16,
2010, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.  The suit was filed on June 21, 2010.

Ralcorp Holdings, Excelsior Acquisition Co., a wholly owned
subsidiary of the company, and American Italian are parties to
that certain Agreement and Plan of Merger dated as of June 20,
2010, pursuant to which Excelsior, on June 24, 2010, commenced a
tender offer to purchase all of the outstanding shares of AIPC's
Class A Convertible Common Stock, par value $0.001 per share, for
$53.00 per Share, to the sellers thereof in cash without interest
thereon, and less any required withholding taxes.

Ralcorp Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.ralcorp.com/-- produces  
Post-branded cereals, a variety of value brand and store brand
foods sold under the individual labels of various grocery, mass
merchandise and drugstore retailers, and frozen bakery products
sold to in-store bakeries, restaurants and other foodservice
customers.  Ralcorp's diversified product mix includes: ready-to-
eat and hot cereals; nutritional and cereal bars; snack mixes,
corn-based chips and extruded corn snack products; crackers and
cookies; snack nuts; chocolate candy; salad dressings;
mayonnaise; peanut butter; jams and jellies; syrups; sauces;
frozen griddle products including pancakes, waffles, and French
toast; frozen biscuits and other frozen pre-baked products such
as breads and muffins; and frozen dough for cookies, Danishes,
bagels and doughnuts.


RALCORP HOLDINGS: Plaintiffs' Request for TRO on Offer Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri, on July 15, 2010,
denied the request of the plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit
filed by Adriana Apolito-Bevis for a temporary restraining order
to enjoin the closing of the Offer, according to Ralcorp
Holdings, Inc.'s July 16, 2010, Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.  The suit was filed on
June 29, 2010.

Ralcorp Holdings, Excelsior Acquisition Co., a wholly owned
subsidiary of the company, and American Italian Pasta Company are
parties to that certain Agreement and Plan of Merger dated as of
June 20, 2010, pursuant to which Excelsior, on June 24, 2010,
commenced a tender offer to purchase all of the outstanding
shares of AIPC's Class A Convertible Common Stock, par value
$0.001 per share, for $53.00 per Share, to the sellers thereof in
cash without interest thereon, and less any required withholding
taxes.

Ralcorp Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.ralcorp.com/-- produces  
Post-branded cereals, a variety of value brand and store brand
foods sold under the individual labels of various grocery, mass
merchandise and drugstore retailers, and frozen bakery products
sold to in-store bakeries, restaurants and other foodservice
customers.  Ralcorp's diversified product mix includes: ready-to-
eat and hot cereals; nutritional and cereal bars; snack mixes,
corn-based chips and extruded corn snack products; crackers and
cookies; snack nuts; chocolate candy; salad dressings;
mayonnaise; peanut butter; jams and jellies; syrups; sauces;
frozen griddle products including pancakes, waffles, and French
toast; frozen biscuits and other frozen pre-baked products such
as breads and muffins; and frozen dough for cookies, Danishes,
bagels and doughnuts.


RAPTOR PHARMA: Deadline to Appeal Suit Dismissal to SC Over
-----------------------------------------------------------
Raptor Pharmaceutical Corp. relates that the deadline for the
plaintiffs to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court the ruling
dismissing their suit has lapsed, according to the company's July
15, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended May 31, 2010.

Several lawsuits were filed against the company (as TorreyPines)
in February 2005 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York asserting claims under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder on behalf of
a class of purchasers of the company's common stock during the
period from June 26, 2003, through and including Feb. 4, 2005,
referred to as the class period.

Dr. Marvin S. Hausman, M.D., a former director and a former Chief
Executive Officer, and Dr. Gosse B. Bruinsma, M.D., also a former
director and a former Chief Executive Officer, were also named as
defendants in the lawsuits.

These actions were consolidated into a single class action
lawsuit in January 2006.  On April 10, 2006, the class action
plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint.  The company
filed its answer to that complaint on May 26, 2006.

The company's motion to dismiss the consolidated amended
complaint was filed on May 26, 2006 and was submitted to the
Court for a decision in September 2006.  On March 31, 2009 the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
dismissed the proceedings.

On April 24, 2009, an appeal was filed with the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit by the class action plaintiffs.

The company's response to the appeal was filed on Oct. 23, 2009.  
The Second Circuit heard the plaintiffs' appeal of the order
dismissing the complaint on Jan. 14, 2010.

On March 23, 2010, the Second Circuit dismissed the plaintiffs'
complaint and upheld the original dismissal of the complaint by
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Raptor Pharmaceutical Corp. -- http://www.raptorpharma.com/-- is  
dedicated to speeding the delivery of new treatment options to
patients by working to improve existing therapeutics through the
application of highly specialized drug targeting platforms and
formulation expertise.


SOCORRO ELECTRIC: Lawsuit Seeks to Block Implementation of Bylaws
-----------------------------------------------------------------
T.S. Last at El Defensor Chieftain reports that as a member of
the Socorro Electric Cooperative Board of Trustees, Charlie
Wagner led the fight to reform the manner in which the co-op is
run.

As a member-owner of the co-op, Wagner and his wife Charlene are
now leading the battle to defend "all unnamed member-owners" of
the co-op listed as defendants in a strange case of what is
essentially the co-op suing itself.

On July 6, co-op attorney Dennis Francish filed a lawsuit asking
for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief from three new
bylaws overwhelmingly passed by member-owners at the annual
meeting in April. The complaint asks the judge to rule that the
bylaws cannot be implemented and that the defendants pay costs
and attorney fees for bringing the suit.

Like all rural electric cooperatives, anyone who purchases
electricity from Socorro Electric Cooperative is a member and
shares in the ownership of the non-profit corporation. Any
margins, or profits, earned by the co-op are to be distributed
back to member-owners in the form of capital credits.
The co-op's board of trustees voted to challenge the three bylaws
-- all of which require the board to operate under more
transparency -- on the grounds that they are unworkable,
unreasonable and illegal.

Wagner has argued against the co-op's course of action at what
are often contemptuous board meetings. He's also made it known
that he's hired his own set of attorneys to look into bringing a
lawsuit against the co-op or the board of trustees.

When the co-op filed the lawsuit last week, the Wagners' focus
shifted from offense to defense. And on Friday, July 16, Charlene
Wagner distributed an e-mail to members of the SEC Reform Group
informing them the couple is prepared to counter the lawsuit on
behalf of the reform group and all member-owners.

The decision to do so, she wrote, came after consulting with
Deschamps and Kortemeier law firm in Socorro and an unnamed firm
from Texas specializing in class action lawsuits and has
experience with cases involving other electric co-ops.

"Based on such consultation, it is our opinion that a class
action proceeding offers the best protection for member-owners'
rights without each member having to hire their own separate
attorney and that a class action proceeding is also the best way
to minimize the necessary legal expenses for the member-owners
who unfortunately are having to pay through their electric bills
for the privilege of being sued by the cooperative," she wrote.
The e-mail asks that people contribute to a legal defense fund by
mailing contributions to the Deschamps and Kortemeier law firm in
Socorro.

Lee Deschamps said he's worked on retainer for the Wagners for
the past few years. Although no timetable has been set, he
expects the firm to answer the complaint - and maybe more.
"What the reform group is contemplating is to respond in a timely
fashion and possibly file a counterclaim in this action," he
said. "There could be some remaining issues involving the board's
conduct."

Descahmps said a case could be made that board members may have
violated their fiduciary duties administering co-op funds.
Although trustees don't receive salaries, they are paid for
attending meetings and receive generous health benefits.

Compensation for the 11-member board last year totaled more than
$492,000, an average of almost $45,000 per trustee.

"What the board members have done is absolutely wrong - probably
bordering on illegal," Deschamps said. "The major thing that
could come out of this lawsuit, if it gets filed here or in
federal court, is to ask the court to order any trustees who have
improperly obtained assets of the co-op to give that money back."

Deschamps confirmed that the unnamed law firm in Charlene
Wagner's e-mail is the Ikard, Wynne law firm of Austin, Texas,
which represented member-owners in a class action case against
the Pedernales Electric Cooperative.

Settled in 2009, the co-op was ordered to return $23 million in
patronage capital to members. Instruments were put in place to
assure fiscal responsibility and transparency, the entire board
has been replaced and the former general manager and attorney are
currently under indictment.

In a phone interview on July 15, Bill Ikard acknowledged his firm
was prepared to enter the fray.

Although he doesn't have an attorney-client relationship with the
Wagners, he has discussed the issues with them, and Deschamps and
Kortemeier.

"I fully expect to join with Lee and Steve in representing some
individual members in the countersuit against the co-op," Ikard
said.

Ikard indicated the lawsuit could come in the form of a
counterclaim or a separate lawsuit against board members and
management. Ikard said he expected something to be filed within
the next 60 days.

Before any counterclaims, the local attorneys are trying to bring
the case back to Socorro.

The co-op's attorney filed the lawsuit not in Socorro, but in the
13th Judicial District Court in Los Lunas. Francish told El
Defensor Chieftain that the case was filed there because doing so
in Socorro's 7th Judicial District would create conflicts of
interest.

"How do we get this back in Socorro where it belongs? I think we
can do it by consolidating it," Deschamps said.

A key piece in the plan to consolidate is Charlene West, a
member-owner from Lemitar, who is individually named as a
defendant in the co-op's lawsuit.

West is chairwoman for the SEC Reform Committee and worked with
the Wagners in the movement for reform. She also had a
restraining order filed against her by the co-op board last year,
and has been banned from board of trustees meetings by 7th
Judicial Court Judge Matt Reynolds.

"Because they have a suit against a member already in Socorro,
why did they go to another court when the vast majority of the
membership is in Socorro County?" Deschamps asked. "Now, they
technically have lawsuits against Charlene West in two different
counties."

The other two parties named as defendants in the lawsuit are two
Socorro-based newspapers, El Defensor Chieftain and the Mountain
Mail.

The Mountain Mail made a convoluted legal matter even more
muddled on Thursday, when it announced it would not publish the
notice of suit.

District Judge John W. Pope had signed an order allowing the
summons serving notice of the lawsuit to member-owners to be
published in the two newspapers. According to the notice,
defendants had until 20 days after the final date of publication,
which was to run three consecutive weeks, to answer the complaint
or a judgment by default would be entered against them.

In letter written by attorney Roscoe Woods and addressed to the
co-op board of trustees and attorney published in the Mountain
Mail, Woods wrote that as a party in the suit the Mountain Mail
could not achieve "service of process" against the co-defendants.

El Defensor Chieftain published the notice in its July 10
edition. It is due to run again in the Chieftain July 21 and 28.
No matter how the lawsuit turns out, Deschamps praised Charlie
Wagner for taking a bold stance against the board on behalf of
the member-owners.

"Charlie Wagner should be commended for doing nothing more than
trying to make the other board members to be accountable to the
membership," he said. "One has to wonder why board members are
making it so hard to keep him from succeeding in gaining
transparency for members."


SONY OPTIARC: 18th Optical Disc Drive Price-Fixing Suit Filed
-------------------------------------------------------------
EMW, Inc., on behalf of itself and other similarly situated v.
Sony Optiarc, Inc., et al., Case No. 10-cv-03100 (N.D. Calif.
July 15, 2010), accuses the optical disc drive distributor of
conspiring to fix the price of optical disc drive products sold
in the United States, resulting in the Plaintiff and other
indirect purchasers of products containing optical disc drives
paying more for ODD products than they would paid in the absence
of the conspiracy, in violation of antitrust and consumer
protection laws.  Optical disc drives are a standard component on
almost every computer used in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lingel H. Winters, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF LINGEL H. WINTERS
          A Professional Corporation
          One Maritime, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 398-2941

Coverage of Slavin v. Sony Optiarc, Inc., et al., Case No.
10-cv-01291 (N.D. Calif.), appeared in the Class Action Reporter
on Mon., Apr. 5, 2010; coverage of Herman v. Sony Corporation, et
al., Case No. 10-cv-01362 (N.D. Calif.), appeared in the Class
Action Reporter on Tues., Apr. 6, 2010; coverage of Bay Area
Systems, LLC v. Sony Corporation, et al., Case No. 10-cv-01403
(N.D. Calif.), appeared in the Class Action Reporter on Thurs.,
Apr. 8, 2010; coverage of Carney v. Sony Corporation, et al.,
Case No. 10-cv-01406 (N.D. Calif.), appeared in the Class Action
Reporter on Fri., Apr. 10, 2010; coverage of Tabatabai v. Sony
Corporation, et al., Case No. 10-cv-01450 (N.D. Calif.), appeared
in the Class Action Reporter on Mon., Apr. 12, 2010; coverage
of Wagner v. Sony Optiarc, Inc., et al., Case No. 10-cv-01451
(N.D. Calif.), appeared in the Class Action Reporter on Mon.,
Apr. 12, 2010; coverage of Berezin v. Hitachi, Ltd., et al., Case
No. 10-cv-01533 (N.D. Calif.), appeared in the Class Action
Reporter on Wed., Apr. 14, 2010, coverage of Friedson v. Sony
Corporation, et al., Case No. 10-cv-01574 (N.D. Calif.), appeared
in the Class Action Reporter on Mon., Apr. 19, 2010; coverage of
The Stereo Shop v. Samsung Storage Technology Corp., et al., Case
No. 10-cv-01603 (N.D. Calif.), appeared in the Class Action
Reporter on Mon., Apr. 20, 2010; coverage of Garland v. Sony
Optiarc, Inc., et al., Case No. 10-cv-01703 (N.D. Calif.), Byrne
v. Sony Corporation, et al., Case No. 10-cv-01722 (N.D. Calif.),
and Daley v. Sony Optiarc, Inc., et al., Case No. 10-cv-01727
(N.D. Calif.), appeared in the Class Action Reporter on Wed.,
Apr. 28, 2010; coverage of Corse v. Sony Corporation, et al.,
Case No. 10-cv-01834 (N.D. Calif.), appeared in the Class Action
Reporter on Tues., May 4, 2010; coverage of Sinigiani v. Sony
Corporation, et al., Case No. 10-cv-01847 (N.D. Calif.), appeared
in the Class Action Reporter on Wed., May 5, 2010; coverage of
Rall v. Sony Corporation, et al., Case No. 10-cv-01933 (N.D.
Calif.), coverage of Reia v. Sony Corporation, et al., Case No.
10-cv-01948 (N.D. Calif.), appeared in the Class Action Reporter
on Wed., May 12, 2010, and coverage of O'Donnell v. Sony
Corporation, et al., Case No. 10-cv-02035 (N.D. Calif.), appeared
in the Class Action Reporter on Wed., May 19, 2010.


TARGET CORP: D. Minn. Disqualifies Employee-Plaintiffs' Counsel
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tresa Baldas at The National Law Journal reports that a federal
judge has kicked a Minnesota-based law firm off of an overtime
class action against Target Corp., concluding the firm's prior
contact with a high-ranking Target employee could hurt the
defense and taint the case.

Judge Ann Montgomery of the U.S. District Court for District of
Minnesota ruled on July 13 that Halunen & Associates should not
represent the plaintiffs in Gifford v. Target Corp., due to
confidentiality concerns that were raised by Target.

Target, according to the opinion, had argued that Halunen &
Associates should be disqualified because its lawyers received
attorney-client and confidential business information from a
former Target executive, who was referred to as "Jane Doe" in
court documents. Doe was a psychologist and senior manager who
oversaw employee development programs, and had met with two
Halunen lawyers-Clayton Halulen and Joni Thome-on several
occasions prior to the filing of the lawsuit on April 7. The firm
was lead counsel on the case.

"In the instant case, the circumstances warrant disqualification
because conduct has occurred that taints these proceedings and,
if left unremedied, potentially undermines public confidence in
the legal profession," Montgomery wrote. "There is a strong
likelihood that the Halunen firm's repeated contacts with Doe
intruded upon Target's right to confidentiality and privilege."

In its defense, the Halunen firm argued that it took proper steps
to ensure that privileged information was not disclosed. The firm
said it did not review privileged documents and that its lawyers
did not learn privileged information during their discussions
with Doe.

"We think we went above and beyond to ensure that our client-the
Jane Doe-didn't divulge any of the attorney-client privilege
information that she may have encountered during her time at
Target," Thome said. "I think it's a very disappointing decision.
We believe we did everything we were obligated to do and beyond
that." Thome added, "We are considering our options challenging
the judge's decision."

In her ruling, Montgomery also ordered the plaintiff's co-counsel
in the case, Philadelphia's Levin, Fishbein, Sedran & Berman, to
file an affidavit disclosing any of its possible contacts with
Jane Doe or exposure to any materials or documents containing or
describing disclosures made by Jane Doe. The judge also ordered
Levin Fishbein to describe any discussions or written
communication the firm had with any person, including counsel at
the Halunen firm, concerning any of Jane Doe's disclosures.
Arnold Levin and Charles Schaffer, the Levin Fishbein attorneys
working on the case, were not available for comment.

Target is represented by:

          Jeffrey D. Wohl, Esq.
          PAUL, HASTINGS, JANOFSKY & WALKER LLP
          55 Second Street, 24th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: 415-856-7000
          E-mail: jeffwohl@paulhastings.com

               - and -  

          Joseph G. Schmitt, Esq.
          NILAN JOHNSON LEWIS PA
          400 One Financial Plaza
          120 South Sixth Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: 612-305-7577
          E-mail: jschmitt@nilanjohnson.com


TRANSITIONS OPTICAL: Sued for Engaging in Monopolistic Activities
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Caryl O'Keefe, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated
v. Transitions Optical Inc., Case No. 10-cv-03098 (N.D. Calif.
July 15, 2010), accuses the photochromic lens manufacturer
of entering into unlawful exclusionary agreements, resulting to
artificially inflated prices of photochromic lens treatments for
corrective opthalmic lenses in the United States, in violation of
antitrust and restraint of trade laws, consumer protection and
unfair competition laws.

Ms. O'Keefe, who purchased photochromic lenses manufactured and
distributed by Transitions Optical, says in her complaint that
over the past five years, Transitions had more than an 80% share
of photochromic lens sales in the United States, and its share
exceeded 85% in 2008.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Susan G. Kupfer, Esq.
          Joseph Barton, Esq.
          GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP
          One Embarcadero Center, Suite 760
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 972-8160
          E-mail: skupfer@glancylaw.com
                  jbarton@glancylaw.com

               - and -

          Jason Hartley, Esq.
          STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
          550 West C Street, Suite 610
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 400-5822
          E-mail: hartley@stuevesiegel.com
                 
               - and -

          Garrett Blanchfield, Esq.
          REINHARDT WENDORF & BLANCHFIELD
          E-1250 First National Bank Building
          332 Minnesota Street
          St. Paul, MN 55101
          Telephone: (651) 287-2100

               - and -

          Daniel Karon, Esq.
          GOLDMAN, SCARLATO & KARON, PC
          55 Public Square, Suite 1500
          Cleveland, OH 44113
          Telephone: (216) 622-1851
          E-mail: karon@gsk-law.com


TULSA, OKLAHOMA: Progress Seen in Discrimination Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
David Harper at Tulsa World reports that substantial progress has
been made in resolving the remaining issues in a racial-
discrimination class-action lawsuit against the city, an attorney
said Friday.

Joel Wohlgemuth, representing the city of Tulsa, said after a
settlement conference that while negotiations have not concluded,
the parties are pleased with the progress that has been made.

Wohlgemuth said he is optimistic that the issues will be resolved
in the lawsuit, which was filed against the city more than 16
years ago by black police officers.

"Hopefully, the end is in sight," he said.

Mayor Dewey Bartlett attended Friday's conference in the
courtroom of U.S. Chief District Judge Claire Eagan.

Wohlgemuth declined to discuss what was said during Friday's
session, citing confidentiality rules that govern such hearings,
which are not open to the public.

Fifteen-year limits on specialty assignments -- such as narcotics
and gang investigators; officers on task forces, street crimes
and vice units; and detectives who investigate robberies,
homicides and burglaries -- were mandated in May as part of a
prior settlement.

The change has been controversial among officers, and the Tulsa
Fraternal Order of Police sought and received a restraining order
in Tulsa County District Court to block the affected officers'
transfers out of their specialty assignments.

Wohlgemuth and plaintiffs' attorney Louis Bullock, who also
attended Friday's negotiating session, filed a joint motion in
federal court last month in which they claimed that the police
union's action in state court was an "attempted end run" around
federal court jurisdiction.

                            *********

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  * * *