CAR_Public/100726.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, July 26, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 145

                             Headlines

5 DE MAYO BAKERY: NJ App. Ct. Affirms Order Denying Class Cert.
99 CENTS ONLY: Faces Two Class Suits Over Price Increase
ANTONIO FLORES: Recalls 44,900 Karino Baby Pacifiers
AOL LLC: Watchdog Files Brief v. Class Suit Settlement
APPLE INC: Insists 5-Year AT&T Exclusivity Was Disclosed

ASTORIA FINANCIAL: Settles "McAnaney" Suit for $7.85 Million
BC FERRIES: Settles Class Suit Over 2006 Mishap for C$350,000
BP PLC: Charis Moule Seeks Class Status of ERISA Suit
BP PLC: New York & Ohio Pension Funds Seek Lead-Plaintiff Status
BP PLC: Oil Spill Hurt Shrimpers' Health & Employment, Suit Says

BRIDGESTONE ASSOCIATES: Accused of Rent Overcharges
CCA INDUSTRIES: Court to Hold Fairness Hearing on Sept. 20
CHICAGO: Cook Cty. Ct. Certifies Suit Over Amusement Tax on PSLs
CITIMORTGAGE INC: Sued for Failing to Comply with HAMP Obligations
CRAIN COMMUNICATIONS: Ottawa Court Certifies Pevets Class Suit

DJSP ENTERPRISES: Strauss & Troy and Statman Harris File Suit
ECOPETROL SA: Defends Suit by Municipality of Aguazul
ECOPETROL SA: Defends Suit by Arauca Municipality
ECOPETROL SA: Defends Suit by Dept. of Tolima Over Royalties
ECOPETROL SA: Defends Suit Over Guando Well Royalties

JENNIFER CONVERTIBLES: Agrees to Settles Suit for $1.3 Million
LOWER MERION: Wants Bid for Class Status in Webcam Case Denied
OAKLAND, CA: City Council OKs $6.5MM Payment to Settle Suit
T.G.I. FRIDAY'S: Accused in N.Y. of Violating Minimum Wage Law
TOWERS WATSON: Motion to Dismiss Consolidated Suit Pending

TURKISH CYPRIOT COMMUNITY: Accused in D.C. of Ethnic Cleansing



                            *********

5 DE MAYO BAKERY: NJ App. Ct. Affirms Order Denying Class Cert.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division on July 20,
2010, affirmed an order denying class certification of a lawsuit
with respect to a claim under the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law.

Plaintiffs are immigrant workers who were employed by defendants
on an hourly basis in such positions as waiters and waitresses,
busboys, cooks, bakers, kitchen workers, cleaning staff and
delivery persons. They claimed that defendants paid them less than
minimum wage for the hours they worked. One of the plaintiffs
reported defendants to the New Jersey Department of Labor, whose
Division of Wage and Hour Compliance subsequently determined that
defendants had violated the NJWHL.

The suit was brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law.  Plaintiffs appealed from the
October 9, 2007, Law Division order denying their motion for class
certification for the NJWHL claim; the November 27, 2007, order
denying their motion for reconsideration; and the May 9, 2008,
order denying without prejudice the motion of plaintiff Virginia
Ortiz for an award of attorneys' fees and costs.

The Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, dismissed
the appeal of the May 9, 2008 order as moot, and affirmed in all
other respects.  According to the court, the plaintiffs failed to
meet the requirements for class certification.

The court also noted that the court's decision to certify the FLSA
collective action remedied any potential prejudice caused to
plaintiffs by denial of class action certification on the NJWHL
claim. In light of that fact and the ultimate judgment that was
entered in plaintiffs' favor, reversal on this issue is not
warranted and would have no remedial effect.

The court declined the plaintiffs' invitation to review the
judge's denial of attorneys' fees to Ortiz, as this issue is moot
because the judge awarded attorney's fees of $753,807.60 and costs
of $35,664.30 on December 4, 2008.

The case is Lopez et al. v. 5 de May Bakery, Inc., et al., case
no. A-2520-08T3 (N.J. Sup. Ct.), and a copy of the decision is
available at:

    http://www.leagle.com/unsecure/page.htm?shortname=innjco20100720330

The Plaintiffs are represented in the case by:

     David Tykulsker, Esq.
     Rosemary DiSavino, Esq.
     DAVID TYKULSKER & ASSOCIATES
     161 Walnut
     Montclair, NJ 07042


99 CENTS ONLY: Faces Two Class Suits Over Price Increase
--------------------------------------------------------
Andrea Chang of The Los Angeles Times reports that 99 Cents Only
Stores is facing two class-action lawsuits that were filed in Los
Angeles County Superior Court this month on allegations of unfair
and deceptive business practices and misleading advertising.

Ms. Chang relates that the retailer raised the top price of its
goods to 99.99 cents from 99 cents two years ago due to inflation
and higher costs.  Ms. Chang notes that because U.S. currency
makes it impossible to pay 99.99 cents for an item, shoppers are
essentially paying $1 plus tax at the cash register.

"If they call themselves 99 Cents Only, it should be 99 cents,"
Dan Callahan, an Orange County lawyer, told LA Times.  "We had a
survey done before we filed the lawsuit to see how many people
thought they were paying 99 cents, and it was just about unanimous
that nobody realized that they were paying more than 99 cents.
The people who go to that store are typically lower income or
seniors, so the people they're taking advantage of are the ones
least able to discern the difference and least able to afford it."

According to Ms. Chang, the lawsuits are asking for unspecified
monetary compensation and contend that 99 Cents Only should have
been more clear in its advertising; and a judge will decide
whether the cases can proceed as class-action suits.

Eric Schiffer, chief executive of 99 Cents Only, told LA Times in
an interview this week that he didn't believe there was any
wrongdoing by the chain, which he said "took every possible effort
and avenue to basically bombard the consumer about our increase."
"We changed all the signs, we have a large poster in the window of
every store explaining the increase, we put it in our ads in the
newspaper, we put it on the radio," he told LA Times. "Never mind
the fact that the price increase was a very tiny amount, as we all
know. So I don't think consumers were misled."


ANTONIO FLORES: Recalls 44,900 Karino Baby Pacifiers
----------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Antonio Flores, of San Ysidro, Calif., announced a voluntary
recall of about 44,900 Karino Baby Pacifiers.  Consumers should
stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise
instructed.

The pacifier fails to meet federal safety standards.  The nipple
can separate from the base easily, the pacifier handle is too
long, the mouth guard is too small and there are no ventilation
holes on the mouth guard.  The pacifier could pose a choking and
aspiration hazard to young children.  Pictures of the recalled
products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10305.html

No injuries or incidents have been reported.

This recall involves pacifiers with a ring-shaped handle and a
round-shaped mouth guard.  "Karino" is printed on the handle side
of the mouth guard, and "Mygra" is printed on one side of the
handle.  The nipple is filled with corn syrup.

The recalled products were manufactured in Mexico and sold through
independent grocery stores in California and Texas from October
2009 through March 2010 for about 25 cents.

Consumers should immediately take the recalled pacifiers away from
children and contact Antonio Flores for a refund or exchange.  For
additional information, contact Antonio Flores collect at (619)
395-4543 Monday through Friday between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.,
Pacific Time.


AOL LLC: Watchdog Files Brief v. Class Suit Settlement
------------------------------------------------------
The Center for Class Action Fairness on July 20 filed with the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit its opening
brief appealing the approval of a class action settlement against
AOL.  CCAF focused its appeal from the order issued by the United
States District Court for the Central District of California, on
the problematic cy pres award in that case:

     This appeal presents a straightforward application of the
     Ninth Circuit precedent Six Mexican Workers v. Arizona
     Citrus Growers, 904 F.2d 1301 (9th Cir. 1990) -- a
     precedent that the district court entirely failed to apply.
     For a cy pres award to a third party to be permissible it
     must actually be "cy pres" -- as near as possible to actual
     class recovery. Id. at 1308.  Here, there was a nationwide
     class of tens of millions of AOL members allegedly
     victimized by AOL practices, but the vast majority of the
     cy pres distribution went to local charities in the Los
     Angeles and Oklahoma areas; all of the cy pres was entirely
     unrelated to the class and unrelated to the claims of the
     case.

     The potential of cy pres to create conflicts of interest
     and ethical dilemmas for the judiciary have garnered
     increasing attention in recent years. See, e.g.:

     -- Adam Liptak, Doling Out Other People's Money, N.Y. TIMES
        (Nov. 26, 2007) (available at
        http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/26/washington/26bar.html)

     -- Martin H. Redish, et al., Cy Pres Relief and the
        Pathologies of the Modern Class Action: A Normative and
        Empirical Analysis, 62 FLA. L. REV. __ (forthcoming
        2010) (available at SSRN:
        http://ssrn.com/abstract=1485047)

     -- Sam Yospe, Cy Pres Distributions in Class Action
        Settlements, 2009 COLUMBIA BUS. L. REV. 1014 (available
        at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1492105)

     -- Amanda Bronstad, Cy pres awards under scrutiny, NAT'L L.
        J. (Aug. 11, 2008) (available at http://is.gd/dyFk0-).

     If courts are going to countenance cy pres distributions in
     class actions settlements at all, such distributions must
     be strictly tethered to the standard of class benefit, lest
     cy pres become a slush fund for plaintiffs, defendants,
     attorneys, and judges that creates the appearance of
     impropriety -- or worse, actual impropriety.

     The problems of potential conflicts of interest are not
     just a hypothetical concern in the case at bar. Neither the
     court nor the class was informed of the conflict of
     interest that one of the plaintiffs was the assistant
     director of development for one of the cy pres recipients.
     And yet still another cy pres recipient was a local charity
     where the spouse of the district court judge sits on the
     board. It is not exaggerating to say that this case is a
     poster child for the problem of cy pres abuse: indeed, in a
     story on the issue, the Wall Street Journal singled out the
     very settlement in this case as an example. Nathan Koppel,
     Proposed Facebook Settlement Comes Under Fire, WALL ST. J.
     (March 2, 2010) (available at http://is.gd/dyl7A-).

     For both precedential and sound public-policy reasons, this
     court should reverse the approval of the proposed class
     action settlement as an abuse of discretion.

Parties to the appeal are:

   ROBERT NACHSHIN; DAWN FAIRCHILD, BRIAN GEERS, LAURENCE
   GERARD, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
   situated, Plaintiffs-Appellees

   AOL, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company,
   Defendant-Appellee

   DARREN MCKINNEY,
   Objector-Appellant


APPLE INC: Insists 5-Year AT&T Exclusivity Was Disclosed
--------------------------------------------------------
As reported by the Class Action Reporter on July 19, 2010, Judge
James Ware of U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California granted class-action status to a lawsuit alleging that
Apple and AT&T's longstanding iPhone exclusivity deal constitute a
monopoly.

Brian Heater at PCMag.com reports that Apple has issued a response
to the claims of a monopoly.  "There was widespread disclosure of
[AT&T's] five-year exclusivity and no suggestion by Apple or
anyone else that iPhones would become unlocked after two years,"
the company said.  "Moreover, it is sheer speculation -- and
illogical -- that failing to disclose the five-year exclusivity
term would produce monopoly power."  Beyond this, however, the
company has refused to address the issue, Mr. Heater notes.

The suit, originally filed in 2007, alleges that Apple created a
monopoly by misrepresenting the timeframe of the deal it had
struck with AT&T.  Customers claimed they had purchased the
required 2-year contract with AT&T but that "Apple and AT&T had
secretly agreed to technologically restrict voice and data service
in the aftermarket for continued voice and data services for five
years, i.e., after Plaintiffs' initial two year service period
expired."



ASTORIA FINANCIAL: Settles "McAnaney" Suit for $7.85 Million
------------------------------------------------------------
Astoria Financial Corporation has agreed to settle a suit relating
to certain fees charged in connection with mortgage loans made by
Astoria Federal Savings and Loan Association for $7.85 million,
according to the company's July 19, 2010, Form
8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

A class action entitled David McAnaney and Carolyn McAnaney,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated vs.
Astoria Financial Corporation, et al., was commenced in 2004 in
connection with the satisfaction of certain mortgage loans made by
Astoria Federal Savings and Loan Association, the wholly owned
banking subsidiary of the company, Long Island Savings Bank, FSB,
which, in 1998, was acquired by Astoria Federal, and their related
entities.  The action relates to certain fees charged in
connection with such loans.

On June 29, 2010, the company reached an agreement in principle to
settle the remaining claims in such action in the amount of $7.85
million.  The company did not acknowledge any liability in the
matter and further indicated that the Agreement is intended to
resolve all claims arising from or related to the aforementioned
case and is subject to the execution of a written settlement
agreement between the parties and its approval by the Court.   The
Settlement Amount will be recorded in the company's 2010 second
quarter.

Astoria Financial Corp. -- http://www.astoriafederal.com/-- is
the unitary savings and loan association holding company of
Astoria Federal Savings and Loan Association, and its consolidated
subsidiaries.  Astoria Federal's primary business is attracting
retail deposits from the general public and investing those
deposits, together with funds generated from operations, principal
repayments on loans and securities and borrowings, primarily in
one- to-four family mortgage loans, multi-family mortgage loans,
commercial real estate loans and mortgage-backed securities.  To a
lesser degree, Astoria Federal also invests in construction loans,
and consumer and other loans, United States government, government
agency and government-sponsored enterprise (GSE), securities and
other investments permitted by federal banking laws and
regulations.


BC FERRIES: Settles Class Suit Over 2006 Mishap for C$350,000
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tamara Baluja, writing for The Province, reports that passengers
who survived the sinking of the Queen of the North in 2006 have
finally settled a class-action lawsuit against B.C. Ferries --
four years after the incident.

James Hanson, lawyer for the group, confirmed the details for The
Province Wednesday.  Mr. Hanson told The Province that the 40
passengers settled for C$350,000 for the entire group, but that
only a small fraction will actually go to them, given the
C$210,000 in legal costs they must pay first.  After the legal
fees have been subtracted, the 40 passengers will have to divide
C$140,000 among themselves, the report relates.

The Province recounts that in the past, B.C. Ferries admitted it
was liable for the March 2006 accident when the ferry ran aground
off the northern tip of Vancouver Island.  Some 99 people were
forced to evacuate and two passengers -- Shirley Rosette and
Gerald Foisy -- went missing and were later declared dead, the
report notes.


BP PLC: Charis Moule Seeks Class Status of ERISA Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Gordon Gibb at LawyersandSettlements.com reports that a
participant in BP's US 401(k) plan, Charis Moule, filed a lawsuit
against BP PLC and State Street Bank & Trust in U.S. District
Court in Chicago on June 28 and is seeking class action status.

Also named in the suit as defendants are BP Corp. North America
Inc., BP America Inc., BP Corp. North America Inc. Savings Plan
Investment Oversight Committee, BP CEO Anthony Hayward, BP America
Chairman and President Lamar McKay (also a member of the plan
investment oversight committee), and BP America director of trust
investments Gregory Williamson, the report adds.  Four other
members of the BP Savings Plan Investment Oversight Committee were
named in the lawsuit, including State Street Bank & Trust, a
trustee of the employee savings plan, Mr. Gibb relates.  The SSgA
investment management arm of the bank also served as the
investment manager of the BP stock fund, the report notes.

According to Mr. Gibb, the lawsuit contends that as of
December 31, 2009, the plan held $2.45 billion of BP American
depository shares, amounting to 29% of the total $8.27 billion in
plan assets, citing BP's 11-K report filed on June 16.  The BP ADS
lost more than 50% of their value, falling from $59.88 a share on
April 19, the day before the devastating explosion on the
Deepwater Horizon, the report states.

The defendants in the lawsuit are accused of breaching their
fiduciary duties under ERISA with regard to the loss of hundreds
of millions of dollars contained in the company stock option in
BP's US 401(k) plan, Mr. Gibb reports.  The suit seeks recovery of
participant losses and losses sustained by investing in BP ADS
instead of other prudent funds within the plan, the report
relates.  Mr. Gibbs notes that State Street Bank & Trust was a
fiduciary of the BP employee plan with independent discretion and
authority to liquidate the BP stock fund but it failed to do so.


BP PLC: New York & Ohio Pension Funds Seek Lead-Plaintiff Status
----------------------------------------------------------------
Margaret Cronin Fisk and Laurel Brubaker Calkins at Bloomberg News
report that the public pension funds of New York and Ohio asked a
Louisiana court to appoint them as lead plaintiffs in a securities
class-action lawsuit against BP Plc.

The company and some officers and director are responsible for the
loss in share value since the April explosion and sinking of the
Deepwater Horizon oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico, according to a
complaint in federal court in Lafayette, Louisiana, filed on
behalf of BP investors, Bloomberg relates.

Bloomberg, citing court papers filed by New York Comptroller
Thomas P. DiNapoli and Ohio Attorney General Richard A. Cordray,
states that the two state pension funds lost $229.4 million in BP
investments.  The funds asked that similar cases against BP be
consolidated with the Ohio and New York plaintiffs as leads, the
report adds.  They argued that they are the best choice "by virtue
of the enormous loss they suffered from their investments in BP as
a result of the defendants misconduct," and that "New York and
Ohio have an extremely large financial interest in this
litigation," Bloomberg relates.

According to Bloomberg, BP faces more than 300 lawsuits arising
from the explosion of the Deepwater Horizon, which set off the
worst oil spill in U.S. history, and the lawsuits include scores
of proposed class actions filed by commercial fishing companies,
beach-front property owners, restaurant owners and
environmentalists claiming harm from the drifting oil.

The case is Ludlow v. BP Plc, case no. 10-cv-00818 (La. W.D.)


BP PLC: Oil Spill Hurt Shrimpers' Health & Employment, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sabrina Canfield at Courthouse News Service reports that two new
class actions rang in the 3-month anniversary of BP's catastrophic
oil spill.  Shrimpers claim that BP hires cleanup workers who use
their own boats, and that boats as well as the workers get sick
from the toxic fumes, and that the decontamination process, which
shrimpers have to do on their own, can ruin their boats, killing
their careers and the chance of part-time work on the cleanup.
And Oklahoma police claim that their pension plan has been gutted
by the stock plunge caused by BP's reckless conduct.

In their class action in Orleans Parish Court, shrimpers say their
employment, their health and their shrimp boats have all been hurt
by BP's carelessness.

In the shrimpers' class action, John Wuntsell and Kelly Blanchard,
co-owners of a boat, say BP hire them for its Vessel of
Opportunity Program after the oil spill left them unable to fish
for a living.  They were put on BP's burn team: they gathered oil
to burn and kept watch over its toxic flames.

The men say their exposure to fumes at the burn site put them in
the hospital.  Now they fear long-term illness.  And, they say,
they had to decontaminate their shrimp boat, which is no longer
usable -- killing their career jobs, and the possibility of short-
term work on BP's oil spill.

Though it is not alleged in the complaint, oil spill workers on
the Gulf Coast say that BP preferably -- or only -- hires cleanup
workers who have their own boats.

The complaint does allege that despite the toxic nature of the
cleanup, BP has been "discouraging the use or respirators or other
respiratory protective equipment, without considering the
respiratory problems and issues faced by crew members, such as
John Wunsell Jr."

The men say they were exposed to massive quantities of crude oil,
crude oil vapors, dispersants and other gases as well as the
vapors and fumes from the burning oil.

Mr. Wuntsell claims that on may 28, as he was captain aboard the
ship "Ramie's Wish," he "became severely ill with a severe
headache, nausea and shortness of breath."  He also suffered chest
pain, nose irritation and a severe rise in blood pressure.
He was taken by helicopter to West Jefferson Medical Center in New
Orleans, where he was down and decontaminated before being
admitted.
He is undergoing medical monitoring, which he says will have to
continue and will for some time.

Mr. Wuntsell says that he and the rest of the class share a
"significantly increased" risk of contracting serious disease,
including cancers of the scrotum, esophagus, stomach, lungs,
intestines, kidneys, bladder, blood (leukemia), lymph glands,
skin, brain, breast and larynx.

Medical monitoring is conducted to detect early signs of disease.
While environmental diseases from toxic exposure are chronic in
nature and take years to develop, some diseases can be reversed if
detected early, the class says.

The plaintiffs seeks classwide court-supervised medical
monitoring, and more answers about the chemicals in the oil
released from BP's Macondo well, the nature of the chemicals in
the dispersants, and the compounds created when the oil mixes with
the dispersants.

Messrs. Wuntsell and Blanchard add that although they were told
that the proper procedure at the end of each shift was to bring
the boats inland, to be cleaned of toxic oil and chemicals,
neither their boat nor any other shrimp boats owned by the class
ever underwent such a procedure shift's end.

After working for BP for 3 months near the burn area, the men say,
they had to conduct the detoxification process on their own, to
remove paint and chemicals from the decks, bow, railings and other
equipment.

The class of shrimpers is represented by Stephen Herman of New
Orleans.

Also Tuesday, in Federal Court, the Oklahoma Police Pension &
Retirement System filed a securities class action that claims
their retirement benefits have been gutted by BP's conduct.

The securities class action claims that while BP has boasted since
2005 that the Gulf of Mexico is a spectacular source of oil, it
has "completely failed to disclose that its operations were being
conducted in a highly reckless manner, as it lacked any legitimate
plan to respond to an oil spill from its drilling activities in
the region."

"Exacerbating the probability that BP's inadequate spill response
would actually be relied upon to respond to a sizable spill, BP
has for years maintained a corporate culture where adherence to
safety protocols and environmental laws were ignored in favor of
profits."

All talk about safety but no action, is the gist of the 47-page
complaint, which continues: "BP's culture of placing profits over
the safety of its employees and the protection of the environment
led to a 2005 explosion in Texas City, Texas which led to the
deaths of 15 people and two oil spills in Alaska in 2006.  In both
cases, BP pled guilty to criminal violations and subsequently
assured investors that safety would be a guiding principle of the
Company's operations.  The Company's public statements routinely
detailed the specific steps taken by BP to reform its culture
while reducing the possibility that lapses leading to the disaster
in Texas City and Alaska would be repeated in the future."

The class is represented by Eric Nowak of New Orleans.

In other oil spill news, while BP is the world's second-largest
oil company, The Wall Street Journal reported that it is the
largest supplier of oil to the Pentagon.

Perhaps even more significant, on the 3-month anniversary of BP's
catastrophe, was that China has surpassed the United States in oil
consumption.

The International Economic Agency, based in Paris, reported that
China consumed 2.25 billion tons of oil in 2009, just a bit more
than the United States' 2.17 billion tons.  China, whose
population is 4 times that of the United States, denied the
report, according to the Financial Times.

A copy of th Complaint in Wunstell, et al. v. BP, plc, et al.,
Case No. 2010-7437 (La. Civ. Dist. Ct., Parish of Orleans), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/07/21/BPCAShrimper.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Stephen J. Herman, Esq.
          James C. Klick, Esq.
          Soren E. Gisleson, Esq.
          HERMAN HERMAN KATZ & COTLAR LLP
          820 O'Keefe Ave.
          New Orleans, LA 70113
          Telephone: 504-581-4892
          E-mail: sherman@hhkc.com

               - and -

          James Parkerson Roy, Esq.
          Elwood Stevens, Esq.
          DOMENGEAUX WRIGHT ROY & EDWARDS
          556 Jefferson St., Suite 500
          P.O. Box 3668
          Lafayette, LA 70502
          Telephone: 337-233-3033
          E-mail: jimr@wrightroy.com

               - and -

          Jonathan B. Andry, Esq.
          THE ANDRY LAW FIRM, LLC
          610 Baronne St.
          New Orleans, LA 70113
          Telephone: 504-586-8899
          E-mail: johnandry@yahoo.com


BRIDGESTONE ASSOCIATES: Accused of Rent Overcharges
---------------------------------------------------
Asher Laub and Chana Etengoff, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. Bridgestone Associates LLC, Case No.
651030/2010 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty. July 20, 2010), accuses
Bridgestone of wrongfully charging market rate rents for their
rental units, instead of rent stabilized rents, even as it has
been receiving real estate tax benefits under New York City's J-51
property tax abatement/exemption program for approximately the
past 12 years.

Plaintiffs Laub and Etengoff are residential tenants residing in
Apartment 3E at 640 Fort Washington Avenue in City of New York,
which is owned by defendant Bridgestone.  Plaintiffs relate that
as a result of Bridgestone's acts, they have been "priced-out" of
their apartments and forced to vacate their apartment units.

Plaintiffs explain that as a condition to receiving J-51 tax
benefits for residential buildings, units in the tax lot which is
receiving tax benefits under the J-51 program are required by law
to be subject to the Rent Stabilization Law during the period in
which tax benefits are being received.

Plaintiffs seek money damages and attorney's fees for the rent
overcharges imposed and collected by Bridgestone, as well as other
relief.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          William C. Rand, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF WILLIAM COUDERT RAND
          711 Third Avenue, Suite 1505
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 286-1425
          E-mail: wcrand@wcrand.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
          Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
          150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
          New York, NY 10003
          Telephone: (212) 228-9795
          E-mail: NYJG@aol.com


CCA INDUSTRIES: Court to Hold Fairness Hearing on Sept. 20
----------------------------------------------------------
The Los Angeles Superior Court authorized a legal notice in an
attempt to contact anyone who purchased (for personal use) any of
these Mega-T dietary supplements -- Mega-T Ultra, Mega-T Plus,
Mega-T Effervescent, Mega-T Green Tea Dietary Supplement and/or
Mega-T Dietary Supplement -- between September 29, 2005, and June
9, 2010, and who lives in the United States.

CCA Industries, Inc., maker of that line of supplements, has set
aside a $2,500,000 Common Fund to settle the Mega-T brand Weight
Loss Products Class Action Lawsuit.  More details are available
at:

                    http://www.Mega-Tsettlement.com/

The lawsuit was officially brought by Denise Wally, et al. and
claims that CCA Industries, Inc., made improper statements in its
labeling and advertising of the Mega-T Ultra, Mega-T Plus, Mega-T
Effervescent, Mega-T Green Tea Dietary Supplement and/or Mega-T
Dietary Supplement products.

The legal settlement does not mean that CCA did anything wrong. In
fact, CCA has denied any wrongdoing whatsoever, and is settling
the case only to avoid the expense and inconvenience of further
legal action.

Anyone who purchased any of the five Mega-T products should go to
http://www.Mega-Tsettlement.com/for fast, free information about
this case and to submit a claim.

The Court has preliminarily appointed the law firm of Milstein,
Adelman, & Kreger, LLP to represent the Class as Plaintiffs' Lead
Class Counsel.

In addition to submitting a claim form to ask for payment,
consumers can ask to be excluded from, or object to, the
settlement. Claim forms must be submitted online or postmarked no
later than September 2, 2010. The deadline for exclusions and
objections is September 2, 2010.  The Court will hold a settlement
fairness hearing on September 20, 2010.


CHICAGO: Cook Cty. Ct. Certifies Suit Over Amusement Tax on PSLs
----------------------------------------------------------------
Duaa Eldeib at Chicago Breaking Sports reports that Cook County
Judge Alexander White issued a 17-page ruling on July 16
certifying class-action status of a lawsuit aimed at recovering
more than $10 million from the city of Chicago.  The lawsuit is
centered on whether the city can impose and collect an amusement
tax on those permanent seat licenses, or PSLs, the report relates.

According to Chicago Breaking Sports, 10 people and an automotive
parts company filed the suit last year on behalf of thousands of
permanent and former PSL holders.  The report explains that as a
way to pay for the renovation of Soldier Field, the Chicago Bears
began in 2002 selling the licenses -- for anywhere between $900
and $10,000 per seat -- that allow owners to buy season tickets
for certain seats.

Chicago Breaking Sports notes that in his ruling, Judge White
wrote that PSLs give holders the right "to purchase tickets which
would then give the ticket purchaser the right to witness an
amusement," and the city already taxes the tickets.  The city
claims that PSLs themselves are part of an entertainment package
that warrant the amusement tax, the report adds.

The report relates that the Bears initially paid the city a 7%
amusement tax on the sales of the PSLs in late 2002 and early
2003. Last year, when the amusement tax was raised to 9 percent,
the city attempted to collect the taxes from about 2,900 people on
PSLs they had reason to believe were sold or transferred -- some
as many as six years ago, the report states.

The proposed class includes the estimated 2,900 who obtained their
PSLs after the initial sale and the 30,000 or so who originally
bought them, according to the ruling, Chicago Breaking Sports
states.


CITIMORTGAGE INC: Sued for Failing to Comply with HAMP Obligations
------------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Betancourt and Pedro Betancourt, individually and on behalf
of others similarly situated v. CitiMortgage, Inc., Citibank,
N.A., Citigroup, Inc., Case No. 10-cv-03168 (N.D. Calif. July 20,
2010), accuses the international financial conglomerate of failing
to comply with its obligations under the Home Affordable
Modification and failing to comply with contracts it has directly
with Plaintiffs to modify mortgages to make them more affordable
and sustainable.

Plaintiffs say that between and November 2008, defendant
Citigroup, Inc. accepted $45 billion in funds from the United
States government as part of the Troubled Assets Relief Program.
By accepting this payment, Citigroup agreed that it would
participate in one or more programs that TARP authorized the
Secretary of the Treasury Department to establish in order to
minimize foreclosures.

Consistent with its TARP mandate, the Treasury implemented the
HAMP, a detailed program designed to stem the foreclosure crisis
by providing affordable mortgage loan modifications and other
alternatives to foreclosure to eligible borrowers.  Companies that
accepted money under TARP are subject to mandatory inclusion in
HAMP.

Plaintiffs allege that Citigroup has systematically failed to
comply with the terms of the HAMP directives and has regularly and
repeatedly violated its rules and prohibitions.  Plaintiffs say
that eligible homeowners (whose loans are serviced by Citigroup),
who have entered into trial modifications and performed their
obligations under the contracts by submitting the required
documentation and making timely payments, have not received the
permanent loan modifications.  Instead, Citigroup has delayed or
avoided permanently modifying the loans that it services.  For
example, fees that Citigroup charges its borrowers who are in
default and unpaid interest are often added to the principal of
the loan, thereby increasing the balance on the pools of loans
Citigroup services and the fees it charges to the holders of the
loans, such that individual borrowers end up worse off than they
were before they sought a modification from Citigroup.  Plaintiffs
add that Citigroup's acts also violate California law.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          James C. Sturdevant, Esq.
          Whitney Huston, Esq.
          THE STURDEVANT LAW FIRM
          A Professional Corporation
          354 Pine Street, Fourth Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 477-2410
          E-mail: jsturdevant@sturdevantlaw.com
                  whuston@sturdevantlaw.com

               - and -

          Maeve Elise Brown, Esq.
          Elizabeth S. Letcher, Esq.
          Noah Zinner, Esq.
          Cynthia Singerman, Esq.
          HOUSING AND ECONOMIC RIGHTS ADVOCATES
          1814 Franklin Street, Suite 1040
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 271-8443
          E-mail: melisebrown@heraca.org
                  eletcher@heraca.org
                  nzinner@heraca.org
                  csingerman@heraca.org


CRAIN COMMUNICATIONS: Ottawa Court Certifies Pevets Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
James Proffitt, a staff writer at thenews-messenger.com, reports
that an Oak Harbor man's lawsuit over a magazine subscription was
recently certified as a class action by Ottawa County Common Pleas
Court.

Michael Pevets, a subscriber to AW, formerly known as AutoWeek,
filed the suit in October because he was dissatisfied with changes
made by Crain Communications, the Detroit-based publisher of AW,
according to attorney Dennis Murray Jr., Mr. Proffitt relates.

According to the report, the magazine, published weekly and
delivered to subscribers' homes up until January 2009, caters to
car, truck and SUV enthusiasts and features racing coverage,
industry news, product and performance reviews and other auto-
related material.  But in January 2009, a letter to subscribers
published in the magazine announced AutoWeek would become AW and
would be a twice-monthly publication with more pages, larger
photos, new features and an expanded and up-to-the-minute Web
site, the report notes.

According to the lawsuit, AutoWeek has about 300,000 subscribers,
each of whom paid about $39 for one-year subscriptions.  That's
$11.9 million, Mr. Murray said, although factoring in
complimentary subscriptions, discounts and other factors, the
figure is probably slightly less, the report notes.  That means,
according to Mr. Murray, a maximum aggregate of about $5.9 million
was deprived from subscribers, Mr. Proffitt relates.

Mr. Proffitt reports that attorneys for the publisher said Pevets'
suit should be thrown out for several reasons, including the fact
he waited so long after the change to complain.  "After the
redesign took effect," Detroit attorney Robert M. Jackson wrote in
response to questions submitted by The News-Messenger, "he did not
complain or object in any way."

Attorneys for Crain appealed Ottawa County Common Pleas Judge
Bruce Winters' decision to allow class-action status and have
asked the Ohio Court of Appeals to dismiss the suit, and a
decision is pending, Mr. Proffitt relates.


DJSP ENTERPRISES: Strauss & Troy and Statman Harris File Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit was filed by the Cincinnati law firms of
Strauss & Troy and Statman Harris & Eyrich on behalf of all
persons who purchased the common stock of DJSP Enterprises, Inc.,
between March 16, 2010 and May 27, 2010, inclusive, and who
suffered damages as a result. The action is pending in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, DJSP and
certain of its officers and/or directors violated the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing materially false and misleading
statements and failing to disclose adverse facts known to them
regarding the Company's business and financial results. As a
result the stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the
Class Period.

On March 16, 2010, DJSP informed the investing community that
". . . there is no stopping this inflow of continued defaults that
we anticipate to go for another two or three years . . . .
foreclosure volumes through 2012 are expected to increase
dramatically." Then on May 27, 2010, DJSP shocked the market when
it lowered its guidance for adjusted net income by $15 to $17
million and for adjusted EBIDTA by $18 to $22 million. On this
news, the Company's shares fell nearly 29%, opening on
May 28, 2010 at $6.33 per share.

DJSP indicated that the lowered guidance was a result of (i) the
foreclosure system conversion of one of its largest bank clients
which resulted in a reduction in the referral of foreclosure
files; and (ii) a temporary slowdown in foreclosures due to
governmental intervention programs.

Plaintiffs seek to recover damages on behalf of all individuals
and entities who purchased DJSP common stock during the Class
Period. If you purchased common stock between March 16, 2010 and
May 27, 2010, you may, no later than October 20, 2010, request
that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. A lead plaintiff is
a representative party that acts on behalf of the class members.
In order to be appointed lead plaintiff, the Court must determine
that you meet certain legal requirements.

Contact:

     Richard S. Wayne, Esq.
     Thomas P. Glass, Esq.
     STRAUSS & TROY
     150 East Fourth Street
     Cincinnati, Ohio 45202
     Telephone: 800-669-9341
     E-mail: rswayne@strausstroy.com
             tpglass@strausstroy.com

          - and -

     Melinda Nenning, Esq.
     STATMAN, HARRIS & EYRICH
     3700 Carew Tower
     441 Vine Street
     Cincinnati, Ohio 45202
     Telephone: 513-345-8181 Ext. 3095
     E-mail: mnenning@statmanharris.com


ECOPETROL SA: Defends Suit by Municipality of Aguazul
-----------------------------------------------------
Ecopetrol S.A. defends a class action filed by the Municipality of
Aguazul, Tauramena.  The suit is an administrative proceeding of
the Solidarity Contribution Fund to the electricity self-taxation.

No additional information was disclosed in the company's
July 15, 2010, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

Ecopetrol S.A. -- http://www.ecopetrol.com.co/english-- is a
vertically integrated oil company operating in Colombia and
overseas. The Company divides its operations into four business
segments: exploration and production, transportation, refining,
and marketing and supply.  Ecopetrol's exploration and production
business segment includes exploration, development and production
activities in Colombia and abroad.  It conducts exploration and
production activities directly and through joint ventures with
third parties.  Ecopetrol's transportation segment includes the
transportation of crude oil, motor fuels, fuel oil and other
refined products, excluding natural gas.


ECOPETROL SA: Defends Suit by Arauca Municipality
-------------------------------------------------
Ecopetrol S.A. defends a class action filed by the Municipality of
Arauca.  The lawsuit relates to contributions to the solidarity
and redistribution of income fund as a consequence of the
generation of electricity, according to the Law 142 of 1994.

No additional information was disclosed in the company's
July 15, 2010, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

Ecopetrol S.A. -- http://www.ecopetrol.com.co/english-- is a
vertically integrated oil company operating in Colombia and
overseas. The Company divides its operations into four business
segments: exploration and production, transportation, refining,
and marketing and supply.  Ecopetrol's exploration and production
business segment includes exploration, development and production
activities in Colombia and abroad.  It conducts exploration and
production activities directly and through joint ventures with
third parties.  Ecopetrol's transportation segment includes the
transportation of crude oil, motor fuels, fuel oil and other
refined products, excluding natural gas.


ECOPETROL SA: Defends Suit by Dept. of Tolima Over Royalties
------------------------------------------------------------
Ecopetrol S.A. defends a class action filed by the Department of
Tolima.  The lawsuit relates to the recalculation of royalties
with 20% specified in Law 141 of 1994.

No additional information was disclosed in the company's
July 15, 2010, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

Ecopetrol S.A. -- http://www.ecopetrol.com.co/english-- is a
vertically integrated oil company operating in Colombia and
overseas. The Company divides its operations into four business
segments: exploration and production, transportation, refining,
and marketing and supply.  Ecopetrol's exploration and production
business segment includes exploration, development and production
activities in Colombia and abroad.  It conducts exploration and
production activities directly and through joint ventures with
third parties.  Ecopetrol's transportation segment includes the
transportation of crude oil, motor fuels, fuel oil and other
refined products, excluding natural gas.


ECOPETROL SA: Defends Suit Over Guando Well Royalties
-----------------------------------------------------
Ecopetrol S.A. defends a class action filed by the Municipality of
Melgar.  The Municipality is requesting the recovery to the
Department of Tolima of the amounts not collected regarding
royalties corresponding to the Guando well.

No additional information was disclosed in the company's
July 15, 2010, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

Ecopetrol S.A. -- http://www.ecopetrol.com.co/english-- is a
vertically integrated oil company operating in Colombia and
overseas. The Company divides its operations into four business
segments: exploration and production, transportation, refining,
and marketing and supply.  Ecopetrol's exploration and production
business segment includes exploration, development and production
activities in Colombia and abroad.  It conducts exploration and
production activities directly and through joint ventures with
third parties.  Ecopetrol's transportation segment includes the
transportation of crude oil, motor fuels, fuel oil and other
refined products, excluding natural gas.


JENNIFER CONVERTIBLES: Agrees to Settles Suit for $1.3 Million
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Convertibles, Inc., has reached a preliminary settlement
resolving a putative class action for $1.3 million, according to
the company's July 19, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended May 29,
2010.

On July 16, 2009, a complaint styled as a putative class action
was filed against the company in the U.S. District Court of the
Northern District of California by an individual and on behalf of
all others similarly situated.  The complaint seeks unspecified
damages for alleged violations of the California Labor Code
sections 201, 202, 203, 204, 226, 226.7, 510, 512, 515, 1174, 1198
and 2802, violations of Section 17200 et seq. of the California
Business and Professions Code and violations of the federal Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Such alleged violations include, among other things, failure to
pay overtime, failure to reimburse certain expenses, failure to
provide adequate rest and meal periods and other labor related
complaints.  Before engaging in discovery and extensive pre-trial
proceedings, the parties participated in an early mediation.

The plaintiff offered to settle for 20% of the company's
outstanding common stock in an amount guaranteed to be worth at
least $2,000,000 on the date of distribution.  If the value of the
stock as of the date of distribution is less than $2,000,000 we
would distribute cash to make up the difference between the value
of the stock and $2,000,000.

In addition, the company would pay $400,000 over a five-year
period.  During November 2009, the company proposed a counter-
offer for $300,000 in cash over a five-year period, with $100,000
to be paid up front and the balance to be secured by the company's
assets, and between 600,000 and 800,000 shares of stock.

The number of shares to be issued would be shares sufficient to
reach a value of $1,000,000 as of the time of issuance, subject to
a cap of 800,000 shares and a minimum distribution of 600,000
shares, regardless of the actual value at the time of issuance.
The plaintiff rejected our counter offer but made a new proposal,
which included the stock component proposed by us, but increased
the cash component to a total of $1,500,000 paid in equal
installments over a five-year period, with $300,000 to be paid up
front and the balance to be secured.

The company has determined that it is probable that the company
has some liability.  Based on the offer and counter offer, the
company estimates the liability ranges between $1,300,000 and
$2,500,000 with no amount within that range a better estimate than
any other amount. There is no assurance, notwithstanding the
proposals, that the litigation will be settled or, if settled,
that it will be settled within the parameters of the two offers.

On June 18, 2010, the parties attended a court ordered settlement
conference and reached a preliminary settlement.

The total classwide settlement was for $1.3 million with $300,000
due in escrow by Aug. 17, 2010, and the remainder due Jan. 15,
2011, or as soon thereafter as the court approves the final
settlement.

Jennifer Convertibles, Inc. -- http://www.jenniferfurniture.com/
-- is an owner and licensor of a group of sofa bed specialty
retail stores and leather specialty retail stores in the United
States, with stores located throughout the Eastern seaboard, in
the Midwest, on the West Coast and in the Southwest.  As of Aug.
30, 2008, its stores included 157 Jennifer Convertibles stores and
14 Jennifer Leather stores.  Of these 171 stores, the company
owned 149 and licensed 22, including 21 owned and operated by a
related private company, the related company, and one owned by a
third party operated by the related company. Its operations are
classified into two operating segments: Jennifer and Ashley.  The
Jennifer segment owns and licenses the sofabed specialty retail
stores.  The Ashley segment is a big box, full-line home furniture
retail store.


LOWER MERION: Wants Bid for Class Status in Webcam Case Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Ilgenfritz at Main Line Media News reports that attorneys
for the Lower Merion School District filed documents in hopes of
convincing a judge not to certify a webcam case as a class-action
suit.  Mr. Ilgenfritz notes that after more than a month of
judicially approved delays, the court papers were filed shortly
before the judge's July 16 deadline.

According to the report, attorneys from Ballard Spahr argued that
"class certification is unnecessary and unwarranted," and that
"the pending equitable claims can be fully resolved simply by
making permanent the interim relief that the court has already
entered and that the district has already put into effect in any
event."

Mr. Ilgenfritz relates that attorneys for Blake Robbins filed suit
in February claiming the district used the student-issued
computers to spy on Mr. Robbins and his family at home.  The
district has since admitted that it used security-tracking
software that could snap webcam images and take a screenshot of a
computer, the report adds.

As of July 20, there was no indication of when Judge Jan DuBois
would rule on the class-action status, the report states.


OAKLAND, CA: City Council OKs $6.5MM Payment to Settle Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Henry K. Lee at the San Francisco Chronicle reports that the
Oakland City Council voted Tuesday night to pay $6.5 million to
more than 100 people -- some of them drug suspects -- who said
their homes were searched by officers who obtained search warrants
by providing false information to judges.

According to the Chronicle, the payouts -- of which $4.5 million
will be paid by the city's insurance carrier -- bring to an end
two federal civil rights lawsuits filed by individuals who said a
group of officers lied to judges when they stated on affidavits
that substances they seized as suspected drugs had been confirmed
by police laboratories as narcotics, when in fact they had not
been.

Mr. Lee relates that some of the plaintiffs were drug suspects,
but others were not, according to their attorneys, John Burris,
Esq., and Jim Chanin, Esq., who filed a class-action lawsuit
against the city alleging warrant irregularities for several years
ending in 2008.  Many people, predominantly African American
residents in East and West Oakland, "had their homes and lives
torn apart by the malicious and fraudulent actions of OPD
officers, and a large number of the class members were totally
innocent men, women and children who had nothing to do with
illegal narcotics trafficking or other criminal activities," the
attorneys wrote in court papers, Mr. Lee notes.

Plaintiffs' counsel may be reached at:

     John L. Burris, Esq.
     Airport Corporate Centre
     7677 Oakport Street, Suite 1120
     Oakland, California

          - and -

     James B. Chanin, Esq.
     3050 Shattuck Ave.
     Berkeley, California


T.G.I. FRIDAY'S: Accused in N.Y. of Violating Minimum Wage Law
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that T.G.I. Friday's paid waiters,
busboys and food service workers less than minimum wage and
stiffed them on overtime, according to a class action in Manhattan
Federal Court.

A copy of the Complaint was not available at press time from the
Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York.


TOWERS WATSON: Motion to Dismiss Consolidated Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Towers Watson & Co.'s motion to dismiss a consolidated action
remains pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania, according to the company's July 19,
2010, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

On January 1, 2010, pursuant to an Agreement and Plan of Merger,
as amended by Amendment No. 1, Watson Wyatt Worldwide, Inc., and
Towers, Perrin, Forster & Crosby, Inc., combined their businesses
through two simultaneous mergers and became wholly-owned
subsidiaries of Jupiter Saturn Holding Company, which subsequently
changed its name to Towers Watson & Co.  Since the consummation of
the Merger, Towers Perrin changed its name to Towers Watson
Pennsylvania Inc.; and Watson Wyatt changed its name to Towers
Watson Delaware Holdings Inc.

                        Dugan Action

Earlier, on Dec. 9, 2009, Watson Wyatt was informed by Towers
Perrin of a settlement demand from the plaintiffs in a putative
class action lawsuit filed by certain former shareholders of
Towers Perrin -- the Dugan Action.  Although the complaint in the
Dugan Action does not contain a quantification of the damages
sought, plaintiffs' settlement demand, which was orally
communicated to Towers Perrin on December 8, 2009, and in writing
on Dec. 9, 2009, sought a payment of $800 million to settle the
action on behalf of the proposed class.  Plaintiffs requested that
Towers Perrin communicate the settlement demand to Watson Wyatt.

The complaint was filed on Nov. 5, 2009, against Towers Perrin,
members of its board of directors, and certain members of senior
management in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania.  Plaintiffs in this action are former members of the
Towers Perrin's senior management, who left Towers Perrin at
various times between 1995 and 2000.  The Dugan plaintiffs seek to
represent a class of former Towers Perrin shareholders who
separated from service on or after Jan. 1, 1971, and who also meet
certain other specified criteria.

                        Pao Action

On Jan. 15, 2010, a former company shareholder who separated from
service with the company in March 2005 when Towers Perrin and EDS
launched a joint venture that led to the creation of eHRO,
commenced a separate legal proceeding -- the Pao Action -- in the
U.S. District Court of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania also
alleging the same claims in substantially the same form as those
alleged in the Dugan Action.  The company contributed its Towers
Perrin Administrative Solutions (TPAS) business to eHRO and
formerly was a minority shareholder (15%) of eHRO.  Pao seeks to
represent a class of former company shareholders who separated
from service in connection with the company's contribution to eHRO
of its TPAS business and who are excluded from the proposed class
in the Dugan Action.  The complaint in this action also names
Towers Watson & Co. as defendant.

                       Individual Actions

On Dec. 17, 2009, four former company shareholders, all of whom
voluntarily left the company in May or June 2005 and all of whom
are excluded from the proposed class in the Dugan Action,
commenced a separate legal proceeding -- the Allen Action -- in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
alleging the same claims in substantially the same form as those
alleged in the Dugan Action.  These plaintiffs are proceeding in
their individual capacities and do not seek to represent a
proposed class.

Pursuant to the company's bylaws in effect at the time of their
separations, the company shares held by each of these plaintiffs
were redeemed by the Company at book value at the time these
individuals separated from employment.  The complaints allege
variously that there was a promise that the company would remain
privately owned in perpetuity (Dugan Action) or that in the event
of a change to public ownership plaintiffs would receive
compensation (Allen and Pao Actions).

Plaintiffs allege that by agreeing to sell their shares back to
the company at book value upon retirement, they and other members
of the putative classes relied upon these alleged promises, which
they claim were breached as a result of the consummation of the
Merger between the company and Watson Wyatt.  The complaints
assert claims for breach of contract, breach of express trust,
breach of fiduciary duty, promissory estoppel, quasi-
contract/unjust enrichment, and constructive trust, and seeks
equitable relief including an accounting, disgorgement, rescission
and/or restitution, and the imposition of a constructive trust.

On Jan. 20, 2010, the court consolidated the three actions for all
purposes.

On Feb. 22, 2010, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
complaints in their entireties.  The motion remains pending.

Towers Watson -- http://www.towerswatson.com/-- is a leading
global professional services company that helps organizations
improve performance through effective people, risk and financial
management. With 14,000 associates around the world, we offer
solutions in the areas of employee benefits, talent management,
rewards, and risk and capital management.


TURKISH CYPRIOT COMMUNITY: Accused in D.C. of Ethnic Cleansing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a class action on behalf of
170,000 displaced Cypriots and their heirs accuses the Turkish
Republic of Northern Cyprus of "religious and ethnic cleansing"
through illegal force and occupation.  Among other things, they
want co-defendant HSBC Bank restrained from transacting any
business with the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, or
concerning property in Northern Cyprus, in D.C. Federal Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Fiouris, et al. v. The Turkish Cypriot
Community, et al., Case No. 10-cv-01225 (D. D.C.) (Friedman, J.),
is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/07/21/Cyprus.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Athan T. Tsimpedes, Esq.
          TSIMPEDES LAW FIRM
          1050 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 1000
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: 202-772-3159
          E-mail: athan@tsimpedeslaw.com

                           *********

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  * * *