CAR_Public/100728.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Wednesday, July 28, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 147

                             Headlines

AIR CANADA: Accused in Quebec of Violating Consumer Laws
AMR CORP: Still Unclear on Turner Plaintiffs' Plan for Claims
APPLE INC: Motion to Decertify Class in "Branning" Suit Pending
APPLE INC: Defends Consolidated Antitrust Suit in California
APPLE INC: Defends Consolidated Suit Over iPod iTunes

APPLE INC: Defends "Somers" Lawsuit in California
APPLE INC: Plaintiffs' Appeal on "Vitt" Dismissal Still Pending
APPLE INC: Remains a Defendant in "Vogel" Suit in California
ATC TECHNOLOGY: Accused of Breaches of Fiduciary Duties
AUTOZONE INC: Keller Rohrback Files FLSA Class Suit

BC FERRIES: Judge Reserves Judgment on Settlement
BP PLC: JPML to Convene Thursday on Consolidation of Suits
BRITISH AIRWAYS: Drags 32 Other Carriers in Class Suit
BUCKINGHAM SECURITIES: Ontario Court Certifies Class Action
CHINA NATIONAL: Settles Suits on Insider Trading Allegations

DE BEERS: Evaluating 3rd Cir. Ruling on $295 Million Settlement
GENIUS PRODUCTS: Final Settlement Hearing Set for September 16
HEARTLAND PAYMENT: Hearing on Settlement Set for December 10
HOLIDAY RESORT: Landlords Barred From Hiking Rents Frequently
HUDSON VALLEY: Borrowers Voluntarily Drop Class Suit

HUGOTON ROYALTY: New Counsel Wants to Intervene in "Beer" Suit
HUGOTON ROYALTY: "Roderick" Plaintiffs Want "Beer" Class in Suit
HUGOTON ROYALTY: XTO Energy Faces "Nevins" Suit in Oklahoma
MANATT PHELPHS: Accused in Calif. Suit of Legal Malpractice
NATIONAL AUSTRALIA: Maurice Blackburn Firm to File Class Action

NBTY INC: Being Sold to Carlyle for Too Little, N.Y. Suit Claims
NEXCEN BRANDS: Sued for Selling Itself at a Low Price
NYMAGIC INC: Accused of Selling Itself at a Low Price
OAKLAND, CALIF: To Pay $6.5MM to Settle Illegal Warrant Claims
ORLANDO, FL: Hearing on Red Light Cam Class Suit Begins

PROCTER & GAMBLE: Settles Crest Mouthwash Class Action
QUALCOMM INC: Remains a Defendant in Suits Over Sale of Phones
R.J. REYNOLDS: 11th Cir. Allows Use of Engle Findings
RANGE RESOURCES: Landowners Settle for Immediate $1.75MM Payment
SILOAM SPRINGS: Court Okays Settlement on Strip Searches at Jail

SMITH+NOBLE: Recalls 1.3 Million Roman and Roller Shades
TEXAS INDUSTRIES: Riverside Unit Still Defends "Shellman" Suit
VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Sued for Selling Company for Unfair Price
WAL-MART STORES: Accused in Nevada Suit of Not Paying Overtime

                            *********

AIR CANADA: Accused in Quebec of Violating Consumer Laws
--------------------------------------------------------
Nickeesha Swaby at Courthouse News Service reports that Air Canada
violates consumer laws by failing to include extra fees and taxes
in the ticket prices it advertises online, according to a class
action Quebec Superior Court.  A law on price advertising that
took effect July 1 prohibits Air Canada from imposing any charges
other than those listed price for its flights, except for
government taxes and additional, optional charges.

The plaintiffs, consumer lobbyists Union Des Consommateurs and
Montreal resident Michael Silas, seek compensation for anyone who
bought a ticket online after June 30 and paid more than advertised
on the airline's commercials and Web site.

Mr. Silas claims he bought an Air Canada ticket online, from
Montreal to Fort Lauderdale, for the advertised price of $298 but
had to pay $402 because of fees and surcharges not shown in the
original price.  Some of those charges include a Sept. 11 security
fee, a U.S. agriculture tax and an airport improvement fee.

Mr. Silas seeks reimbursement and punitive damages of $100,000 for
each class member.

Reimbursements are also sought from Air Canada affiliates such as
Air Canada Jazz, Rapidair and other airlines advertised on the Air
Canada website.

The plaintiffs are represented by:

         UNTERBERG, LABELLE & LEBEAU
         1980 Sherbrooke O
         Montreal
         Quebec H3H 1E8
         Telephone: 514-934-0841


AMR CORP: Still Unclear on Turner Plaintiffs' Plan for Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
AMR Corporation relates that it is still unclear whether the
plaintiffs in the matter Turner v. American Airlines, et al., will
pursue their claims, according to the company's July 21, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

Approximately 52 purported class action lawsuits have been filed
in the U.S. against the company and certain foreign and domestic
air carriers alleging that the defendants violated U.S. antitrust
laws by illegally conspiring to set prices and surcharges for
passenger transportation.  On Oct. 25, 2006, these cases, along
with other purported class action lawsuits in which the company
was not named, were consolidated in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California as In re International Air
Transportation Surcharge Antitrust Litigation, Civ. No. 06-1793
(the Passenger MDL).

On July 9, 2007, the company was named as a defendant in the
Passenger MDL.  On Aug. 25, 2008, the plaintiffs dismissed their
claims against the company in this action.

On March 13, 2008, and March 14, 2008, an additional purported
class action complaint, Turner v. American Airlines, et al., Civ.
No. 08-1444 (N.D. Cal.), was filed against the company, alleging
that the company violated U.S. antitrust laws by illegally
conspiring to set prices and surcharges for passenger
transportation in Japan and certain European countries,
respectively.

The Turner plaintiffs have failed to perfect service against the
company, and it is unclear whether they intend to pursue their
claims.  In the event that the Turner plaintiffs pursue their
claims, the company says it will vigorously defend these lawsuits,
but any adverse judgment in these actions could have a material
adverse impact on the company.

AMR Corporation operates with its principal subsidiary, American
Airlines Inc. -- http://www.aa.com/-- a worldwide scheduled
passenger airline.  At the end of 2006, American provided
scheduled jet service to about 150 destinations throughout North
America, the Caribbean, Latin America, including Brazil, Europe
and Asia.  American is also a scheduled airfreight carrier,
providing freight and mail services to shippers throughout its
system.  Its wholly owned subsidiary, AMR Eagle Holding Corp.,
owns two regional airlines, American Eagle Airlines Inc. and
Executive Airlines Inc., and does business as "American Eagle."
American Beacon Advisors Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of AMR,
is responsible for the investment and oversight of assets of AMR's
U.S. employee benefit plans, as well as AMR's short-term
investments.


APPLE INC: Motion to Decertify Class in "Branning" Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Apple Inc.'s motion to decertify the consumer class in the matter
Branning et al. v. Apple Computer, Inc., remains pending,
according to the company's July 21, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 26, 2010.

Plaintiffs originally filed the purported class action against the
company in San Francisco County Superior Court on Feb. 17, 2005,
on behalf of putative classes of consumers and resellers.  The
case was transferred to Santa Clara Superior Court in May 2005.

In general, the consumer plaintiffs allege that the company
"shorted" the coverage provided under its warranties and AppleCare
Protection Plan extended service contracts and sold plaintiffs
used products that were represented to be new.  In general, the
reseller plaintiffs allege that the company damaged their
businesses by opening the Apple retail stores and making
misrepresentations in connection with doing so. The complaint
seeks unspecified damages and other relief.

On Oct. 28, 2009, the Court granted the consumer plaintiffs'
motion to certify a class relating to their "shorting" claims, but
denied class certification as to their "used as new" claims.  The
company filed a motion to decertify the consumer class, which was
heard on July 14, 2010.

The reseller plaintiffs have also filed a motion to certify a
class of Apple specialist resellers, which is set for hearing on
Sept. 28, 2010.

Apple Inc. -- http://www.apple.com/-- designs, manufactures, and
markets personal computers, mobile communication devices, and
portable digital music and video players, and sells a variety of
related software, services, peripherals, and networking solutions.
The company sells its products worldwide through its online
stores, its retail stores, its direct sales force, and third-party
wholesalers, resellers, and value-added resellers.  In addition,
the company sells a variety of third-party Macintosh (Mac), iPhone
and iPod compatible products, including application software,
printers, storage devices, speakers, headphones, and various other
accessories and peripherals through its online and retail stores,
and digital content and applications through the iTunes Store.
The company sells to consumer, small and mid-sized business (SMB),
education, enterprise, government and creative customers.  In
December 2009, the company acquired digital music service Lala.


APPLE INC: Defends Consolidated Antitrust Suit in California
------------------------------------------------------------
Apple Inc. continues to defend a consolidated purported class
action captioned In re Apple & ATTM Antitrust Litigation pending
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, according to the company's July 21, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 26, 2010.

The suit was filed against the company and AT&T Mobility.

The Consolidated Complaint alleges that the company and AT&T
Mobility violated the federal antitrust laws by monopolizing
and/or attempting to monopolize the "aftermarket for voice and
data services" for the iPhone and that the company monopolized
and/or attempted to monopolize the "aftermarket for software
applications for iPhones."  The Consolidated Complaint also
alleges that Apple violated numerous laws by intentionally
"bricking" (rendering inoperable) iPhones through the release of
iPhone software update 1.1.1.

On July 8, 2010, the Court granted Apple's motion for summary
judgment on all of plaintiffs' claims related to the alleged
bricking of iPhones.  In the same July 8, 2010 order the Court
granted in part plaintiffs' motion for class certification,
certifying a class related to plaintiffs' antitrust claims.

Apple Inc. -- http://www.apple.com/-- designs, manufactures, and
markets personal computers, mobile communication devices, and
portable digital music and video players, and sells a variety of
related software, services, peripherals, and networking solutions.
The company sells its products worldwide through its online
stores, its retail stores, its direct sales force, and third-party
wholesalers, resellers, and value-added resellers.  In addition,
the company sells a variety of third-party Macintosh (Mac), iPhone
and iPod compatible products, including application software,
printers, storage devices, speakers, headphones, and various other
accessories and peripherals through its online and retail stores,
and digital content and applications through the iTunes Store.
The company sells to consumer, small and mid-sized business (SMB),
education, enterprise, government and creative customers.  In
December 2009, the company acquired digital music service Lala.


APPLE INC: Defends Consolidated Suit Over iPod iTunes
-----------------------------------------------------
Apple Inc. continues to defend the matter captioned The Apple iPod
iTunes Antitrust Litigation pending in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California, according to the company's
July 21, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 26, 2010.

The action is a consolidated case combining two cases previously
pending under the names Charoensak v. Apple Computer Inc.
(formerly Slattery v. Apple Computer Inc., filed on Jan. 3, 2005)
and Tucker v. Apple Computer, Inc. (filed on July 21, 2006).

A Consolidated Complaint was filed on April 17, 2007, on behalf of
a purported class of direct purchasers of iPods and iTunes Store
content, alleging various claims including alleged unlawful tying
of music and video purchased on the iTunes Store with the purchase
of iPods and unlawful acquisition or maintenance of monopoly
market power.  The Court granted partial certification of
plaintiffs' monopolization claims and subsequently de-certified
these claims.

The Court also dismissed plaintiffs' tying claims.  Plaintiffs
subsequently filed an Amended Consolidated Complaint seeking
unspecified damages and other relief pursuant to Section 2 of the
Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. Section 2), California Business &
Professions Code Section 16700 et seq. (the Cartwright Act),
California Business & Professions Code Section 17200 (unfair
competition), the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act and
California monopolization law, and preserving for appeal the
dismissed tying claims.  The Court dismissed all claims in
the Amended Consolidated Complaint other than the Sherman Act
Section 2 and California Business & Professions Code Section 17200
claims.

Apple Inc. -- http://www.apple.com/-- designs, manufactures, and
markets personal computers, mobile communication devices, and
portable digital music and video players, and sells a variety of
related software, services, peripherals, and networking solutions.
The company sells its products worldwide through its online
stores, its retail stores, its direct sales force, and third-party
wholesalers, resellers, and value-added resellers.  In addition,
the company sells a variety of third-party Macintosh (Mac), iPhone
and iPod compatible products, including application software,
printers, storage devices, speakers, headphones, and various other
accessories and peripherals through its online and retail stores,
and digital content and applications through the iTunes Store.
The company sells to consumer, small and mid-sized business (SMB),
education, enterprise, government and creative customers.  In
December 2009, the company acquired digital music service Lala.


APPLE INC: Defends "Somers" Lawsuit in California
-------------------------------------------------
Apple Inc. continues to defend the matter Somers v. Apple Inc.,
pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, according to the company's July 21, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 26, 2010.

The complaint was filed on Dec. 31, 2007, on behalf of a purported
class of indirect purchasers, alleging various claims including
alleged unlawful tying of music and videos purchased on the iTunes
Store with the purchase of iPods and vice versa and unlawful
acquisition or maintenance of monopoly market power under Sections
1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, the Cartwright Act, California
Business & Professions Code Section 17200 (unfair competition),
the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act and California
monopolization law.

Plaintiff subsequently filed an Amended Complaint on behalf of
purported classes of indirect iPod purchasers and direct
purchasers of music from the iTunes Store, seeking unspecified
damages and other relief pursuant to Sherman Act Section 2 and
California Business & Professions Code Section 17200, and
preserving for appeal the dismissed tying claims, claims for the
overcharge of the iPod, and claims under the Cartwright Act,
Consumers Legal Remedies Act, and common law monopolization.

Apple Inc. -- http://www.apple.com/-- designs, manufactures, and
markets personal computers, mobile communication devices, and
portable digital music and video players, and sells a variety of
related software, services, peripherals, and networking solutions.
The company sells its products worldwide through its online
stores, its retail stores, its direct sales force, and third-party
wholesalers, resellers, and value-added resellers.  In addition,
the company sells a variety of third-party Macintosh (Mac), iPhone
and iPod compatible products, including application software,
printers, storage devices, speakers, headphones, and various other
accessories and peripherals through its online and retail stores,
and digital content and applications through the iTunes Store.
The company sells to consumer, small and mid-sized business (SMB),
education, enterprise, government and creative customers.  In
December 2009, the company acquired digital music service Lala.


APPLE INC: Plaintiffs' Appeal on "Vitt" Dismissal Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
The appeal of the plaintiffs on the dismissal of the suit Vitt v.
Apple Computer, Inc., remains pending, according to Apple Inc.'s
July 21, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 26, 2010.

Plaintiff filed the purported class action on Nov. 7, 2006, in the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on
behalf of a purported nationwide class of all purchasers of the
iBook G4 alleging that the computer's logic board fails at an
abnormally high rate.

The complaint alleges violations of California Business &
Professions Code Section 17200 (unfair competition) and California
Business & Professions Code Section 17500 (false advertising).
The complaint seeks unspecified damages and other relief.

On May 21, 2010, the Court granted the company's motion to dismiss
the case with prejudice.  This case is currently on appeal.

Apple Inc. -- http://www.apple.com/-- designs, manufactures, and
markets personal computers, mobile communication devices, and
portable digital music and video players, and sells a variety of
related software, services, peripherals, and networking solutions.
The company sells its products worldwide through its online
stores, its retail stores, its direct sales force, and third-party
wholesalers, resellers, and value-added resellers.  In addition,
the company sells a variety of third-party Macintosh (Mac), iPhone
and iPod compatible products, including application software,
printers, storage devices, speakers, headphones, and various other
accessories and peripherals through its online and retail stores,
and digital content and applications through the iTunes Store.
The company sells to consumer, small and mid-sized business (SMB),
education, enterprise, government and creative customers.  In
December 2009, the company acquired digital music service Lala.


APPLE INC: Remains a Defendant in "Vogel" Suit in California
------------------------------------------------------------
Apple Inc. remains a defendant in the matter Vogel et al. v. Jobs
et al., pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, according to Apple Inc.'s July 21, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 26, 2010.

On Aug. 24, 2006, plaintiffs filed a purported shareholder class
action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California against the company and certain current and former
officers and directors, alleging improper backdating of stock
option grants to maximize certain defendants' profits, failing to
properly account for those grants and issuing false financial
statements.

On June 27, 2008, plaintiffs filed another, similar purported
shareholder class action in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California.  Plaintiffs' First Amended
Consolidated Complaint, filed on March 22, 2010, asserts claims
for unspecified damages against the company and certain current
and former officers and directors under the federal securities
laws on behalf of a purported class of shareholders.  These cases
have been consolidated and are currently pending.

Apple Inc. -- http://www.apple.com/-- designs, manufactures, and
markets personal computers, mobile communication devices, and
portable digital music and video players, and sells a variety of
related software, services, peripherals, and networking solutions.
The company sells its products worldwide through its online
stores, its retail stores, its direct sales force, and third-party
wholesalers, resellers, and value-added resellers.  In addition,
the company sells a variety of third-party Macintosh (Mac), iPhone
and iPod compatible products, including application software,
printers, storage devices, speakers, headphones, and various other
accessories and peripherals through its online and retail stores,
and digital content and applications through the iTunes Store.
The company sells to consumer, small and mid-sized business (SMB),
education, enterprise, government and creative customers.  In
December 2009, the company acquired digital music service Lala.


ATC TECHNOLOGY: Accused of Breaches of Fiduciary Duties
-------------------------------------------------------
Ronald Demarines, individually and on behalf Of others similarly
situated v. ATC Technology Corp., et al., Case No. 2010-CH-31420
(Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty. July 22, 2010), accuses ATC and its
Board of Directors of breaching their fiduciary duty to the
Company's public shareholders arising out of their attempt to sell
the Company to Genco Distribution System, Inc. and its wholly
owned subsidiary Transformers Merger Sub, Inc.

Under the terms of the merger agreement, Genco will pay ATC
shareholders $25 in cash for each share of ATC common stock owned
in a transaction valued at roughly $512.6 million, a price that
Mr. Demarines says grossly undervalues the Company, given the
Company's positive forecasts and successful streamlining efforts.
Mr. Demarines relates that the proposed transaction also contains
preclusive deal protection provisions (including a termination fee
of $15 million should ATC agree to a third party proposal before
August 17, the end of the "go-shop" period, and a $20 million
termination fee after August 17), that effectively insulate it
from potential competing bids; and that the proposed transaction
confers the directors and officers preferential treatment not
equally shared by the Company's public shareholders.  If the
transaction is allowed to proceed, ATC's shareholders will be
"permanently and incurably harmed".

Mr. Demarines is a shareholder of the Company.  ATC, a Delaware
corporation, provides outsourced supply logistics services and
engineering solutions to the consumer electronics industries and
light-, medium- and heavy-duty vehicle aftermarket in the United
States, Europe, and Canada.

On July 19, 2010, ATC announced that it had entered into a
definitive merger agreement with Genco.  Mr. Demarines says that
the Company's stock traded as high at $24.98 in March 2010, and
the prior to the announcement of the merger, at least one analyst
on Yahoo! Finance set a target price for ATC of $30 per share.  At
the offer price of $25 per share of ATC stock, Mr. Demarines
explains that the transaction represents a significant discount to
the Company's actual and intrinsic value.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adam J. Levitt, Esq.
          John E. Tangren, Esq.
          WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLC
          55 West Monroe Street, Suite 1111
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 984-0000

               - and -

          Gregory M. Nespole, Esq.
          WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
          270 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 545-4600

               - and -

          Donald J. Enright, Esq.
          Thomas M. Gottschlich, Esq.
          FINKELSTEIN THOMPSON LLP
          1050 30th Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20007
          Telephone: (202) 337-8000


AUTOZONE INC: Keller Rohrback Files FLSA Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------
Keller Rohrback L.L.P. recently filed a Fair Labor Standards Act
suit in the U.S. District Court of Arizona on behalf of current
and former Store Managers at AutoZone, Inc.

The complaint alleges that AutoZone improperly classified its
"Store Managers" as exempt, thereby denying them compensation for
hours worked in excess of 40 per work week. The suit seeks to
recover unpaid overtime compensation and other benefits of
employment to which the improperly classified Store Managers are
entitled.

The Store Managers' job duties involve minimal managerial tasks.
Most of the tasks are the same as those of non-exempt employees,
such as operating the cash register, stocking merchandise in
accordance with AutoZone's detailed plan-o-grams, and serving
customers. On average, the Store Managers spend no more than one
hour a day on management (less than 10% of the total working
hours) using AutoZone's computer system to schedule other workers,
visiting customers with the Commercial Accounts Manager, and
otherwise "managing" the store.

The Store Managers are closely supervised by AutoZone District
Managers, with daily phone calls that provide detailed
instructions on what to accomplish in the store that day, and via
AutoZone's computer system which is connected to headquarters in
"real time," so the District Managers and other AutoZone
executives can monitor sales and other activities in the stores.
AutoZone has also installed closed-circuit cameras in the stores,
so that District Managers and executives can monitor, on a minute-
by-minute basis, the actions of the Store Managers and the other
AutoZone employees.

Contact:

     T. David Copley, Esq.
     KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
     1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
     Seattle, Washington 98101-3052
     Telephone: 206-224-7557
     Facsimile: 206-623-3384
     E-mail: dcopley@kellerrohrback.com

     -- and --

     Lynn Lincoln Sarko
     KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
     1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
     Seattle, Washington 98101-3052
     Telephone: 206-623-1900
     Facsimile: 206-623-3384
     E-mail: lsarko@kellerrohrback.com


BC FERRIES: Judge Reserves Judgment on Settlement
-------------------------------------------------
Cindy E. Harnett, writing for Times Colonist, reported Thursday
that B.C. Supreme Court Justice Brian Joyce reserved judgment on a
$350,000 out-of-court settlement in a class-action lawsuit filed
by dozens of passengers who escaped from the Queen of the North
before it sank.  Under the Class Proceedings Act, the judge can
only approve or reject the settlement.  Mr. Justice Joyce said he
needs more time.

Penny Daflos at CKNW relates that at a Court hearing Thursday Mr.
Justice Joyce indicated he might raise the settlement amounts for
some of the children involved, but class action lawyer Jim Hanson
says his clients don't want that, "I think I can speak on behalf
of the class in saying that they wish to have closure over this
matter, they wish to have this matter put behind them and I think
they're disappointed both at the way the process went and at the
final outcome."

If Mr. Justice Joyce refuses the settlement the claimants would be
in legal limbo with unclear options.  The judge is also
considering whether he can agree to settlements for all but two of
the claimants -- who are Australian and have more complex claims.

"I expect he will approve the settlement," Mr. Hanson told Times
Colonist. "After 4 and 1/2 years, it's time the case be resolved.
Resolution is in the best interest of the class."

The class-action lawsuit for damages was filed after the sinking
of the car and passenger ferry the night of March 22, 2006, in
Wright Sound, south of Prince Rupert.  Two passengers -- Shirley
Rosette and Gerald Foisy -- were never found and were declared
dead.

Of the proposed $350,000 settlement, more than $200,000 will go to
legal costs and taxes. The lump sum left for the approximately 45
victims who are part of the class-action lawsuit will be split
according to individual claims.

The survivors say they've suffered after-effects including
recurring nightmares of drowning, moments of unexplained anxiety
and a lingering fear of the dark.

"It's another slap in the face," Times Colonist quoted Barney
Dudoward, 67, who said he'll receive about $12,000 before costs
are deducted.  "It's possible we could have lost our lives. It
could have been any one of us."  The commercial fisherman, who was
afraid to go back on the water after the crash, said lawyers
advised that settling was the best option. "I guess [B.C. Ferries]
has more money and more time than the rest of us," Mr. Dudoward
said.

B.C. Ferries lawyer Gary Wharton is out of the country and
unavailable for comment, according to Times Colonist. "B.C.
Ferries is not commenting on the matter," said spokeswoman Deborah
Marshall.

Courtenay's Fay Clifford, 79, said she'll get $1,300 minus legal
costs for her ordeal that night. She said her granddaughter will
get $2,000 minus costs, while her great-grandchildren will receive
only a few hundred dollars.

Christine Cunningham, the lawyer acting for the Public Guardian
and Trustee of B.C., told Mr. Justice Joyce yesterday the proposed
payments for five of the eight children were too low and "not fair
compensation for their pain and suffering."

Twenty passengers, including some children, are getting $500 to
$2,500.

Ms. Cunningham asked the judge to raise the amounts to the $3,000
to $5,000 range.

Mr. Hanson said none of the children's parents was objecting to
the settlement and all had indicated they just wanted to get it
over with.  The judge said he was not able to order the parties to
renegotiate another settlement.


BP PLC: JPML to Convene Thursday on Consolidation of Suits
-------------------------- -------------------------------
Laura Parker, a contributor for AOL News, reports that the fast-
growing stack of lawsuits filed against BP over the Gulf of Mexico
oil spill will likely soon be consolidated before a single federal
judge.

The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation will convene
Thursday in Boise, Idaho, to hear arguments to combine the suits
and avoid the legal chaos that could engulf what promises to be
one of the biggest civil suits since the 19-year, $250 billion
court fight over asbestos.

Attorneys for both sides favor the consolidation, although they
disagree on which federal court and judge should get the case.

BP and its partners in the Deepwater Horizon venture prefer
Houston, where BP's American headquarters, Transocean and
Halliburton are all located.

Attorneys for the fishermen, hoteliers and property owners have
asked that the case be assigned to federal judges in Florida,
Alabama and Mississippi. But most are pushing for New Orleans,
where the majority of the suits have been filed. The Justice
Department, which is conducting separate civil and criminal
investigations, also weighed in in favor of New Orleans.

The assemblage of attorneys in Boise is expected to be so large
that the seven-judge panel already has extended the allotted time
for arguments. The panel is expected to assign the case to a
federal judge by mid-August.

Mike Papantonio, a Florida attorney representing fishermen and
property owners, said sending the case to Houston would be, for
BP, "like having your mother and father on the jury. If you took
the oil industry away from Houston, you'd have a tumbleweed town."

BP, in turn, argued in court papers that the federal court in New
Orleans is still recovering from Hurricane Katrina and is already
overburdened with several other large, complex cases.

BP further specifically requested the case be assigned to U.S.
District Judge Lynn Hughes in Houston, arguing that he has
previously handled complex, multi-jurisdictional cases and is
already handling a class-action case filed by a group of
Vietnamese-American fishermen.

The BP case has attracted some of the most prominent attorneys in
the plaintiff bar, including those who sued Exxon after the 1989
spill of the Exxon Valdez tanker in Alaska. In the three months
since the Deepwater Horizon well blew out, attorneys have scoured
the gulf to sign up clients and filed more than 250 suits in eight
states. Among the claims are several class actions, which could
potentially involve thousands of plaintiffs.  And at least three
suits have been filed using the federal RICO law (which stands for
Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations), which was
originally passed to give prosecutors a tool to fight organized
crime.


BRITISH AIRWAYS: Drags 32 Other Carriers in Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Hausfeld & Co LLP can confirm that British Airways plc has brought
32 other airlines into proceedings it faces in the High Court in
London with respect to the air cargo cartel. These airlines
include Air France, KLM, Cathay Pacific, Cargolux, Qantas,
Emirates, SAS, Singapore, and South African.

The proceedings relate to an action brought against BA by two
flower importers on a representative basis in the English High
Court by Hausfeld & Co LLP. The action is backed by a growing
group of other shippers, and other shipper actions are also
pending in Australia, Canada, New Zealand and South Korea.

The purpose of this development is for BA to protect itself
against any payments it is compelled to make as a result of the
London action. As a cartelist, BA is responsible for all of the
loss suffered by victims of the air freight cartel -- whether from
purchases from BA or from other airlines. With this move BA is
hoping to recover contributions for payments it is compelled to
make from other airlines.

The claims arise out of a global cartel in international air
freight services which is believed to have occurred between
January 2000 and late 2006. BA and other airlines have pleaded
guilty to price fixing to regulatory authorities in the US,
Australia and Canada and were recently fined by the regulatory
authority in South Korea.

Air France-KLM recently announced a US$87 million settlement of
its US liabilities arising from the cartel; this settlement
followed an earlier US$85 million settlement reached by Lufthansa.

Anthony Maton, Esq., of Hausfeld & Co. LLP comments:

"We hope that this will be a positive move in that it will
encourage airlines to recognize their European liability to
shippers and to start the process of making sensible commercial
settlements."

The 32 airlines brought into the proceedings are: Air Canada,
Societe Air France, KLM NV, Air New Zealand Limited, All Nippon
Airways Co. Limited, American Airlines Inc., Cargolux Airlines
International SA, Cathay Pacific Airways Limited, Japan Airlines
International Co. Limited, Korean Airlines Co. Limited, Lufthansa
Cargo AG, Deutsche Lufthansa AG, Martinair Holland NV, Qantas
Airways Limited, Singapore Airlines Cargo PTE Ltd., Singapore
Airlines Limited, South African Airways (Proprietary) Limited,
Thai Airways International Public Company Limited, United Air
Lines Inc., Swiss International Air Lines AG, Scandinavian Airline
System Denmark-Norway-Sweden, Air France-KLM, Scandinavian Airline
System AB, Aviainform GmbH, Scandinavian Airline System Cargo
Group A/S, AMR Corporation, Emirates, Japan Airlines Corporation,
LAN Cargo SA, LAN Airlines SA, Malaysia Airlines Cargo SDN. BHD.,
Malaysian Airline System Berhad, Nippon Cargo Airlines Co.
Limited, UAL Corporation.

Hausfeld has signed a formal co-operation agreement with Claims
Funding International to co-ordinate the pursuit of claims for
shippers within the EU. Between them Hausfeld and CFI separately
represent some US$5 billion to US$6 billion of combined air cargo
traffic purchased by shippers in the cartel period located on
multiple continents, including several among the Fortune Global
500 and Forbes Global 2000, as well as both the Business Week and
Interbrand 100 Best Global Brand. These companies have claims for
compensation in Europe resulting from the loss they suffered as a
result of the actions of the cartel.

The European Commission has still not delivered a decision on the
cartel despite having investigated it since December 2007.

Further information can be viewed at http://www.aircargoclaims.eu/
or at http://www.claimsfunding.eu

Contacts:

     Michael D. Hausfeld, Esq.
     HAUSFELD & CO LLP
     1700 K Street, NW, Suite 650
     Washington, DC 20006
     Telephone: 202-540-7200
     Facsimile: 202-540-7201
     E-mail: mhausfeld@hausfeldllp.com

AirCargo Asia-Pacific disclosed Saturday that a spokesman for
Australia's Qantas airlines said, "We've not yet received any
formal notification of this action from British Airways and we
will not be in a position to comment until something has been
received."

Qantas already faces its own legal problems through a class action
in Australia and faced multi-million-dollar fines for its part in
the freight cartel.


BUCKINGHAM SECURITIES: Ontario Court Certifies Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
By an order dated July 20, 2010, Justice Maurice Cullity of the
Ontario Superior Court of Justice ordered that an action relating
to the 2001 collapse of Buckingham Securities Corporation and the
alleged failure of Buckingham to properly segregate client funds
be certified as a class action. The statement of claim alleges
that Miller Bernstein LLP failed to properly discharge its duties
as Buckingham's auditors and that this failure caused losses to
the Class Members. Miller disputes all of the allegations
contained in the Statement of Claim and intends to defend itself
against them.

The Class was defined as each and every person, wherever resident,
except the Excluded Persons, who created or maintained an
investment account with Buckingham at any time after
March 17, 1997, through July 26, 2001, and who maintained such an
investment account on July 6, 2001, including, without limiting
the foregoing, those persons who filed claims in the receivership
of Buckingham.  Further detail is available at
http://www.classaction.ca/content/actions/millerbernstein.asp

Among the issues the court approved for determination are whether
Buckingham was required to segregate funds but failed to do so,
whether Miller owed a duty of care to the Class, whether that duty
was breached and whether the Class was damaged by that breach.

All Buckingham investors are encouraged to visit
http://www.classaction.ca/or call Nicholas Baker at:
1 (800) 461-6166 ext. 2383.


CHINA NATIONAL: Settles Suits on Insider Trading Allegations
------------------------------------------------------------
The Canadian Press reports that China National Petroleum Corp. and
its subsidiaries have settled two class action lawsuits, which
alleged insider trading related to the Chinese company's purchase
of PetroKazakhstan Inc. in 2005.

The defendants have agreed to put nearly $10 million into a
settlement fund, but haven't admitted to any wrongdoing, law firms
Siskinds LLP and Abells Regan LLP said Friday.

The lawsuits were filed on behalf of separate plaintiffs in
Alberta and Ontario courts.  The class action has not been
certified as a class proceeding, and the allegations of the
plaintiffs have not been proven in any court.

In 2006, an indirect subsidiary of CNPC admitted it purchased
shares of PetroKazakhstan a year earlier when it was in
negotiations to acquire the Calgary-based energy company.

It settled a case with the Alberta Securities Commission for $7.5
million, plus investigation costs.


DE BEERS: Evaluating 3rd Cir. Ruling on $295 Million Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Miller at Diamonds.net reported that De Beers Group is
evaluating the recent federal appeals court ruling on the U.S.
class action case against De Beers.

The case was returned to the District Court of New Jersey to
better define classes. The District Court is now required, amongst
other things, to consider whether or not it can properly approve a
settlement comprising a smaller class of plaintiffs. During the
first half, a class action suit was filed against De Beers in
Canada and for both that and the existing class action suit
already underway in British Columbia, De Beers stated that it was
following the usual legal process.

The Class Action Reporter on July 20, 2010, reported, citing Nick
Divito at Courthouse News Service, that the United States Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit rejected a $295 million class-action
settlement between De Beers and diamond buyers who complained of
decades-long antitrust violations.

The world's top diamond producer reached the agreement in 2005
after pleading guilty a year before to price-fixing charges.  The
settlement was certified by the U.S. District Court in New Jersey.
But a handful of diamond buyers objected to the deal and sued.
The Philadelphia-based circuit determined that their claims were
too varied to be certified as a class.

"Plaintiffs seek to minimize these legal disparities by
characterizing them as little more than impediments to litigation
that would make trial management difficult but that may safely be
ignored for settlement purposes," Judge Kent Jordan wrote for the
three-judge panel.  "That argument places management issues above
the more basic question of substantive law.  It is akin to
suggesting that a really good cook, by means of superior kitchen
management, can make a cake out of nothing."

A copy of the Opinion in Sullivan, et al. v. DB Investments, Inc.,
et al., Nos. 08-2784/2785/2798/2799/2818/2819/2831/2881 (3rd
Cir.), is available at:

     http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/082784p.pdf

Objector-Appellant Susan M. Quinn is represented by:

         Howard J. Bashman, Esq.
         LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD J. BASHMAN
         2300 Computer Ave., Suite G-22
         Willow Grove, PA 19090

              - and -

         George M. Plews, Esq.
         Christopher J. Braun, Esq.
         PLEWS SHADLEY RACHER & BRAUN LLP
         1346 N. Delaware St.
         Indianapolis, IN 46202

Plaintiffs-Appellees Arrigotti Fine Jewelry Shawn Sullivan and
James Walnum are represented by:

         Howard B. Becker, Esq.
         Steven A. Katz, Esq.
         KOREIN TILLERY
         505 N. 7th Street, Suite 3600
         St. Louis, MO 63101

              - and -

         Craig C. Corbitt, Esq.
         ZELLE, HOFMANN, VOELBEL & MASON
         44 Montgomery St., Suite 3400
         San Francisco, CA 94104

              - and -

         Susan G. Kupfer, Esq.
         GLANCY, BINKOW & GOLDBERG
         One Embarcadero Center, Suite 760
         San Francisco, CA 94111

              - and -

        John A. Maher, Esq.
        450 Springfield Ave.
        Summit, NJ 07901

             - and -

         Joseph J. Tabacco, Jr., Esq.
         BERMAN, DEVALERIO, PEASE, TABACCO, BURT & PUCILLO
         425 California St., Suite 2100
         San Francisco, CA 94104

              - and -

         William Bernstein, Esq.
         Eric B. Fastiff, Esq.
         LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN
         275 Battery St., 30th Floor
         San Francisco, CA 94111

              - and -

         Joseph D. Cooper, Esq.
         Tracy R. Kirkham, Esq.
         COOPER & KIRKHAM
         357 Tehama St., 2nd Floor
         San Francisco, CA 94103

Defendant-Appellee DeBeers SA is represented by:

         Jessica Biggio, Esq.
         Francis Ciani-Dausch, Esq.
         Tara S. Emory, Esq.
         Matthew P. Hendrickson, Esq.
         SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM
         4 Times Square
         New York, NY 10036

              - and -

         Mark J. Sagat, Esq.
         Steven C. Sunshine, Esq.
         SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM
         1440 New York Ave., N.W., Room 08-08
         Washington, DC 10005

Not Party-Appellees Anco Ind. Diamond Corp., Amer Diamond Tool &
Gauge Inc. and British Diamond Import Co. are represented by:

         Edward W. Harris, III, Esq.
         TAFT, STETTINIUS & HOLISTER
         One Indiana Square, Suite 3500
         Indianapolis, IN 46204

              - and -

         Robert A. Skirnick, Esq.
         MEREDITY, COHEN, GREENFOGEL & SKIRNICK
         One Liberty Plaza, 35th Floor
         New York, NY 10006

              - and -

         Jared Stamell, Esq.
         STAMELL & SCHAGER
         One Liberty Plaza, 35th Floor
         New York, NY 10006

Not Party-Amicus Appellee Jewelers Vigilance Comm. is represented
by:

         Cecilia L. Gardner, Esq.
         JEWELERS VIGILANCE COMMITTEE
         25 West 45th St., Suite 1406
         New York, NY 10035

Not Party-Appellants William Benjamin Coffey, Jr., Marvin L.
Union, Tim Henning, Neil Freeman and Kylie Luke are represented
by:

         Scott W. Browne, Esq.
         BROWNE & BROWNE
         2380 Eastex Freeway
         Beaumont, TX 77703

              - and -

         Kenneth E. Nelson, Esq.
         1100 Main St., Suite 2900
         Kansas, City, MO 64105

              - and -

         Stuart C. Yoes, Esq.
         P.O. Drawer 7584
         Beaumont, TX 77726

              - and -

         Edward F. Siegel, Esq.
         27600 Chagrin Blvd., Suite 340
         Cleveland, OH 44122

Not Party-Appellant Aaron Petrus is represented by:

         Christpher A. Bandas, Esq.
         BANDAS LAW FIRM
         500 North Shoreline, Suite 1020
         Corpus Christie, TX 78471

Not Party-Appellant Janet Giddings is represented by:

         Robert E. Margulies, Esq.
         MARGULIES WIND
         3 Second St.
         Plaza 10, Suite 1201
         Jersey City, NJ 07311

              - and -

         Jeffrey L. Weinstein, Esq.
         518 E. Tyler St.
         Athens, TX 75751

Not Party-Appellants Frank Ascione, Rosaura Bagolie, Matthew
Delong, Sandeep Gopalan, Manoj Kolel-Veetil, Matthew Metz, Anita
Pal, Deb K. Pal, Jay Pal, Ed McKenna, Peter Perera, Rangesh K.
Shah and Thomas Vaughan are represented by:

         Ricky E. Bagolie, Esq.
         BAGOLIE FRIEDMAN INJURY LAWYERS
         660 Newark Ave.
         Jersey City, NJ 07306

              - and -

         Andrea Boggio, Esq.
         BRYANT UNIVERSITY
         1150 Douglas Pike, Suite F
         Smithfield, RI 02917


GENIUS PRODUCTS: Final Settlement Hearing Set for September 16
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firms of Finkelstein Thompson LLP and Reed Smith LLP
notified persons or entities who owned Genius Products, Inc., of a
proposed class action settlement with Genius Products, Inc., GNPR
Investments LLC, Stephen Bannon, Trevor Drinkwater, Herbert Hardt,
and The Weinstein Company Holdings LLC, defendants in the class
action entitled Lanteigne v. Genius Products, Inc., et al., Case
No. BC412610, Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County,
and the hearing to be held to consider the fairness,
reasonableness, and adequacy of the proposed Settlement.

The deadline for class members to exclude themselves from the
settlement is September 9, 2010, which is also the deadline to
file objections.  The Final Settlement Hearing is scheduled for
September 16, 2010, at 11:00 a.m.

Plaintiff Neil Lanteigne brought the Action and alleged that
Defendants breached their fiduciary duties to Genius Products
shareholders through two groups of related transactions: (1) a
reverse stock split of Genius Products Common Stock caused by TWC
Holdings that gave GNPR majority control of Genius Products, and
(2) after acquiring control of Genius Products, Defendant GNPR's
issuance of certain warrants, the proceeds of which went only to
GNPR, that were then converted to common stock. Plaintiff alleged
that, through these transactions, GNPR breached its fiduciary
duties, and that other Defendants aided and abetted this breach.

Defendants deny any wrongdoing whatsoever.

A full-text copy of the Notice is available for free at:

                       http://is.gd/dJiDd

Contact:

     Stuart A. Shanus, Esq.,
     REED SMITH LLP
     1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 700
     Los Angeles, CA 90067-6078
     Telephone: 310-734-5240
     Facsimile: 310-734-5299
     E-mail: sshanus@reedsmith.com


HEARTLAND PAYMENT: Hearing on Settlement Set for December 10
------------------------------------------------------------
A notification program began July 23 relating to a class action
settlement involving Heartland Payment Systems as ordered by the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas,
to alert anyone in the United States (including the District of
Columbia) who had or has a payment card that was used in the
United States from December 26, 2007, to December 31, 2008, and
who claims or may claim "Losses".  "Losses" are certain
unreimbursed out-of-pocket expenses (including identity-theft-
related charges) or lost time.

The lawsuit challenges Heartland Payment Systems' protection of
the consumer credit and debit card information processed though
Heartland, which was attacked by criminal intruders in 2008.
Plaintiffs claim that Defendant failed to adequately safeguard its
computer system and, as a result, unauthorized people gained
access to consumers' credit and debit card account information.
According to Plaintiffs, Heartland's inadequate security measures
allowed unauthorized people to access and steal this information
to commit fraud and identity theft.

Defendant denies all of Plaintiffs' claims and says that it did
nothing wrong. Specifically, Defendant disagrees with the
allegations and says that it has many defenses, that it is not
liable to Plaintiffs, and that Plaintiffs are not entitled to any
money or benefits from this litigation.

Notices informing Class Members about their legal rights are
scheduled to appear in newspapers and major consumer magazines in
the United States, leading up to a hearing on December 10, 2010,
when the Court will consider whether to grant final approval to
the settlement.

The Court appointed Ben Barnow, Esq., Barnow and Associates, P.C.,
of Chicago, Illinois; Lance A. Harke, Esq., Harke & Clasby LLP, of
Miami, Florida; and Burton H. Finkelstein, Esq., Finkelstein
Thompson LLP, of Washington, D.C. as Co-Lead Settlement Class
Counsel.

Those affected by this settlement can submit a claim for benefits,
if eligible, or they can ask to be excluded from, or object to,
the settlement and its terms. The deadline for exclusions and
objections is November 19, 2010. The deadline to claim any of the
benefits is August 1, 2011.

A toll-free number, 1-877-271-1547, has been established in the
case (called In re Heartland Payment Systems, Inc. Data Security
Breach Litigation, Civil Action No. 4:09-MD-2046), along with a
Web site, http://www.HPScardholdersettlement.com/where notices,
claim forms, and the settlement agreement may be obtained. Those
affected may also write to HPS Settlement, PO Box 4277, Portland,
OR 97208-4277.

Contact:

     Ben Barnow, Esq.
     BARNOW AND ASSOCIATES, P.C.
     One North LaSalle Street, Suite 4600
     Chicago, Illinois  60602
     Telephone: 312-621-2000
     Facsimile: 312-641-5504

     -- and --

     Lance August Harke, Esq.
     HARKE & CLASBY LLP
     9699 NE Second Avenue
     Miami, FL 33138
     Telephone: (305) 536-8220
                1-888-823-8220 (Toll Free)
     Facsimile: (305) 536-8229
     E-mail: lharke@harkeclasby.com

     Burton H. Finkelstein, Esq.
     FINKELSTEIN THOMPSON LLP
     The Duvall Foundry
     1050 30th Street, N.W.
     Washington, DC 20007
     Telephone: (202) 337-8000
     Facsimile: (202) 337-8090
     E-mail: bfinkelstein@finkelsteinthompson.com


HOLIDAY RESORT: Landlords Barred From Hiking Rents Frequently
-------------------------------------------------------------
Vanessa Ho, SeattlePI.com staff writer, reports that landlords of
mobile homes across the state will no longer be able to raise
rents suddenly and frequently, after a settlement was signed
Friday in a long-running class-action suit in King County.

The settlement, which affects thousands of people, requires
mobile-home park owners to stop using contracts that had allowed
them to automatically convert an annual lease to a month-to-month
contract. That conversion was a way for the landlords to increase
rent more than once a year, which is illegal under state law.

"A lot of people, even if landlords are raising rents just once a
year, are in dire straits. They can't afford these ever increasing
rents," said Ishbel Dickens, an attorney with Columbia Legal
Services, which filed the case on behalf of plaintiffs.

The case began in 2004 when tenants of the now-defunct Holiday
Resort Mobile Home Park in Shoreline sued the park owner over
rent. The owner, who settled, had raised rent twice in one year.

But the owner belonged to an industry group -- Manufactured
Housing Communities of Washington -- that gave out lease-agreement
forms to its roughly 500 members. Those forms contained the
automatic conversion language.

As the group fought the lawsuit, plaintiffs won class-action
status.  On Friday, six years after the case was filed, King
County Superior Court Judge Suzanne Barnett signed a settlement in
which Manufactured Housing agreed to drop the language in its
leases, an act estimated to affect thousands of people. Statewide,
there are 1,600 parks and an estimated 60,000 to 77,000 tenants.

"While it took more than six years to reach a settlement, we are
pleased that, finally, every manufactured homeowner in the state
will be living under a legal lease," Ishbel Dickens said.

State law allows for greater protections of mobile-home tenants
than of apartment dwellers. That includes a three-month
notification of a rent increase.

Ishbel Dickens said the settlement doesn't call for any
reimbursements, but paves the way for tenants to pursue back rent.


HUDSON VALLEY: Borrowers Voluntarily Drop Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------
Christian Livermore, writing for the Times Herald-Record, reports
that a group of borrowers has dropped a class-action lawsuit
against a local credit union after a judge's decision in a
separate lawsuit made the going rougher.

The borrowers filed a voluntary dismissal on July 22 in U.S.
District Court, Southern District of its class action lawsuit
against Hudson Valley Federal Credit Union.

Mark Kindall, Esq., a partner at Izard Nobel, the Hartford, Conn.-
based class-action firm that represented the borrowers, said a May
ruling by a judge against the credit union in a related lawsuit
made proceeding with the borrowers' class action "substantially
more difficult."

The group of borrowers, who obtained mortgages from the credit
union, filed the lawsuit on April 29 seeking a refund of three
times the tax paid to have mortgages recorded with the counties in
which they lived. They alleged that the act that created federal
credit unions prohibits such taxes on them.

The credit union had already filed a lawsuit against the New York
state Department of Taxation and Finance a year earlier for the
same reason.

The borrowers contended that the credit union should not have been
collecting the tax because they knew it was illegal.

On May 20, State Supreme Court Justice Judith Gische dismissed the
credit union's claim that it is exempt from taxation for recording
mortgages.

That ruling, in essence, also killed the central assertion of the
class action suit.

"Frankly we still think what the credit union was doing was wrong,
but we think it's going to be substantially harder to prove it,"
Mr. Kindall said.

The credit union has appealed the judge's ruling, and expects to
be on the calendar of the state Supreme Court-Appellate Division
in the fall, said Dale Lois, Esq., a partner in the Fishkill firm
Quartararo & Lois, which represents the credit union.

Borrowers' counsel may be reached at:

     Mark P. Kindall, Esq.
     IZARD NOBEL LLP
     29 South Main Street, Suite 215
     West Hartford, CT  06107
     Telephone: 860-493-6294
     Facsimile: 860-493-6290
     E-mail: mkindall@izardnobel.com

Hudson Valley's counsel may be reached at:

     Dale J. Lois, Esq.
     QUARTARARO & LOIS, PLLC
     1399 Route 52, Suite 101
     Fishkill, NY 12524
     Telephone: 845-471-4440
     Facsimile: 845-471-7318


HUGOTON ROYALTY: New Counsel Wants to Intervene in "Beer" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
A new counsel and representative parties have filed a motion to
intervene and prosecute the class in the matter Beer, et al. v.
XTO Energy Inc., according to Hugoton Royalty Trust's July 21,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

An amended petition for a class action lawsuit, Beer, et al. v.
XTO Energy Inc., was filed in January 2006 in the District Court
of Texas County, Oklahoma by certain royalty owners of natural gas
wells in Oklahoma and Kansas.

The plaintiffs allege that XTO Energy has not properly accounted
to the plaintiffs for the royalties to which they are entitled and
seek an accounting regarding the natural gas and other products
produced from their wells and the prices paid for the natural gas
and other products produced, and for payment of the monies
allegedly owed since June 2002, with a certain limited number of
plaintiffs claiming monies owed for additional time. XTO Energy
removed the case to federal district court in Oklahoma City.  A
hearing on the class certification was conducted in October 2008.
At the class certification hearing, the plaintiffs sought to
certify a class of royalty owners whose wells were connected to a
processing plant owned by a subsidiary of XTO Energy in the
Hugoton Field, with two sub-classes consisting of owners in
Oklahoma and Kansas.

In March 2009, the court granted the motion to certify the class.

The plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment for only the
two named plaintiffs.  The court granted the motion in the amount
of $12,779.  A motion for summary judgment related to the
remainder of the class was denied.  Trial was scheduled for April
2010; however, the court vacated the trial date.

At a hearing in April 2010, the court ruled that the class
representatives were no longer proper representatives and stated
that it is considering whether to dismiss class counsel or
decertify the class in whole or in part.  In a subsequent ruling
in April 2010, the court decertified the class.

In April 2010, new counsel and representative parties filed a
motion to intervene and prosecute the Beer class.  This motion has
not been acted on by the court.

Hugoton Royalty Trust -- http://www.hugotontrust.com/-- is an
express trust created under the laws of Texas pursuant to the
Hugoton Royalty Trust Indenture entered into on Dec. 1, 1998
between XTO Energy Inc., as grantor, and NationsBank, N.A., as
trustee.  Bank of America, N.A. succeeded NationsBank as the
trustee of the Trust.  XTO Energy conveyed to the Trust 80% net
profits interests in certain natural gas producing working
interest properties in Kansas, Oklahoma and Wyoming under three
separate conveyances.  In exchange for these net profits interest
conveyances to the Trust, 40 million units of beneficial interest
were issued to XTO Energy.  XTO Energy distributed all of its
remaining 21.7 million trust units.  As of Dec. 31, 2008, XTO
Energy is not a unitholder of the trust.  The net profits
interests entitle the Trust to receive 80% of the net proceeds
from the sale of oil and gas from the underlying properties.


HUGOTON ROYALTY: "Roderick" Plaintiffs Want "Beer" Class in Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The motion of the plaintiffs in the matter Wallace B. Roderick
Revocable Living Trust, et al. v. XTO Energy Inc., to include the
former class in the matter Beer, et al. v. XTO Energy Inc.,
remains pending, according to Hugoton Royalty Trust's July 21,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

In September 2008, a class action lawsuit was filed against XTO
Energy styled Wallace B. Roderick Revocable Living Trust, et al.
v. XTO Energy Inc. in the District Court of Kearny County, Kansas.
XTO Energy removed the case to federal court in Wichita, Kansas.

The plaintiffs allege that XTO Energy has improperly taken post-
production costs from royalties paid to the plaintiffs from wells
located in Kansas, Oklahoma and Colorado.  The plaintiffs also
seek to represent all royalty owners in these three states as a
class.  The plaintiffs' claims overlap the claims made by the
plaintiffs in the Beer case as to certain properties.

XTO Energy has answered, denying all claims, and has filed motions
to dismiss a portion of the claims.

In January 2010, the federal court granted XTO Energy's motion for
summary judgment concerning prior settled class actions that
overlap plaintiffs' proposed class action.  The court also granted
XTO Energy's motion to dismiss those portions of plaintiffs' class
that are currently being prosecuted in the Beer class action.

The Roderick plaintiffs have also filed a motion to include the
former Beer class into this litigation.  The motion has not been
ruled upon by the court.

Hugoton Royalty Trust -- http://www.hugotontrust.com/-- is an
express trust created under the laws of Texas pursuant to the
Hugoton Royalty Trust Indenture entered into on Dec. 1, 1998
between XTO Energy Inc., as grantor, and NationsBank, N.A., as
trustee.  Bank of America, N.A. succeeded NationsBank as the
trustee of the Trust.  XTO Energy conveyed to the Trust 80% net
profits interests in certain natural gas producing working
interest properties in Kansas, Oklahoma and Wyoming under three
separate conveyances.  In exchange for these net profits interest
conveyances to the Trust, 40 million units of beneficial interest
were issued to XTO Energy.  XTO Energy distributed all of its
remaining 21.7 million trust units.  As of Dec. 31, 2008, XTO
Energy is not a unitholder of the trust.  The net profits
interests entitle the Trust to receive 80% of the net proceeds
from the sale of oil and gas from the underlying properties.


HUGOTON ROYALTY: XTO Energy Faces "Nevins" Suit in Oklahoma
-----------------------------------------------------------
XTO Energy Inc., faces a class action styled Richard Nevins, et
al. v. XTO Energy Inc., et al., pending in the federal district
court in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, remains pending, according to
Hugoton Royalty Trust's July 21, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June
30, 2010.

The case was administratively assigned to the same court where the
matter Beer, et al. v. XTO Energy Inc., is pending because the
complaint purports to cover the same class as in Beer.

Hugoton Royalty Trust -- http://www.hugotontrust.com/-- is an
express trust created under the laws of Texas pursuant to the
Hugoton Royalty Trust Indenture entered into on Dec. 1, 1998
between XTO Energy Inc., as grantor, and NationsBank, N.A., as
trustee.  Bank of America, N.A. succeeded NationsBank as the
trustee of the Trust.  XTO Energy conveyed to the Trust 80% net
profits interests in certain natural gas producing working
interest properties in Kansas, Oklahoma and Wyoming under three
separate conveyances.  In exchange for these net profits interest
conveyances to the Trust, 40 million units of beneficial interest
were issued to XTO Energy.  XTO Energy distributed all of its
remaining 21.7 million trust units.  As of Dec. 31, 2008, XTO
Energy is not a unitholder of the trust.  The net profits
interests entitle the Trust to receive 80% of the net proceeds
from the sale of oil and gas from the underlying properties.


MANATT PHELPHS: Accused in Calif. Suit of Legal Malpractice
-----------------------------------------------------------
Maria Dinzeo at Courthouse News Service reports that retired NFL
players, including John Brodie and Paul Hornung, claim in a
federal class that their attorneys failed to adequately represent
them in a breach of contract lawsuit against the NFL Players
Association.  In the underlying action, the players claimed the
NFLPA neglected to pursue licensing opportunities for retired
players, "concentrating its efforts instead on current players."

Two classes of plaintiffs, including Bernard Parrish, Bob Grant
and Clifton McNeil, claim that lawyers for the firms Manatt,
Phelps and Phillips and McKool Smith failed to get them the award
they deserved.

One class includes retired NFL members who were party to the
underlying action.  The second class includes retired NFL players
who met the definition of the class in the first case but "for
reasons unknown were excluded."

In the underlying action, the players received a settlement of
more than US$26 million.  But they say it would have been more had
their attorneys presented an email exchange between the NFLPA and
Electronic Arts executive Jeremy Strauser, showing that the NFLPA
refused to allow the video game maker to include retired football
players in its "Madden NFL" game.

Though Manatt and Mr. McNeil tried to introduce the email chain
into evidence, the District Court found that a foundation had not
been laid and disallowed it.

"As the District Court noted, [Manatt and McNeil] should not have
gambled on somehow getting the critical statements of Mr. Strauser
into evidence. There was not good reason for this failure," the
players say, noting that "this evidence would likely, according
the trial judge and common sense, have enlarged the award."

Lead plaintiff Bernard Parrish says one of the attorneys would
listen to his objections "politely over the phone, then tell him
has no more than the same right as any other citizen to comment on
the settlement, and hang up."

The players demand punitive damages for malpractice and breach of
fiduciary duty.

A copy of the Complaint in Parrish, et al. v. Manatt, Phelphs &
Phillips, LLP, et al., Case No. 10-cv-03200 (N.D. Calif.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/07/23/NFLPlayers.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Maxwell M. Blecher, Esq.
          Theo Giovanni Arbucci, Esq.
          BLECHER & COLLINS, P.C.
          515 South Figueroa St., Suite 1750
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-3334
          Telephone: 213-622-4222
          E-mail: mblecher@blechercollins.com
                  jarbucci@blechercollins.com


NATIONAL AUSTRALIA: Maurice Blackburn Firm to File Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Australian Associated Press reported Friday that law firm
Maurice Blackburn says it will soon file class action proceedings
against National Australia Bank for failing to disclose its
exposure to $1.2 billion worth of collateralized debt obligations.

Maurice Blackburn on Friday said it had more than 120
institutional and retail investors signed up for the class action,
first announced in May.

The firm's principal, Andrew Watson, told AAP proceedings would be
soon filed in the Federal Court.

Maurice Blackburn is alleging shareholders collectively lost $450
million from NAB in 2008 when the bank did not reveal its exposure
to the CDOs which formed part of a $5.7 billion structured credit
portfolio.

The law firm says NAB's exposure to the CDOs and its delay in
writing down their value helped cause a sharp fall in the bank's
share price during 2008.


NBTY INC: Being Sold to Carlyle for Too Little, N.Y. Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that NBTY is selling itself too
cheaply to The Carlyle Group, for $55 a share, or $3.8 billion,
shareholders claim in Nassau County Court, N.Y.

A copy of the Complaint in Gottlieb v. NBTY, Inc., et al., Index
No. _____ (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Nassau Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/07/23/SCA.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Harold B. Obstfeld, Esq.
          HAROLD B. OBSTFELD, P.C.
          100 Park Ave., 20th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: 212-696-1212

               - and -

          James S. Notis, Esq.
          Kelly A. Noto, Esq.
          GARDY & NOTIS, LLP
          560 Sylvan Ave.
          Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632
          Telephone: 201-567-7377


NEXCEN BRANDS: Sued for Selling Itself at a Low Price
-----------------------------------------------------
Soheila Rahbari, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated v. NexCen Brands, Inc., et al., Case No. 651063/2010
(N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty. July 22, 2010), brings claims
against the brand management company and certain of its officers
and directors, for breach of fiduciary duty, and Levine Leichtman
Capital Partners ("LLCP") and Global Franchise Group, LLC, for
aiding NexCen defendants' breaches of fiduciary duties, arising
out of LLCP and Global Franchise's efforts to acquire the
subsidiaries of NexCen that own the franchise business assets for
$112.5 million.  Ms. Rahbari says the individual defendants hid
positive information concerning the Company in furtherance of
their scheme to sell the Company's franchise business "at an
unfair price and based on an unfair process".

Ms. Rahbari is a shareholder of NexCen, a brand management company
which owns a portfolio of seven franchised brands in the quick
service restaurants and retail/footwear and accessories
industries.  Defendant LLCP is an investment firm that manages
approximately $5.0 billion of institutional investment capital
through private equity partnerships, distressed debt and leveraged
loan funds.  Global Franchise, a newly formed Delaware limited
liability company, is an affiliate of LLCP.

Under the terms of the Acquisition Agreement, LLCP's affiliate,
Global Franchise, will acquire the subsidiaries of NexCen that own
the franchise business assets including all of NexCen Brand's
interest in the Great American Cookies, MaggieMoo's, Marble Slab
Creamery, Pretzelmaker, Pretzel Time, The Athlete's Foot and
Shoebox New York, and also will acquire the Company's franchise
management operations in Norcross, Georgia and its manufacturing
facility in Atlanta, Georgia.  NexCen's Board of Directors have
already approved the sale.

Ms. Rahbari relates that the Acquisition Agreement contains
provisions that effectively discourage the sale of the NexCen's
franchising business to a party other than Global Franchise,
including a non-solicitation provision and provisions obligating
NexCen to pay a termination fee of $4.5 million and to reimburse
Global Franchise for up to $500,000 in expenses in certain
circumstances.  The transaction, Ms. Rahbari adds, as structured,
leaves NexCen's shareholders to bear the burden of the liquidation
expenses, which are expected to range from $6.1 - $7.5 million, or
roughly $0.10 - $0.13 per share.  The transaction, as structured,
also does not allow for any significant value from the Company's
accumulated net operating loss ("NOLs") carry forwards of
$837.0 million (as of December 31, 2009) to be realized by
shareholders, because defendants failed to structure the
transaction that would have afforded the buyer an opportunity to
pay something for the NOLs.  The individual defendants and other
Company insiders, Ms. Rahbari explains, also stand to obtain
personal benefits not equally shared by the Company's public
shareholders.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard B. Brualdi, Esq.
          THE BRUALDI LAW FIRM
          29 Broadway, Suite 2400
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: (212) 952-0602

               - and -

          William B. Federman, Esq.
          FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
          10205 North Pennsylvania Ave.
          Oklahoma city, OK 73120
          Telephone: (405) 235-1560

               - and -

          Marc S. Henzel, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF MARC HENZEL
          273 Montgomery Ave., Suite 202
          Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
          Telephone: (610) 660-8000


NYMAGIC INC: Accused of Selling Itself at a Low Price
-----------------------------------------------------
Cambridge Retirement System, on behalf of itself and others
similarly situated v. Nymagic, Inc., et al., Case No. 651058/2010
(N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty. July 21, 2010), seeks to enjoin the
proposed acquisition of NYMagic, Inc. by Prosight Specialty
Insurance Holdings, Inc.

Cambridge is a shareholder of NYMagic, an insurance holding
company whose property and casualty subsidiaries specialize in
underwriting ocean marine, inland marine, and non-marine liability
insurance.  ProSight is a specialty property and casualty
insurance company.

On July 15, 2010, NYMagic and ProSight announced that they had
entered into a merger agreement under which ProSight will acquire
all publicly-owned shares of NYMagic common stock for $25.75 per
share in an all-cash going-private transaction valued at roughly
$230 million.  The proposed transaction is expected to close in
the fourth quarter of 2010.  Cambridge claims the $25.75 per share
offer is too low given the Company's anticipated operating
results, net asset value, cash flow profitability, and established
markets.

Cambridge accuses NYMagic and the individual defendants of
breaching their fiduciary duty to the Company's public
shareholders in negotiating and approving the proposed
transaction.  Cambridge also brings claims against Prosight for
aiding and abetting NYMagic and the individual defendants'
breaches of fiduciary duties.

Cambridge says the individual defendants put their personal
interests ahead of NYMagic shareholders when they agreed to a
process that avoids competitive bidding and provides ProSight with
an unfair advantage by effectively excluding other alternative
proposals.

The Merger Agreement provides that if the Company enters into a
transaction prior to a shareholder vote with another party and
under other circumstances, NYMagic must pay ProSight $9.3 million
in termination fees.  The proposed transaction has already
received the unanimous approval of NYMagic's Board of Directors.
Additionally, NYMagic shareholders owning roughly 40% of the
Company's fully diluted common shares have executed voting
agreements pursuant to which they have agreed to vote in favor of
the proposed transaction.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher J. Keller, Esq.
          Sidney S. Liebesman, Esq.
          Ethan D. Wohl, Esq.
          LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
          140 Broadway
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 907-0700


OAKLAND, CALIF: To Pay $6.5MM to Settle Illegal Warrant Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kate Moser, writing for The Recorder, reports that the Oakland,
Calif., City Council approved a $6.5 million settlement on
July 20 in a proposed class action alleging that the Oakland
police for years illegally obtained search warrants based on false
or misleading information.

The suit was filed in federal court in San Francisco in 2008 by
Oakland lawyers John Burris and James Chanin.  Of the $6.5
million, the city is on the hook for $2 million and its insurance
company is paying the rest.

In a March court filing, the plaintiffs told Judge Thelton
Henderson they intended to ask permission to file a third amended
complaint that would substitute all the known individual officers
as named defendants.

"The city realized they were in a challenging position," Mr.
Burris said July 21 by telephone before holding a press
conference.  A spokesman for City Attorney John Russo said he
wouldn't be available to comment Wednesday.

Messrs. Burris and Chanin were also the attorneys who obtained an
$11 million police misconduct civil settlement in 2003 in the
Riders suit.

They claimed in recent court filings that the city had said it
wanted to follow the model of the Riders litigation -- informal
discovery and an eye toward settling the case and controlling
costs -- but that "they have done everything but follow that
strategy in this case, thereby making it more expensive and time-
consuming [than] the Riders litigation."

The plaintiffs contend that the police department's own records
show that from 2001 to 2008, more than 57 percent of all warrants
based on an alleged drug buy involving a confidential informant
were based on false information or perjury.

Mr. Burris said the plaintiffs are still seeking injunctive relief
in court and are asking for more accountability and training for
officers.

Trial had been set for April 2011.


ORLANDO, FL: Hearing on Red Light Cam Class Suit Begins
-------------------------------------------------------
WESH.COM reports that a judge in Orange County listened to
arguments Friday involving a class action lawsuit against the city
of Orlando and its red light camera program.

Judge Frederick Lauten listened to some who argue the system is
unconstitutional and conflicts with a state statute.

"He certainly seems to be more persuaded by our position and
certainly it appears to be a clear conflict," the plaintiff's
attorney, Jason Weisser, Esq., said. "The state seems pretty
crystal clear, even for a dumb lawyer like me."

A city code enforcement officer said otherwise.

"If it goes our way, that's a positive for municipalities through
the state of Florida," Mike Rhodes of Orlando code enforcement
said. "If it doesn't, we've got a lot more work to do."

An attorney representing Lazer Craft, the company that installs
and operates the red light cameras, showed how dangerous running
red lights can be.

The city said it aims to discourage red light running with the
cameras.

Contact:

     Jason D. Weisser, Esq.
     SCHULER, HALVORSON & WEISSER, PA
     Barristers Building
     1615 Forum Place, 4th Floor
     West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
     Telephone: 561-689-8180
     Facsimile: 561-684-9683
     E-mail: jweisser@shw-law.com


PROCTER & GAMBLE: Settles Crest Mouthwash Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Chad Halcom at Crain's Detroit Business reports that two metro
Detroit law firms have resolved the proposed class-action lawsuit
against Cincinnati-based Procter & Gamble Co. in federal court
alleging that Crest Pro-Health mouthwash causes teeth stains and
browning.

U.S. District Judge Denise Page Hood last week signed a stipulated
order to dismiss the 2009 lawsuit case, where three individual
plaintiffs sought to certify a class of mouthwash users.

The lawsuit claimed Procter & Gamble Manufacturing Co. and Procter
& Gamble Distributing L.L.C. marketed "a product purporting to
clean the mouth, but which, in reality, stains teeth . . . a
reprehensible marketing practice that should be enjoined and for
which (the company) should pay damages."

Detroit-based Dykema Gossett PLLC defended Procter, and Troy-based
Mantese, Honigman, Rossman and Williamson PC represented the
plaintiffs.

Mantese attorney David Hansma, Esq., confirmed the firms had
reached an agreement to dismiss but declined to say whether it was
the result of a settlement.

Dykema member-shareholder Benjamin Jeffers, Esq., could not be
immediately reached for comment.

Mantese Honigman is a commercial litigation, construction,
corporate and family law practice with six attorneys. Dykema also
successfully defended Procter in a previous lawsuit by Ada-based
Amway Global Inc.

Plaintiffs' lawyer:

     David Hansma, Esq.
     MANTESE, HONIGMAN, ROSSMAN AND WILLIAMSON PC
     1361 East Big Beaver Road
     Troy, Michigan 48083
     Telephone: 248-457-9200 Ext: 204
     Facsimile: 248-457-9201
     E-mail: dhansma@manteselaw.com

Defendant's lawyer:

     Benjamin W. Jeffers, Esq.
     DYKEMA GOSSETT PLLC
     400 Renaissance Center
     Detroit, Michigan 48243
     Telephone: 313-568-5340
     Facsimile: 313-568-6893
     E-mail: bjeffers@dykema.com



QUALCOMM INC: Remains a Defendant in Suits Over Sale of Phones
--------------------------------------------------------------
QUALCOMM Incorporated remains a defendant, along with many other
manufacturers of wireless phones, wireless operators and industry-
related organizations, in purported class action lawsuits, and
individually filed actions pending in federal court in
Pennsylvania and Washington D.C. superior court.

The suits seek monetary damages arising out of its sale of
cellular phones.

No additional information was disclosed in the company's
July 21, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 27, 2010.

QUALCOMM Incorporated -- http://www.qualcomm.com/-- designs,
manufactures and markets digital wireless telecommunications
products and services based on its code division multiple access
(CDMA) technology and other technologies.  The company operates
through four segments: Qualcomm CDMA Technologies (QCT); Qualcomm
Technology Licensing (QTL); Qualcomm Wireless & Internet (QWI),
and Qualcomm Strategic Initiatives (QSI).


R.J. REYNOLDS: 11th Cir. Allows Use of Engle Findings
-----------------------------------------------------
News4Jax.com reports that the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals on
Thursday reversed a lower court decision and allowed a
previous jury's finding against several tobacco companies in
consideration of a pending class-action suit involving more than
3,800 Florida plaintiffs.

Among the prior jury findings were those that said tobacco
defendants were negligent and made a defective product.

The individual suits against Altria Group Inc. and other tobacco
companies, including Reynolds American Inc., came up after a court
ruling several years ago that decertified the class-action case,
but allowed individual cases within a stipulated period time.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
vacated a Florida district court order that was certified for
interlocutory appeal in Brown v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company,
No. No. 08-16158 (July 22, 2010).

"The district court determined that allowing the Engle Phase I
approved findings to establish elements of the plaintiffs' causes
of action would violate the defendants' due process rights. See
Brown, 576 F. Supp. 2d at 1344-46. The plaintiffs contend that
under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine the district court lacked
jurisdiction to determine whether applying the Florida Supreme
Court's decision about the preclusive effect of the Engle Phase I
approved findings would be unconstitutional. See Rooker v. Fid.
Trust Co., 261 U.S. 114, 43 S.Ct. 288 (1923); Dist. of Columbia
Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 103 S.Ct. 1303 (1983).
We disagree," Circuit Judge Edward Earl Carnes wrote.

According to Judge Carnes, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine is
jurisdictional.  It "prevents . . . lower federal courts from
exercising jurisdiction over cases brought by 'state-court losers'
challenging 'state-court judgments rendered before the district
court proceedings commenced.'" Lance v. Dennis, 546 U.S. 459, 460,
126 S.Ct. 1198, 1199 (2006) (quoting Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi
Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 284, 125 S.Ct. 1517, 1521-22
(2005)).  The doctrine bars the losing party in state court "from
seeking what in substance would be appellate review of the state
judgment in a United States district court, based on the losing
party's claim that the state judgment itself violates the loser's
federal rights." Johnson v. De Grandy, 512 U.S. 997, 1005-06, 114
S.Ct. 2647, 2654 (1994).

The 11th Circuit's decision is available at:

     http://www.leagle.com/unsecure/page.htm?shortname=infco20100722070


RANGE RESOURCES: Landowners Settle for Immediate $1.75MM Payment
----------------------------------------------------------------
Torsten Ove, writing for Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, reports that
some 2,000 landowners in Pennsylvania will receive a share of
$1.75 million and could get as much as $20 million over the next
few years as part of the settlement of a federal class-action suit
against a Texas-based gas company drilling in the Marcellus Shale.

Lawyers for Range Resources and an attorney for plaintiffs who
said their royalty payments were improperly calculated by the
company reached the settlement in mid-July in U.S. District Court.
It now awaits the approval of U.S. District Judge Sean McLaughlin,
although no timetable has been set.

The proposed agreement would give landowners who leased property
to Range Resources an immediate $1.75 million. The exact payout
after that isn't known because it depends on variables such as gas
prices and other costs, but the settlement sets the amount at $28
million, with about $7 million of that going to attorneys' fees.

The plaintiffs' lawyer, Joe Altomare, Esq., of Titusville, said he
couldn't comment on the case because the settlement is pending.

Matt Pitzarella, spokesman for Southpointe-based Range Resources
Appalachia, said the company is pleased with the settlement
proposal because it will clarify the impact of the post-production
costs of processing gas on any royalty payments in the future.
"We're very supportive and happy with the settlement," he said.
"It gives us certainty moving forward."

The suit, filed in 2008 in federal court in Erie, said Range
Resources improperly calculated royalty payments, improperly
withheld management fees from royalties and didn't account to
landowners for money it collected from selling oil and other by-
products from gas processing.  The company denied the allegations
and does not acknowledge doing anything wrong as part of the deal
with the plaintiffs, standard language in settlements.

The proposed settlement would cover some 1.3 million acres of land
in Pennsylvania and pertain to property owners who reached royalty
agreements with Range Resources after Sept. 15, 2004.

Contact:

     Joseph E. Altomare, Esq.
     314 South Franklin Street
     Titusville, PA 16354-2168
     Telephone: (814) 827-9626


SILOAM SPRINGS: Court Okays Settlement on Strip Searches at Jail
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ron Wood, writing for Northwest Arkansas Times, reported that a
federal judge on July 21 approved the settlement in a class-action
lawsuit over strip and body cavity searches of misdemeanor
detainees that resulted in the Siloam Springs city jail being shut
down.

The joint motion for settlement, approved by U.S. Magistrate Judge
Erin Setser, calls for class members and their attorney, Doug
Norwood, Esq., to split a $1.8 million common fund and for the
city to close the jail.

Class Representative Nancy Zamarron, the first plaintiff in the
case, will receive $20,000 and the rest of the 14 class
representatives will receive $10,000. All members of the class who
are not class representatives will receive $650 each.

The case is pending at United States District Court for the
Western District of Arkansas, Fayetteville Division.

The lawyer for the plaintiffs is:

     Doug Norwood, Esq.
     NORWOOD & NORWOOD, P.A.
     P.O. Box 6130
     Springdale, Arkansas  72766
     Telephone: 479-636-1262
     Facsimile: 479-636-7595

The lawyers for the defendants are:

     Michael Mosley, Esq.

     -- and --

     Thomas N. Kieklak, Esq.
     HARRINGTON, MILLER, NEIHOUSE & KIEKLAK, P.A.
     113 East Emma Avenue
     Springdale, Arkansas 72764-4623
     Telephone: 479-751-6464
     Facsimile: 479-751-3715


SMITH+NOBLE: Recalls 1.3 Million Roman and Roller Shades
--------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Smith+Noble, of Corona, Calif., announced a voluntary recall of
about 1.3 million (1,160,000 Roman shades and 115,000 roller
shades).  Consumers should stop using recalled products
immediately unless otherwise instructed.

Roman Shades: Strangulations can occur when a child places his/her
neck between the exposed inner cord and the fabric on the backside
of the shade or when a child pulls the cord out and wraps it
around his/her neck.

Roller Shades: Strangulation can occur if the shade's continuous
loop cord is not attached to the wall with the tension device
provided and a child's neck becomes entangled in the free-standing
loop

Roller Shades: CPSC and Smith+Noble have received a report of a 5-
year-old boy in Tacoma, Washington who became entangled in an
unsecured continuous loop bead cord on a roller shade in May 2009.
No medical treatment was required.

Roman Shades: No injuries or incidents have been reported.

This recall involves involves all roller shades that do not have a
tension device attached to the continuous loop cord and all
custom, made-to-order Roman shades.  Brand names include
Smith+Noble, Christopher Lowell by Smith+Noble, Jessitt Gold, Shop
Blinds and Window Elements.  Pictures of the recalled products are
available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10307.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China, Mexico and
United States and sold through Smith+Noble online at
http://www.smithandnoble.com/and through catalog sales nationwide
from 1998 through April 2010 for between $100 and $1,600,
depending on custom size and options.

Consumers should immediately stop using the Roman shades and
contact the Window Covering Safety Council (WCSC) for a free
repair kit at (800) 506-4636 anytime or visit
http://www.windowcoverings.org/ Consumers should check the roller
shades to make sure the tension device provided is attached to the
continuous loop cord and installed into the wall.  If not
attached, consumers should attach the tension device securely to
the wall. If they no longer have the tension device, consumers
should immediately stop using the roller shades and contact WCSC
to receive a free replacement tension device.  For additional
information, contact Smith+Noble toll-free at (877) 228-7683
between 6:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Pacific Time, Monday through
Friday and between 7:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Pacific Time, Saturday
and Sunday, or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.smithandnoble.com/productrecallinformation/


TEXAS INDUSTRIES: Riverside Unit Still Defends "Shellman" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Texas Industries, Inc.'s subsidiary, Riverside Cement Co.,
continues to defend a purported class-action complaint, Virginia
Shellman, et al. v. Riverside Cement Holdings Company, et al.

In late April 2008, a lawsuit was filed in Riverside County
Superior Court of the State of California styled Virginia
Shellman, et al. v. Riverside Cement Holdings Company, et al.  The
lawsuit against three of the company's subsidiaries purports to be
a class action complaint for medical monitoring for a putative
class defined as individuals who were allegedly exposed to chrome
6 emissions from the company's Crestmore cement plant.  The
complaint alleges an increased risk of future illness due to the
exposure to chrome 6 and other toxic chemicals.  The suit
requests, among other things, establishment and funding of a
medical testing and monitoring program for the class until their
exposure to chrome 6 is no longer a threat to their health, as
well as punitive and exemplary damages.

Since the Shellman lawsuit was filed, five additional putative
class action lawsuits have been filed in the same court.  The
putative class in each of these cases is the same as or a subset
of the putative class in the Shellman case, and the allegations
and requests for relief are similar to those in the Shellman case.
As a consequence, the court has stayed four of these lawsuits
until the Shellman lawsuit is finally determined.

No further updates were reported in the company's July 21, 2010,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended May 31, 2010.

Texas Industries, Inc. -- http://www.txi.com/-- is a supplier of
heavy construction materials in the United States through its
three business segments: cement, aggregates and consumer products.
The company's cement segment produces gray Portland cement and
specialty cements.  Its cement production and distribution
facilities are concentrated primarily in Texas and California.
The company's aggregates segment produces natural aggregates,
including sand, gravel and crushed limestone, and specialty
lightweight aggregates.  Its consumer products segment produces
primarily ready-mix concrete and, to a lesser extent, packaged
products.  The company is a supplier of natural aggregates and
ready-mix concrete in Texas and northern Louisiana, and to a
lesser extent, in Oklahoma and Arkansas.


VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Sued for Selling Company for Unfair Price
------------------------------------------------------------------
Juanita B. Martino, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. J. Michael Pearson, et al., Case No. 2010-00389330
(Calif. Super. Ct., Orange Cty. July 13, 2010), accuses Valeant
Pharmaceuticals International and its Board of Directors for their
breaches of fiduciary duty and other violations of state law
arising out of their attempt to sell the Company to Biovail
Corporation and Biovail Americas Corp. through an unfair process
and for an unfair price.

Under the terms of the proposed transaction, Valeant stockholders
will receive a one-time special dividend of $16.77 per share
immediately prior to closing of the proposed transaction and
1.7809 shares of Biovail common stock upon closing of the merger
in exchange for each share of Valeant common stock.

Valeant is a multinational specialty pharmaceutical company that
develops, manufactures and markets a broad range of pharmaceutical
products.  The Company's specialty pharmaceutical and over-the-
counter products are marketed under brand names and are sold in
the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, where the
Company focuses most of their efforts on the dermatology and
neurology therapeutic classes.

Defendant J. Michael Pearson as been Chief Executive Officer and
Chairman of the Board of the Company since 2008.

Ms. Martino says that upon the completion of the merger, which is
expected to occur before the end of the year, Biovail stockholders
will own roughly 50.5% and Valeant stockholders will own roughly
49.5% of the shares of the combined company on a fully diluted
basis.

Based on the $14.60 closing price of Biovail's shares the day
prior to the announcement of the proposed transaction, the
proposed transaction values Valeant's shares at approximately
$42.77 per share.  Ms. Martino says that this consideration is
inadequate.

First the proposed transaction represents a "negative premium" to
the $45.87 share price Valeant stock traded the day prior to the
announcement of the proposed transaction and the $45.80 average
30-day closing price of Valeant common stock prior to the
announcement of the Proposed Transaction.

Further, at least one Wall Street analyst had a price target of
$66 per share before the proposed transaction was announced, and
the average price target of Valeant common stock among
five Wall Street analysts was $51.80 per share.

Ms. Martino relates that defendants also agreed, as part of the
merger agreement, to certain onerous and preclusive protection
devices that effectively assure that no competing offers will
emerge for the company, including a "no solicitation" provision
barring the Board and any Company personnel from attempting to
procure a price in excess of the amount offered by Biovail.
Should an unsolicited offer be made, the merger agreement gives
Biovail access to any rival bidder's information and allows it the
right to better any superior offer.  In addition, the merger
agreement provides that a termination fee of $100 million must be
paid to Biovail by Valeant if the Company decides to pursue said
other offer.

The merger agreement also provides that upon consummation of the
proposed transaction, Mr. Pearson will be the Chief Executive
Officer of the combined company and that Defendant Robert Ingram
will be the lead director of the Board of Directors of the
combined company.  In addition, Valeant will be able to select
three additional directors to serve on the board of the combined
company.  The merger agreement therefor provides the individual
defendants with preferential treatment not equally shared with
Valeant's public shareholders.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David E. Bower, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
          600 Corporate Pointe, Suite 1170
          Culver City, CA 90230-7600

               - and -

          Joseph Levi, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
          30 Broad Street, 15th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 363-7500

               - and -

          Willie C. Briscoe, Esq.
          THE BRISCOE LAW FIRM, PLLC
          8117 Preston Road, Suite 300
          Dallas, TX 75225
          Telephone: (214) 706-9314

               - and -

          Patrick Powers, Esq.
          Mark Taylor, Esq.
          8150 North Central Expy., Suite 15751
          Dallas, TX 175206
          Telephone: (214) 239-8900


WAL-MART STORES: Accused in Nevada Suit of Not Paying Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Wal-Mart stiffed workers for
overtime, a class action claims in Las Vegas Federal Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Evans v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 10-cv-01224 (D. Nev.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/07/23/Employ.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark R. Thierman, Esq.
          THIERMAN LAW FIRM, P.C.
          7287 Lakeside Dr.
          Reno, NV 89511
          Telephone: 775-284-1500
          E-mail: laborlawyer@pacbell.net

               - and -

          David R. Markham, Esq.
          R. Craig Clark, Esq.
          James M. Treglio, Esq.
          CLARK & MARKHAM LLP
          600 B St., Suite 2130
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: 619-239-1321
          E-mail: dmarkham@clarkmarkham.com
                  cclark@clarkmarkham.com
                  jtreglio@clarkmarkham.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  * * *