CAR_Public/100729.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Thursday, July 29, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 148

                             Headlines

ALCOA INC: Continues to Defend Curtis' ERISA Suit in Tennessee
AMERCO: Sued in Massachusetts Over Truck Rental Price-Fixing
AMERICAN FAMILY: Court Allows Suit to Include American Standard
ATHENAHEALTH INC: Defends "Casula" Suit in Massachusetts
BABY MATTERS: Recalls 30,000 Nap Nanny(R) Portable Baby Recliners

BIOSPHERE MEDICAL: Faces Amended Class Action Complaint
BRINE: Recalls 7,030 VIP Lacrosse Gloves
BRISTOL-MYERS: Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration Pending
BRISTOL-MYERS: Motion to Dismiss Indirect Purchaser Suit Pending
BRISTOL-MYERS: Final Approval of AWP MDL Settlement Pending

CALAMOS INVESTMENTS: CHI Faces Shareholder Suit
COCA-COLA: Court Denies Motion to Dismiss Vitaminwater Suit
COLEGIO DE ABOGADOS: 1st Cir. Affirms Declaration of Liability
CONAGRA FOODS: Remains a Defendant in Suit Over Lead in Blood
DJSP ENTERPRISES: Law Firms Re-Issue Notice of Class Action

EBAY INC: Calif. Ct. OKs Summary Judgment Bid in Antitrust Suit
FILA ACADEMY: Accused in Maryland Suit of Fraud
GSI GROUP: Approval of Settlement Agreement Remains Pending
HORIZON LINES: Court Gives Preliminary Okay to Settlement Pact
HORIZON LINES: Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint Still Pending

HORIZON LINES: Suit Over Alaska Tradelane Remains Stayed
HORIZON LINES: Motion to Dismiss "Price-Fixing" Suit Pending
HORIZON LINES: Appeal on Dismissed Securities Suit Pending
LIVING FOREST: Sued for Falsely Advertising ArthMax Products
LOWER MERION: Parents Oppose Bid for Class Suit in Webcam Case

MANATT PHELPS: Vows to Defend Against Retired NFL Players' Suit
MCDONALD'S: Deadline to Submit Hepatitis A Claims Is Sept. 30
MEDCO HEALTH: Distribution Under Revised Allocation Plan Okayed
MEDCO HEALTH: Summary Judgment Motion in Union 1529 Suit Pending
MEDCO HEALTH: Summary Judgment Motion in "Blumenthal" Pending

MEDCO HEALTH: "Miles" Suit in California Dismissed
MEDCO HEALTH: Continues to Defend Antitrust Suit in Pennsylvania
MEDCO HEALTH: "Alameda Drug" Suit in California Still Pending
NEBRASKA: Health Dept. Can't Withhold Medicaid Coverage
OREGON HEALTH: Midwives File Class Action Lawsuit

PLAYBOY ENTERPRISES: Fourth Shareholder Suit Filed in Cook County
PLAYBOY ENTERPRISES: Fifth Shareholder Suit Filed in Cook County
QUINNIPIAC UNIVERSITY: Court Rules Cheerleading Isn't a Sport
SIGMA ALDRICH: Ohio Supreme Court Reverse Appellate Ruling
TERRAPIN RESTAURANT: Says Class Suit Is Meritless

TRAVELERS COS: Appeal on Dismissal of Antitrust Suit Pending
TYCO ELECTRONICS: Approval of Settlement in "Stumpf" Pending
UNION PACIFIC: Appellate Court Affirms Judge Friedman's Ruling
UNITED STATES: Suit Seeks Lifetime Care for Veterans With PTSD
VIVENDI SA: Asks Court to Dismiss $9.3 Billion Verdict


                            *********

ALCOA INC: Continues to Defend Curtis' ERISA Suit in Tennessee
--------------------------------------------------------------
Alcoa Inc., continues to defend a class-action suit styled Curtis
v. Alcoa Inc., Civil Action No. 3:06-cv-448, pending in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee.

Curtis v. Alcoa Inc., was filed in November 2006 by plaintiffs
representing approximately 13,000 retired former employees of
Alcoa or Reynolds Metals Company and spouses and dependents of
such retirees alleging violation of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act and the Labor-Management Relations Act by requiring
plaintiffs, beginning Jan. 1, 2007, to pay health insurance
premiums and increased co-payments and co-insurance for certain
medical procedures and prescription drugs.

Plaintiffs allege these changes to their retiree health care plans
violate their rights to vested health care benefits.  Plaintiffs
additionally allege that Alcoa has breached its fiduciary duty to
plaintiffs under ERISA by misrepresenting to them that their
health benefits would never change.  Plaintiffs seek injunctive
and declaratory relief, back payment of benefits, and attorneys'
fees.  Alcoa has consented to treatment of plaintiffs' claims as a
class action.

During the fourth quarter of 2007, following briefing and
argument, the court ordered consolidation of the plaintiffs'
motion for preliminary injunction with trial, certified a
plaintiff class, bifurcated and stayed the plaintiffs' breach of
fiduciary duty claims, struck the plaintiffs' jury demand, but
indicated it would use an advisory jury, and set a trial date of
Sept. 17, 2008.

In August 2008, the court set a new trial date of March 24, 2009
and, subsequently, the trial date was moved to Sept. 22, 2009.  In
June 2009, the court indicated that it would not use an advisory
jury at trial.  Trial in the matter was held over eight days
commencing Sept. 22, 2009 and ending on Oct. 1, 2009 in federal
court in Knoxville, Tennessee, before the Honorable Thomas
Phillips, U.S. District Court Judge.

At the conclusion of evidence, the court set a post-hearing
briefing schedule for submission of proposed findings of fact and
conclusions of law by the parties and for replies to the same.

Post trial briefing was submitted on Dec.4, 2009; however, no
schedule was set for handing down a decision.

No further updates were reported in the company's July 22, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Robert S. Catapano-Friedman, Esq.
          744 Broadway
          Albany, NY 12207
          Telephone: 518-463-7501
          Facsimile: 518-463-7502
          E-mail: katapano@gmail.com

Representing the defendant is:

          John W. Woods, Jr., Esq.
          Hunton & Williams
          951 East Byrd Street
          Riverfront Plaza East Tower
          Richmond, VA 23219-4074
          Telephone: 804-788-8629
          Facsimile: 804-343-4794
          E-mail: jwoods@hunton.com


AMERCO: Sued in Massachusetts Over Truck Rental Price-Fixing
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Amerco, which owns U-Haul
International Inc., fixed prices on their one-way truck rentals, a
class action claims in Boston Federal Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Liu v. AMERCO, et al., Case No.
10-cv-11221 (D. Mass.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/07/26/Amerco.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Charles E. Tompkins, Esq.
          SHAPIRO HABER & URMY LLP
          53 State St.
          Boston, MA 02109
          Telephone: 617-439-3939
          E-mail: ctompkins@shulaw.com


AMERICAN FAMILY: Court Allows Suit to Include American Standard
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Frederick J. Martone of United States District Court for the
District of Arizona allowed plaintiffs in Miller v. American
Family Mutual Insurance Company, No. CV-09-1954-PHX-FJM
(July 23, 2010), to amend their complaint to include American
Standard Insurance Company of Wisconsin.

Plaintiffs allege in their original complaint that they had a
contractual relationship with American Family. They now move for
leave to amend their complaint, contending that during discovery
the parties identified American Standard Insurance Company of
Wisconsin as the entity that issued the relevant insurance policy.

However, Judge Martone denied the plaintiffs' motion to the extent
it seeks to amend the complaint to add a claim for injunctive
relief and to broaden the putative class definition to encompass
claims dating back to 1983.

Defendant moves to limit plaintiffs' standing to sue only on
behalf of individuals who purchased auto insurance from American
Standard. They argue that because plaintiffs have no contractual
relationship with American Family, they have no standing to assert
breach of contract claims on behalf of American Family insureds.

The Court granted the Defendant's motion.

A copy of the Court's decision is available for free at:

     http://www.leagle.com/unsecure/page.htm?shortname=infdco20100723983


ATHENAHEALTH INC: Defends "Casula" Suit in Massachusetts
--------------------------------------------------------
athenahealth, Inc., defends a putative shareholder class action
complaint captioned Casula v. athenahealth, Inc. et al., Civil
Action No. 1:10-cv-10477, according to the company's July 23,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

The suit was filed on March 19, 2010, in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Massachusetts against the company and certain
of its current and former officers.

The complaint alleges that the defendants violated the federal
securities laws by disseminating false and misleading statements
through a press release, statements by senior management, and SEC
filings.  The alleged false and misleading statements concern,
among other things, the amortization period for deferred
implementation revenues.

The complaint seeks unspecified damages, costs, and expenses.

athenahealth, Inc. -- http://www.athenahealth.com/-- is a leading
provider of Internet-based business services for physician
practices.  athenahealth's service offerings are based on
proprietary web-native practice management and electronic health
record (EHR) software, a continuously updated payer knowledge-
base, integrated back-office service operations, and automated and
live patient communication services.


BABY MATTERS: Recalls 30,000 Nap Nanny(R) Portable Baby Recliners
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Baby Matters LLC, announced a voluntary recall of about 30,000 Nap
Nanny(R) portable baby recliners.  Consumers should stop using
recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed.

CPSC is investigating a report of a 4-month-old girl from Royal
Oak, Mich. who died in a Nap Nanny(R) that was being used in a
crib. According to preliminary reports, the infant was in her
harness and found hanging over the side of the product, caught
between the Nap Nanny(R) and the crib bumper.

CPSC and Baby Matters are aware of one other incident in which an
infant became entrapped when the Nap Nanny was used in a crib,
contrary to the product instructions.  In that incident, the
infant fell over the side of the Nap Nanny(R), despite being
harnessed in, and was caught between the baby recliner and the
side of the crib.  The infant sustained a cut to the forehead.

CPSC and the firm have received 22 reports of infants, primarily
younger than 5-months-old, hanging or falling out over the side of
the Nap Nanny(R) despite most of the infants being placed in the
harness.  One infant received a bruise as a result of hanging over
the side of the product.

Infants can partially fall or hang over the side of the Nap
Nanny(R) even while the harness is in use. This situation can be
worse if the Velcro(TM) straps, located inside the Nap Nanny(R)
cover are not properly attached to the "D"-rings located on the
foam, or if consumers are using the first generation model Nap
Nanny(R) that was sold without "D"-rings.

In addition, if the Nap Nanny(R) is placed inside a crib, play
yard or other confined area, which is not a recommended use, the
infant can fall or hang over of the side of the Nap Nanny(R) and
become entrapped between the crib side and the Nap Nanny(R) and
suffocate.

Likewise, if the Nap Nanny(R) is placed on a table, countertop, or
other elevated surface and a child falls over the side, it poses a
risk of serious head injury.  Consumers should always use the Nap
Nanny(R) on the floor away from any other products.

The Nap Nanny(R) is a portable recliner designed for sleeping,
resting and playing.  The recliner includes a foam base with an
inclined indentation for the infant to sit in and a fitted fabric
cover and a three point harness. The first generation model of the
Nap Nanny(R) can be identified by the absence of "D"-rings in the
foam base. I n second generation models, the harness system has
"D"-rings in the foam base and Velcro(TM)straps inside the fitted
fabric cover.  Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10309.html

The recalled products were manufactured in United States and China
and sold through toy and children's retail stores nationwide and
online, including at www.napnanny.com, from January 2009 through
July 2010 for about $130.

Consumers with a first generation Nap Nanny(R) models, without
"D"-rings, should stop using the recalled baby recliners
immediately and contact the firm to receive an $80 coupon towards
the purchase of a new Nap Nanny(R) with free shipping.  Consumers
with a second generation Nap Nanny(R) model, with "D"-rings,
should immediately stop using the product until they are able to
visit the firm's website to obtain new product instructions and
warnings.  Consumers will also view an important instructional
video to help consumers ensure the harness is properly fastened.
Consumers who are unable to view the video or new instructions
online, should contact the firm to receive free copies by mail.
For more information, contact Baby Matters toll-free at (888) 240-
4282 between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through
Friday or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.napnanny.com/recall


BIOSPHERE MEDICAL: Faces Amended Class Action Complaint
-------------------------------------------------------
StreetInsider.com reports that on June 10, 2010, certain of the
members of the Board of Directors of BioSphere Medical, Inc.
(Nasdaq: BSMD) were named as defendants in a putative class action
complaint, captioned Fessahaye v. Faleschini, et al., C.A. No.
5553-CC, filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware.

The action, purportedly brought on behalf of a class of the
Company's stockholders, alleges that certain of the Company's
directors purportedly breached their fiduciary duties in
connection with the Company's proposed merger with Merit by
failing to maximize shareholder value and obtain the best
financial and other terms. The complaint includes a request for
declaratory, injunctive and other equitable relief, including to
enjoin the Company from consummating the merger with Merit, in
addition to fees and costs.

On July 19, 2010, plaintiff filed an amended complaint adding the
Company as a defendant and further alleging that the Company's
preliminary proxy statement fails to provide material information
and provides materially misleading information relating to the
proposed merger transaction. The Company believes that the claims
are without merit and intends to defend the suit vigorously.


BRINE: Recalls 7,030 VIP Lacrosse Gloves
----------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Brine, a division of Warrior Sports Inc., of Warren, Mich.,
announced a voluntary recall of about About 7,000 Youth and Adult
Brine VIP Lacrosse Gloves in the United States and 30 in Canada.
Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless
otherwise instructed.

Screen printing ink used on the silver triad logo on the back of
the glove contains excessive levels of lead, violating the federal
lead paint standard.

No injuries or incidents have been reported.

This recall involves black and white Brine VIP lacrosse gloves
sold in three sizes: 10, 12 and 13 inches.  The name "Brine" is
printed in white and a silver triad symbol is printed on the back
of the glove on the wrist cuff.  Pictures of the recalled products
are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10310.html

The recalled products were manufactured in Vietnam and sold
through Sporting goods stores nationwide between July 2009 and
June 2010 for about $50.

Consumers should immediately stop using the gloves and contact
Brine for a replacement or refund.  For additional information,
contact Brine toll-free at (888) 542-8834 between 8:00 a.m. and
10:00 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, or visit the
firm's Web site at http://www.brine.com/recall


BRISTOL-MYERS: Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
The motion for reconsideration of the plaintiffs on the dismissal
of the matter In re: Plavix Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litigation,
remains pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio, according to the company's July 22, 2010, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

Eighteen lawsuits comprised of both individual suits and purported
class actions have been filed against the company in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Western
Division, by various plaintiffs, including pharmacy chains
(individually and as assignees, in whole or in part, of
certain wholesalers), various health and welfare benefit
plans/funds and individual residents of various states.

These lawsuits allege, among other things, that the purported
settlement with Apotex Corp. of the patent infringement litigation
violated the Sherman Act and related laws.

Plaintiffs are seeking, among other things, permanent injunctive
relief barring the Apotex settlement and/or monetary damages.

The putative class actions filed on behalf of direct purchasers
have been consolidated under the caption In re: Plavix Direct
Purchaser Antitrust Litigation.  An amended complaint was filed on
Oct. 19, 2007.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss in December 2007.

In March 2010, the District Court granted the defendants' motion
to dismiss with respect to all the direct purchaser claims.

In April 2010, the direct purchaser plaintiffs filed a motion for
reconsideration with the District Court.

Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. -- http://www.bms.com/-- is a global
biopharmaceutical company committed to discovering, developing and
delivering innovative medicines that help patients prevail over
serious diseases.


BRISTOL-MYERS: Motion to Dismiss Indirect Purchaser Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co.'s motion to dismiss the matter In re:
Plavix Indirect Purchaser Antitrust Litigation, remains pending in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio,
according to the company's July 22, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2010.

Eighteen lawsuits comprised of both individual suits and purported
class actions have been filed against the company in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Western
Division, by various plaintiffs, including pharmacy chains
(individually and as assignees, in whole or in part, of
certain wholesalers), various health and welfare benefit
plans/funds and individual residents of various states.

These lawsuits allege, among other things, that the purported
settlement with Apotex Corp. of the patent infringement litigation
violated the Sherman Act and related laws.

Plaintiffs are seeking, among other things, permanent injunctive
relief barring the Apotex settlement and/or monetary damages.

The putative class actions filed on behalf of indirect purchasers
have been consolidated under the caption In re: Plavix Indirect
Purchaser Antitrust Litigation.  An amended complaint was filed on
Oct. 19, 2007.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss in December 2007 and that
motion remains pending.

Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. -- http://www.bms.com/-- is a global
biopharmaceutical company committed to discovering, developing and
delivering innovative medicines that help patients prevail over
serious diseases.


BRISTOL-MYERS: Final Approval of AWP MDL Settlement Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
The final approval of the settlement agreement in a consolidated
suit against Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., remains pending, according
to the company's July 22, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2010.

The company, together with a number of other pharmaceutical
manufacturers, has been a defendant in a number of private class
actions as well as suits brought by the attorneys general of
various states.  In these actions, plaintiffs allege that
defendants caused the Average Wholesale Prices (AWPs) of their
products to be inflated, thereby injuring government programs,
entities and persons who reimbursed prescription drugs based on
AWPs.

One set of class actions were consolidated in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Massachusetts (AWP MDL).

In August 2009, the District Court granted preliminary approval of
a proposed settlement of the AWP MDL plaintiffs' claims against
the company for $19 million, plus half the costs of class notice
up to a maximum payment of $1 million.

A final approval hearing is currently scheduled to occur in July
2010.

Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. -- http://www.bms.com/-- is a global
biopharmaceutical company committed to discovering, developing and
delivering innovative medicines that help patients prevail over
serious diseases.


CALAMOS INVESTMENTS: CHI Faces Shareholder Suit
-----------------------------------------------
A law firm has filed a purported class action lawsuit on behalf of
a putative common shareholder of Calamos Convertible Opportunities
and Income Fund, according to Calamos Investments' July 23, 2010,
Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The suit alleges breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting
breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment in connection with
the redemption of auction rate preferred securities by CHI.  The
named defendants include CHI itself, the current and certain
former trustees of CHI, Calamos Advisors LLC and Calamos Asset
Management, Inc.

Calamos Investments -- http://www.calamos.com/-- is a globally
diversified investment firm offering equity, fixed-income,
convertible and alternative investment strategies, among others.
The firm serves institutions and individuals around the world via
separately managed accounts and a family of open-end and closed-
end funds, providing a risk-managed approach to capital
appreciation and income-producing strategies.


COCA-COLA: Court Denies Motion to Dismiss Vitaminwater Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
CBS News and the Associated Press reported that a court case
challenging the claims on popular Vitaminwater drinks as bogus and
misleading will go forward after a judge denied Coca-Cola's
attempts to dismiss the lawsuit.

Attorneys representing the health advocacy group Center for
Science in the Public Interest and consumers from three states
have accused Coca-Cola of using deceptive labeling on its
Vitaminwater line of drinks, including claims that they reduce
risks of disease.

Coca-Cola sought dismissal of the lawsuit on technical grounds,
but on July 21 Judge John Gleeson of the U.S. District Court in
New York said the case should proceed.

Judge Gleeson said Vitaminwater's use of the word "healthy"
violates Food and Drug Administration labeling rules.  In a
55-page opinion, Judge Gleeson also took issue with the
Vitaminwater's name, which fails to identify sugar as a key
ingredient in the drink. The names of the drinks "have the
potential to reinforce a consumer's mistaken belief that the
product is comprised of only vitamins and water," Judge Gleeson
wrote.

The product's name and labeling could "reinforce a consumer's
mistaken belief that the product is comprised of only vitamins and
water," Judge Gleeson wrote.

"For too long, Coca-Cola has been exploiting Americans' desire to
eat and drink more healthfully by deceiving them into thinking
that Vitaminwater can actually prevent disease," CSPI litigation
director Steve Gardner said.

A representative for Atlanta-based Coca-Cola did not immediately
return calls for comment.

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

     http://cspinet.org/new/pdf/order_on_m-dismiss_doc_44.pdf

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

     Michael R. Reese, Esq.
     Kim E. Richman, Esq.
     REESE RICHMAN, LLP
     875 Avenue of the Americas, 18th Fl.
     New York, NY 10001

          - and -

     Deborah Clark-Weintraub, Esq.
     WHATLEY DRAKE & KALLAS, LLC
     1540 Broadway, 37th Fl.
     New York, NY 10036

          - and -

     Stephen Gardner, Esq.
     CENTER FOR SCIENCE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST
     5646 Milton Street, Suite 211
     Dallas, TX 75206

Attorneys for Defendant:

     James R. Eiszner, Esq.
     SHOOK, HARDY & BACON, LLP
     2555 Grand Blvd.
     Kansas City, MO 64108

          - and -

     Andrew Celli, Esq.
     EMERY, CELLI, BRINCKERHOFF & ABADY, LLP
     75 Rockefeller Plaza, 20th Fl.
     New York, NY 10019

          - and -

     Russell S. Bonds, Esq.
     Brian Howard, Esq.
     THE COCA-COLA COMPANY
     One Coca-Cola Plaza
     Atlanta, Georgia 30313


COLEGIO DE ABOGADOS: 1st Cir. Affirms Declaration of Liability
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed
the district court's declaration of liability and its grant of
injunctive relief in Brown v. Colegio De Abogados De Puerto Rico,
No. 08-2432 (July 23, 2010).

However, the First Circuit vacated the district court's judgment
insofar as it determines the amount of damages, and remanded the
case back to the district court to allow notice to be given to
class members including their right to opt out of the class.
Following the expiration of the notice period, the district court
may reinstate a damage award calculated as before but this time
excluding damages otherwise attributable to those who have opted
out of the class.

Colegio de Abogados de Puerto Rico is a state-created, integrated
bar association; membership has been statutorily required in order
to practice law before the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico's courts.
At the time the present dispute began, Colegio had for many years
provided compulsory life insurance to its members, funded by a
portion of their annual dues.  Plaintiffs claimed that the
organization was acting unlawfully by requiring them to purchase
life insurance in order to practice before Puerto Rican courts.

The district court slapped a $4,156,988 judgment against Colegio
in April 2009, and reserved attorneys' fees for later disposition.
In its appeal, Colegio argued that the damage award is improper
for a succession of reasons: that notice and discovery as to
damages should have been allowed, that the plaintiff class members
had benefited from the insurance and so deserved no damages, that
non-mutual offensive collateral estoppel was improper, that some
of the damage claims are barred by the statute of limitations, and
that liability is being imposed on Colegio vicariously and
inconsistent with precedent.

A copy of the First Circuit's decision is available for free at:

     http://www.leagle.com/unsecure/page.htm?shortname=infco20100723067


CONAGRA FOODS: Remains a Defendant in Suit Over Lead in Blood
-------------------------------------------------------------
ConAgra Foods, Inc., remains a defendant in a suit that seeks
class-wide relief in the form of medical monitoring for elevated
levels of lead in blood.

In fiscal 1991, the company acquired Beatrice Company.  As a
result of the acquisition and the significant pre-acquisition
contingencies of the Beatrice businesses and its former
subsidiaries, the company's consolidated post-acquisition
financial statements reflect liabilities associated with the
estimated resolution of these contingencies.  These include
various litigation and environmental proceedings related to
businesses divested by Beatrice prior to its acquisition by the
company.

The litigation includes suits against a number of lead paint and
pigment manufacturers, including ConAgra Grocery Products and the
company as alleged successors to W. P. Fuller Co., a lead paint
and pigment manufacturer owned and operated by Beatrice until
1967.  Although decisions favorable to the company have been
rendered in Rhode Island, New Jersey, Wisconsin, and Ohio, the
company remains a defendant in active suits in Illinois and
California.

The Illinois suit seeks class-wide relief in the form of medical
monitoring for elevated levels of lead in blood.  In California, a
number of cities and counties have joined in a consolidated action
seeking abatement of the alleged public nuisance.

No further information was disclosed in the company's July 22,
2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended May 30, 2010.

ConAgra Foods, Inc. -- http://www.conagrafoods.com/-- is food
company supplying potato, other vegetable, spice and grain
products to a variety of restaurants, foodservice operators and
commercial customers.  The company operates in two segments:
Consumer Foods and Commercial Foods.  The Consumer Foods segment
includes branded and private label food products, which are sold
in various retail and foodservice channels, principally in North
America.  The Commercial Foods segment includes commercially
branded foods and ingredients.  On Aug. 1, 2008, ConAgra Foods
acquired Saroni Sugar & Rice, Inc., a distribution company.  On
Sept. 22, 2008, it acquired a 49.99% interest in Lamb Weston BSW,
LLC (Lamb Weston BSW).  In June 2009, the company completed the
divestiture of the Fernando's foodservice brand.  In April 2010,
the company acquired Elan Nutrition, a formulator and manufacturer
of snack and nutrition bars.


DJSP ENTERPRISES: Law Firms Re-Issue Notice of Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
This Notice is being reissued regarding a class action lawsuit
that was filed on July 20, 2010 by the Cincinnati law firms of
Strauss & Troy and Statman Harris & Eyrich on behalf of all
persons who purchased the common stock of DJSP Enterprises, Inc.,
between March 16, 2010 and May 27, 2010, inclusive, and who
suffered damages as a result.  This Notice is being reissued
because the initial Notice had an incorrect date for the filing of
requests to be appointed lead plaintiff. The action is pending in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida.

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

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

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

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

If you wish to review a copy of the Complaint, discuss this
action, or have any questions, please contact:

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

          - and -

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

The law firms of Strauss & Troy and Statman Harris & Eyrich are
Cincinnati, Ohio law firms that have successfully represented
shareholders in national securities class actions. For more
information, visit Strauss & Troy's Web site at
http://www.strausstroy.com/or Statman Harris & Eyrich's Web site
at http://www.statmanharris.com/


EBAY INC: Calif. Ct. OKs Summary Judgment Bid in Antitrust Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
granted eBay Inc.'s motion for summary judgment in a purported
antitrust class action lawsuit, according to the company's
July 23, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

In March 2007, a plaintiff filed a purported antitrust class
action lawsuit against eBay in the Western District of Texas
alleging that eBay and its wholly owned subsidiary PayPal
"monopolized" markets through various anticompetitive acts and
tying arrangements.  The plaintiff alleged claims under sections 1
and 2 of the Sherman Act, as well as related state law claims.

In April 2007, the plaintiff re-filed the complaint in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California (No. 07-CV-
01882-RS), and dismissed the Texas action.  The complaint seeks
treble damages and an injunction.

In 2007, the case was consolidated with other similar lawsuits
(No. 07-CV-01882JF).

In June 2007, the company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.
In March 2008, the court granted the motion to dismiss the tying
claims with leave to amend and denied the motion with respect to
the monopolization claims.  Plaintiffs subsequently decided not to
refile the tying claims.

The plaintiffs' motion on class certification and the company's
motion for summary judgment were heard by the court in December
2009.

In March 2010, the District Court granted the company's motion for
summary judgment, denied plaintiffs' motion for class
certification as moot, and entered judgment in favor of the
company.  Plaintiffs have appealed the District Court's decision.
We intend to vigorously oppose plaintiff's appeal.

eBay Inc. -- http://www.ebay.com/-- connects buyers and sellers
globally on a daily basis through eBay, an online marketplace
located at www.ebay.com, and PayPal, which enables individuals and
businesses to send and receive online payments through
www.paypal.com.  The company has two business segments:
Marketplaces and Payments.  On Nov. 19, 2009, the company sold its
interest in Skype Luxembourg Holdings S.a.r.l., Skype Inc. and
Sonorit Holdings, A.S. (collectively with their respective
subsidiaries, the Skype Companies) to Springboard Group S.a.r.l.
Prior to the sale, the company operated in three segments.  Its
Communications segment, which consisted of Skype, enabled Internet
communications between Skype users and provided connectivity to
traditional fixed-line and mobile telephones.  Following the
completion of the sale of Skype, the company operates through two
business segments.


FILA ACADEMY: Accused in Maryland Suit of Fraud
-----------------------------------------------
Ryan Abbott at Courthouse News Service reports that a Maryland
cosmetology school purportedly affiliated with Paul Mitchell led
prospective students to believe they would earn "as much as
doctors and lawyers," but instead forced them to clean toilets and
hawk the school's products, according to a class action in Anne
Arundel County Court.

Several students claim the Fila Academy and its owner, Larry Fila
Jr., made false promises to lure them into signing up for one of
the school's programs, including barbering, nail technology and
skin care therapy.

The class says Fila falsely claims to be associated with Paul
Mitchell, assuring students that they need not worry about the
program's $16,300 tuition, and that the school is "reputable in
the industry."

Students say these promises are made to induce them to sign up for
federal loans so the school gets the hefty tuition.

But the academy "is more interested in securing federal funds,
grants and loans" than training its students to become licensed
professionals, the lawsuit states.  Students are allegedly
"provided with answers to exam questions before each exam, leaving
no integrity to the educational process of Fila."

Once signed up, students are put into sales rep positions and
given quotas, the class claims, and students who fail to meet
those quotas are axed from the program.

"Upon enrolling in the program, the Plaintiffs find themselves
performing demeaning tasks such as cleaning the toilets," the
students say.

They say Larry Fila, the sole shareholder and director of the
academy, "is notorious amongst students for being an
unprofessional bully who is incapable of respecting the students."

Fila students allegedly come from all walks of life, from a single
mother looking for a promised "successful life" to a young woman
who attempted suicide after "she was dismissed because of her
immaturity."

The ousted student says she was shown the door shortly after the
academy received the federal money granted to her.  She claims she
was ultimately charged 60 percent of the tuition without receiving
her promised education.

The students demand $15 million in compensatory damages and $20
million in punitive damages for five counts of fraud, unfair trade
practices, breach of contract and infliction of emotional
distress.

A copy of the Complaint in Olesky, et al. v. The Fila Academy,
Inc., et al., Case No. C-10-153971 (Md. Cir. Ct., Arundel Cty.),
is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/07/26/SkinCare.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Allan W. Steinhorn, Esq.
          CLARK & STEINHORN, LLC
          11720 Beltsville Dr., Suite 1001
          Beltsville, MD 20705
          Telephone: 301-572-5000

               - and -

          George Hermina, Esq.
          John Hermina, Esq.
          HERMINA LAW GROUP
          Laurel Lakes Executive Park
          8327 Cherry Lane
          Laurel, MD 20707
          Telephone: 301-206-3166


GSI GROUP: Approval of Settlement Agreement Remains Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
The approval of a settlement agreement entered into by GSI Group,
Inc., to resolve a putative shareholder class action in connection
with the delayed filing of its financial results remains pending,
according to the company's July 23, 2010, Form 8-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

In December 2008, a shareholder class action complaint was filed
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts
against the company and two former officers.

The complaint asserts claims under the federal securities laws,
specifically Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act,
relating to the restatement of our financial results for 2006,
2007, and the first two quarters of 2008.

The complaint alleges that the company issued a series of false or
misleading statements to the market concerning its revenues,
earnings, and financial condition.  The plaintiffs contend that
such statements caused the company's stock price to be
artificially inflated and seek unspecified damages.

In May 2010, we reached an agreement in principle to settle the
litigation subject to confirmatory discovery and approval of the
court.

GSI Group, Inc. -- http://www.gsig.com/-- develops and delivers
the enabling technology solutions that bring our customers'
advanced manufacturing applications to life.  The company's
leading brands include precision motion products, lasers, and
laser systems, and are used to boost efficiency and productivity
in the global medical, semiconductor, electronics, and industrial
markets.


HORIZON LINES: Court Gives Preliminary Okay to Settlement Pact
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico gave its
preliminary approval to the settlement agreement resolving a
consolidated suit relating to ocean shipping services in the
Puerto Rico tradelane, according to Horizon Lines Inc.'s July 23,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 20, 2010.

On April 17, 2008, the company received a grand jury subpoena and
search warrant from the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Florida seeking information regarding an investigation
by the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice into
possible antitrust violations in the domestic ocean shipping
business.

Subsequent to the commencement of the DOJ investigation, 58
purported class action lawsuits were filed against the company and
other domestic shipping carriers.  Each of the Class Action
Lawsuits purports to be on behalf of a class of individuals and
entities who purchased domestic ocean shipping services from the
various domestic ocean carriers.  These complaints allege price-
fixing in violation of the Sherman Act and seek treble monetary
damages, costs, attorneys' fees, and an injunction against the
allegedly unlawful conduct.  The Class Action Lawsuits were filed
in these federal district courts: eight in the Southern District
of Florida, five in the Middle District of Florida, nineteen in
the District of Puerto Rico, twelve in the Northern District of
California, three in the Central District of California, one in
the District of Oregon, eight in the Western District of
Washington, one in the District of Hawaii, and one in the District
of Alaska.

Thirty-two of the Class Action Lawsuits relate to ocean shipping
services in the Puerto Rico tradelane and were consolidated into a
single multidistrict litigation proceeding in the District of
Puerto Rico.

On June 11, 2009, the company entered into a settlement agreement
with the named plaintiff class representatives in the Puerto Rico
MDL litigation.  Under the settlement agreement, the company has
agreed to pay $20.0 million and to certain base-rate freezes to
resolve claims for alleged antitrust violations in the Puerto Rico
tradelane.  The company paid $5.0 million into an escrow account
and is required to pay an additional $5.0 million into the escrow
account by Oct. 10, 2010 pursuant to the terms of the settlement
agreement.  The remaining $10.0 million is required to be paid
within five business days after final approval of the settlement
agreement by the district court.

The base-rate freeze component of the settlement agreement
provides that class members who have contracts in the Puerto Rico
trade with the company as of the effective date of the settlement
agreement would have the option, in lieu of receiving cash, to
have their "base rates" frozen for a period of two years.  The
base-rate freeze would run for two years from the expiration of
the contract in effect on the effective date of the settlement
agreement.  All class members would be eligible to share in the
$20.0 million cash component, but only contract customers of the
company would be eligible to elect the base-rate freeze in lieu of
receiving cash.  The company has the right to terminate the
settlement agreement under certain circumstances.

On July 8, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary
approval of the settlement agreement in the Puerto Rico MDL
litigation.

After several hearings, the district court granted preliminary
approval of the settlement agreement on July 12, 2010.  The
settlement agreement is subject to final approval by the Court.

Horizon Lines, Inc., is a domestic ocean shipping and integrated
logistics company.  The company owns or leases a fleet of 20 U.S.-
flag containerships and operates five port terminals linking the
continental United States with Alaska, Hawaii, Guam, Micronesia
and Puerto Rico.  The company also manages a domestic and overseas
service partner network and provides integrated, reliable and cost
competitive logistics solutions.  Horizon Lines, Inc., is based in
Charlotte, NC, and trades on the New York Stock Exchange under the
ticker symbol HRZ.


HORIZON LINES: Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Horizon Lines, Inc.'s motion to dismiss an amended complaint
relating to ocean shipping services in the Hawaii and Guam
tradelanes remains pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington, according to the company's July
23, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 20, 2010.

On April 17, 2008, the company received a grand jury subpoena and
search warrant from the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Florida seeking information regarding an investigation
by the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice into
possible antitrust violations in the domestic ocean shipping
business.

Subsequent to the commencement of the DOJ investigation, 58
purported class action lawsuits were filed against the company and
other domestic shipping carriers.  Each of the Class Action
Lawsuits purports to be on behalf of a class of individuals and
entities who purchased domestic ocean shipping services from the
various domestic ocean carriers.  These complaints allege price-
fixing in violation of the Sherman Act and seek treble monetary
damages, costs, attorneys' fees, and an injunction against the
allegedly unlawful conduct.  The Class Action Lawsuits were filed
in these federal district courts: eight in the Southern District
of Florida, five in the Middle District of Florida, nineteen in
the District of Puerto Rico, twelve in the Northern District of
California, three in the Central District of California, one in
the District of Oregon, eight in the Western District of
Washington, one in the District of Hawaii, and one in the District
of Alaska.

Twenty-five of the Class Action Lawsuits relate to ocean shipping
services in the Hawaii and Guam tradelanes and were consolidated
into a MDL proceeding in the Western District of Washington.

On March 20, 2009, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
claims in the Hawaii and Guam MDL litigation.  On Aug. 18, 2009,
the District Court for the Western District of Washington entered
an order dismissing, without prejudice, the Hawaii and Guam MDL
litigation.  In dismissing the complaint, however, the plaintiffs
were granted thirty days to amend their complaint.

After several extensions, the plaintiffs filed an amended
consolidated class action complaint on May 28, 2010.

On July 12, 2010, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
plaintiffs' amended complaint.

Horizon Lines, Inc., is a domestic ocean shipping and integrated
logistics company.  The company owns or leases a fleet of 20 U.S.-
flag containerships and operates five port terminals linking the
continental United States with Alaska, Hawaii, Guam, Micronesia
and Puerto Rico.  The company also manages a domestic and overseas
service partner network and provides integrated, reliable and cost
competitive logistics solutions.  Horizon Lines, Inc., is based in
Charlotte, NC, and trades on the New York Stock Exchange under the
ticker symbol HRZ.


HORIZON LINES: Suit Over Alaska Tradelane Remains Stayed
--------------------------------------------------------
A purported class action suit against Horizon Lines, Inc.,
relating to the Alaska tradelane remains stayed, according to the
company's July 23, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 20, 2010.

On April 17, 2008, the company received a grand jury subpoena and
search warrant from the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Florida seeking information regarding an investigation
by the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice into
possible antitrust violations in the domestic ocean shipping
business.

Subsequent to the commencement of the DOJ investigation, 58
purported class action lawsuits were filed against the company and
other domestic shipping carriers.  Each of the Class Action
Lawsuits purports to be on behalf of a class of individuals and
entities who purchased domestic ocean shipping services from the
various domestic ocean carriers.  These complaints allege price-
fixing in violation of the Sherman Act and seek treble monetary
damages, costs, attorneys' fees, and an injunction against the
allegedly unlawful conduct.  The Class Action Lawsuits were filed
in these federal district courts: eight in the Southern District
of Florida, five in the Middle District of Florida, nineteen in
the District of Puerto Rico, twelve in the Northern District of
California, three in the Central District of California, one in
the District of Oregon, eight in the Western District of
Washington, one in the District of Hawaii, and one in the District
of Alaska.

One district court case remains in the District of Alaska,
relating to the Alaska tradelane.

The company and the plaintiffs have agreed to stay discovery in
the Alaska litigation.

Horizon Lines, Inc., is a domestic ocean shipping and integrated
logistics company.  The company owns or leases a fleet of 20 U.S.-
flag containerships and operates five port terminals linking the
continental United States with Alaska, Hawaii, Guam, Micronesia
and Puerto Rico.  The company also manages a domestic and overseas
service partner network and provides integrated, reliable and cost
competitive logistics solutions.  Horizon Lines, Inc., is based in
Charlotte, NC, and trades on the New York Stock Exchange under the
ticker symbol HRZ.


HORIZON LINES: Motion to Dismiss "Price-Fixing" Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Horizon Lines, Inc.'s motion to dismiss a suit alleging price-
fixing for retail goods imported to Puerto Rico remains pending,
according to the company's July 23, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 20, 2010.

On Oct. 19, 2009, a purported class action lawsuit was filed
against the company, other domestic shipping carriers and certain
individuals in the United States District Court for the District
of Puerto Rico.

The complaint purports to be on behalf of a class of individuals
(indirect purchasers) who allege to have paid inflated prices for
retail goods imported to Puerto Rico as a result of alleged price-
fixing of the defendants in violation of the Sherman Act and
various provisions of Puerto Rico law.  The purported plaintiffs
are seeking treble monetary damages, costs and attorneys' fees.

On April 9, 2010, the company filed a motion to dismiss.

Horizon Lines, Inc., is a domestic ocean shipping and integrated
logistics company.  The company owns or leases a fleet of 20 U.S.-
flag containerships and operates five port terminals linking the
continental United States with Alaska, Hawaii, Guam, Micronesia
and Puerto Rico.  The company also manages a domestic and overseas
service partner network and provides integrated, reliable and cost
competitive logistics solutions.  Horizon Lines, Inc., is based in
Charlotte, NC, and trades on the New York Stock Exchange under the
ticker symbol HRZ.


HORIZON LINES: Appeal on Dismissed Securities Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
The appeal of the plaintiff on the dismissal of a securities class
action lawsuit against Horizon Lines, Inc., remains pending in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, according to the
company's July 23, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 20, 2010.

On Dec. 31, 2008, a securities class action lawsuit was filed by
the City of Roseville Employees' Retirement System naming the
company and six current and former employees, including the
company's Chief Executive Officer, as defendants.

The complaint purported to be on behalf of purchasers of the
company's common stock.  The complaint alleged, among other
things, that the company made material misstatements and omissions
in connection with alleged price-fixing in the company's shipping
business in Puerto Rico in violation of antitrust laws.

The company filed a motion to dismiss, and the Court granted the
motion to dismiss on Nov. 13, 2009, with leave to file an amended
complaint.  The plaintiff filed an amended complaint on Dec. 23,
2009, and the company filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint on Feb. 12, 2010.

The company's motion to dismiss the amended complaint was granted
with prejudice on May 18, 2010.  On June 15, 2010, the plaintiff
appealed the Court's decision to dismiss the amended complaint.

Horizon Lines, Inc., is a domestic ocean shipping and integrated
logistics company.  The company owns or leases a fleet of 20 U.S.-
flag containerships and operates five port terminals linking the
continental United States with Alaska, Hawaii, Guam, Micronesia
and Puerto Rico.  The company also manages a domestic and overseas
service partner network and provides integrated, reliable and cost
competitive logistics solutions.  Horizon Lines, Inc., is based in
Charlotte, NC, and trades on the New York Stock Exchange under the
ticker symbol HRZ.


LIVING FOREST: Sued for Falsely Advertising ArthMax Products
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Living Forest falsely
advertised its ArthMax products as "safe dietary supplements" made
from all-natural ingredients, hiding the fact that they contain
the FDA-regulated drug Ibuprofen, according to a consumer class
action in Los Angeles Superior Court.


LOWER MERION: Parents Oppose Bid for Class Suit in Webcam Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Moran, writing for The Philadelphia Inquirer, reports that
parents of several Lower Merion School District students filed a
motion Friday opposing a bid for a class-action lawsuit over the
district's practice of secretly activating webcams on student
laptops.

The motion points out that nearly 500 parents of between 500 and
600 district high school students have signed a petition opposing
certification of the original lawsuit as a class-action matter.

"They simply do not want to be represented by plaintiffs or their
counsel in their pursuit of a litigation strategy that protracts
rather than resolves the litigation, and that harms rather than
benefits the students," the motion says.

The original lawsuit was filed on behalf of Harriton High School
student Blake Robbins and alleged that the district invaded his
privacy by recording webcam shots of him in his Penn Valley house.
Robbins is represented by lawyer Mark S. Haltzman, who could not
be reached for comment. The parents filing the motion are
identified as Colleen and Kenneth Wortley, Frances and David
McComb, and Christopher and Lorena Chambers. The district also
opposes the class-action certification.


MANATT PHELPS: Vows to Defend Against Retired NFL Players' Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Zach Lowe at The American Lawyer reports that Manatt, Phelps &
Phillips and McKool Smith released a joint statement Friday in
which they said they remain "very proud of the jury verdict we won
for our clients," and that they "plan to defend ourselves in this
case with the same integrity we exhibited in the retired players'
case."

Two separate classes of retired NFL players have sued the two
firms alleging that they left some retirees out of the settlement
and blew the chance for much greater damages, according to a copy
of the complaint. The original class action accused the NFL
players' union of intentionally excluding retired players from
licensing deals, including the ultra-lucrative deal through which
the video game maker Electronic Arts purchased the right to use
player names and images in its popular John Madden franchise. The
union, represented by Dewey & LeBoeuf, denied the allegations, but
a sympathetic jury delivered a $28 million verdict, which was to
be distributed to about 2,000 retired players. (The two sides
eventually settled for just over $26 million.)

Now some of those retired players, including Bernard Parrish, who
made the original contact with Manatt partner Ronald Katz, are
alleging that Manatt and McKool failed to argue strenuously for
damages and missed a chance to introduce incriminating
e-mails about the Electronic Arts deal, court records show.

Lewis LeClair was the lead McKool partner on the underlying case.

The crux of the suit centers on e-mails an Electronic Arts
executive sent to other EA employees. In those e-mails, the
executive complains that the NFL players' union was inflexible on
its policy of keeping retired players out of the video games
entirely. The e-mails would presumably have served as clear proof
that the players' union was failing to negotiate licensing deals
for retired players, an alleged breach of their duty to retirees,
court records show. (In the Madden games, Electronic Arts included
anonymous players to stand in for real retirees on so-called
vintage teams video game players could use if they wanted to play
with, say, one of Lombardi's Green Bay Packers teams from the
1960s.)

The e-mail constituted "obvious hearsay," the new lawsuit says,
but Manatt and McKool might have been able to get around that by
calling the EA executive to the stand or otherwise establishing
the proper foundation.

The suit also claims that the $26 million settlement was too low
and that it left out retirees who should have been eligible. When
players called Mr. Katz to complain, Mr. Katz "appeared
disinterested" and refused to meet them in person, the suit says.

The suit seeks unspecified damages.

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

     http://amlawdaily.typepad.com/files/nflplayers.pdf


MCDONALD'S: Deadline to Submit Hepatitis A Claims Is Sept. 30
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Quad-City Times reports that claimants in the class action
lawsuit involving the McDonald's restaurant in Milan, Ill., can
submit a claim form by Sept. 30 to the claims administrator.

Those who may have been exposed to hepatitis A at the restaurant
and then received immunizations can make a claim in the $500,000
settlement pending approval in Rock Island County Circuit Court.

Claim forms are available by calling (800) 641-3270 or by
downloading the form from http://www.MilanShotClass.com/Completed
forms must be received no later than Sept. 30 by The Notice
Company, Hepatitis Class Action, P. O. Box 778, Hingham, MA 02043.

Separate claim forms must be submitted for each person who had a
shot. Claims will be paid after the settlement is approved.

Those involved in the settlement may attend the hearing but are
not required to do so.

Anyone who wants to be excluded from the class and from the
settlement can mail a written request for exclusion to the claims
administrator so it is received by Aug. 27. Requests for exclusion
must specify the requester's name and address, be signed and
dated, and request exclusion from the Milan Class Action.

Any class member who has not filed a written request for exclusion
and who wishes to object to the proposed settlement must serve a
notice of intent to appear and/or object, with copies of any
papers that will be presented in court, by Aug. 27 and provide
copies of those pages to the counsel for both parties.

Those who do not file an objection by Aug. 27 will not be entitled
to be heard at the hearing, or to otherwise contest the approval
of the settlement, or to appeal from any orders of judgment.

Dan Flynn, writing for Food Safety News, reports that at a
Sept. 16 hearing, the 14th Judicial Circuit Court of Rock Island
County will decide whether to grant final approval to a proposed
settlement of Patterson v. JKLM, Inc. d/b/a McDonald's.  Parties
in the class action suit are Cody Patterson, a Quad Cities
resident acting on behalf of himself and others, and the
McDonald's franchise, owned by Kevin Murphy.

The class action settlement gives those individuals who had to get
immunizations after exposure to the hepatitis A virus the option
of sharing in the class action settlement in exchange for giving
up future claims against the restaurant for exposure to the virus.

The class action settlement is only for individuals who were
exposed to the virus but did not contract hepatitis A.  Most of
the Milan McDonald's customers who were exposed to the virus and
later contracted hepatitis A have filed separate lawsuits against
the restaurant. McDonald's employees are not included in the class
action.


MEDCO HEALTH: Distribution Under Revised Allocation Plan Okayed
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has
approved the distribution of the settlement funds to members of
the settlement class under a revised plan of allocation in a suit
against, Medco Health Solutions, Inc., according to the company's
July 22, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 26, 2010.

In December 1997, a lawsuit captioned Gruer v. Merck-Medco Managed
Care, L.L.C. was filed against Merck & Co., Inc. and the company.
The suit alleged that the company should be treated as a
"fiduciary" under the provisions of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974 and that the company had breached fiduciary
obligations under ERISA in a variety of ways.

After the Gruer case was filed, a number of other cases were filed
in the same Court asserting similar claims.  In December 2002,
Merck and the Company agreed to settle the Gruer series of
lawsuits on a class action basis for $42.5 million, and agreed to
certain business practice changes, to avoid the significant cost
and distraction of protracted litigation.  In September 2003, the
company paid $38.3 million to an escrow account, representing the
company's portion, or 90%, of the proposed settlement.  The
release of claims under the settlement applies to plans for which
the company administered a pharmacy benefit at any time between
Dec. 17, 1994, and the date of final approval.  It does not
involve the release of any potential antitrust claims.  In May
2004, the U.S. District Court granted final approval to the
settlement and a final judgment was entered in June 2004.

Various appeals were taken and in October 2007, the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit overruled all but one objection to
the settlement that had been the subject of the appeals.  The
appeals court vacated the lower court's approval of the settlement
in one respect, and remanded the case to the District Court for
further proceedings relating to the manner in which the settlement
funds should be allocated between self-funded and insured plans.

Since that time, the settlement has been revised to allocate a
greater percentage of the settlement funds to self-funded plans,
and in May 2010, the District Court approved the distribution of
the settlement funds to members of the settlement class under the
revised plan of allocation.

Medco Health Solutions, Inc. -- http://www.medcohealth.com/-- is
pioneering the world's most advanced pharmacy(R) and its clinical
research and innovations are part of Medco making medicine
smarter(TM) for approximately 65 million members.  With more than
20,000 employees dedicated to improving patient health and
reducing costs for a wide range of public and private sector
clients, and 2009 revenue of nearly $60 billion, Medco ranks 35th
on the Fortune 500 list and is named among the world's most
innovative, most admired and most trustworthy companies.


MEDCO HEALTH: Summary Judgment Motion in Union 1529 Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Medco Health Solutions, Inc., has filed a summary judgment motion
in the matter United Food and Commercial Workers Local Union No.
1529 and Employers Health and Welfare Plan Trust v. Medco Health
Solutions, Inc. and Merck & Co., Inc., according to the company's
July 22, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 26, 2010.

A proposed class action complaint against Merck and the company
was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California by trustees of a benefit plan, the United Food and
Commercial Workers Local Union No. 1529 and Employers Health and
Welfare Plan Trust.

This plan had elected to opt out of the settlement of the matter
Gruer v. Merck-Medco Managed Care, L.L.C.

The action was subsequently transferred and consolidated in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York by order
of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.

Medco Health Solutions, Inc. -- http://www.medcohealth.com/-- is
pioneering the world's most advanced pharmacy(R) and its clinical
research and innovations are part of Medco making medicine
smarter(TM) for approximately 65 million members.  With more than
20,000 employees dedicated to improving patient health and
reducing costs for a wide range of public and private sector
clients, and 2009 revenue of nearly $60 billion, Medco ranks 35th
on the Fortune 500 list and is named among the world's most
innovative, most admired and most trustworthy companies.


MEDCO HEALTH: Summary Judgment Motion in "Blumenthal" Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Medco Health Solutions, Inc., has filed a summary judgment motion
in the matter Blumenthal v. Merck-Medco Managed Care, L.L.C.,
according to the company's July 22, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 26, 2010.

The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York and asserts similar claims as in the matter
Gruer v. Merck-Medco Managed Care, L.L.C.  The plaintiff however
elected to opt out of the Gruer settlement.

In June 2010, the company filed for summary judgment.

Medco Health Solutions, Inc. -- http://www.medcohealth.com/-- is
pioneering the world's most advanced pharmacy(R) and its clinical
research and innovations are part of Medco making medicine
smarter(TM) for approximately 65 million members.  With more than
20,000 employees dedicated to improving patient health and
reducing costs for a wide range of public and private sector
clients, and 2009 revenue of nearly $60 billion, Medco ranks 35th
on the Fortune 500 list and is named among the world's most
innovative, most admired and most trustworthy companies.


MEDCO HEALTH: "Miles" Suit in California Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------
The parties in the matter Miles v. Merck-Medco Managed Care,
L.L.C., have entered into a stipulation and order of dismissal,
agreeing to dismiss the case with prejudice, according to Medco
Health Solutions, Inc.'s July 22, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 26, 2010.

In September 2002, a lawsuit captioned Miles v. Merck-Medco
Managed Care, L.L.C., based on allegations similar to those in the
matter Gruer v. Merck-Medco Managed Care, L.L.C., was filed
against Merck and the company in the Superior Court of California.
The theory of liability in this action is based on a California
law prohibiting unfair business practices.

The Miles case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California and was later transferred to the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York and
consolidated with the ERISA cases pending against Merck and the
company in that Court.

In May 2010, the parties entered into a Stipulation and Order of
Dismissal, agreeing to dismiss this matter with prejudice.

Medco Health Solutions, Inc. -- http://www.medcohealth.com/-- is
pioneering the world's most advanced pharmacy(R) and its clinical
research and innovations are part of Medco making medicine
smarter(TM) for approximately 65 million members.  With more than
20,000 employees dedicated to improving patient health and
reducing costs for a wide range of public and private sector
clients, and 2009 revenue of nearly $60 billion, Medco ranks 35th
on the Fortune 500 list and is named among the world's most
innovative, most admired and most trustworthy companies.


MEDCO HEALTH: Continues to Defend Antitrust Suit in Pennsylvania
----------------------------------------------------------------
Medco Health Solutions, Inc. continues to defend that matter In re
Pharmacy Benefit Managers Antitrust Litigation, according to the
company's July 22, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 26, 2010.

                        Brady Action

In August 2003, a lawsuit captioned Brady Enterprises, Inc., et
al. v. Medco Health Solutions, Inc., et al. was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against
Merck and the company.

The plaintiffs, who seek to represent a national class of retail
pharmacies that had contracted with the company, allege that the
company has conspired with, acted as the common agent for, and
used the combined bargaining power of plan sponsors to restrain
competition in the market for the dispensing and sale of
prescription drugs.  The plaintiffs allege that, through the
alleged conspiracy, the company has engaged in various forms of
anticompetitive conduct, including, among other things, setting
artificially low reimbursement rates to such pharmacies.

The plaintiffs assert claims for violation of the Sherman Act and
seek treble damages and injunctive relief.  The plaintiffs' motion
for class certification is currently pending before the
Multidistrict Litigation Court.

                     North Jackson Action

In October 2003, a lawsuit captioned North Jackson Pharmacy, Inc.,
et al. v. Medco Health Solutions, Inc., et al. was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama against
Merck and the company.  In their Second Amended Complaint, the
plaintiffs allege that Merck and the company engaged in price
fixing and other unlawful concerted actions with others, including
other PBMs, to restrain trade in the dispensing and sale of
prescription drugs to customers of retail pharmacies who
participate in programs or plans that pay for all or part of the
drugs dispensed, and conspired with, acted as the common agent
for, and used the combined bargaining power of plan sponsors to
restrain competition in the market for the dispensing and sale of
prescription drugs.

The plaintiffs allege that, through such concerted action, Merck
and the company engaged in various forms of anticompetitive
conduct, including, among other things, setting reimbursement
rates to such pharmacies at unreasonably low levels.  The
plaintiffs assert claims for violation of the Sherman Act and seek
treble damages and injunctive relief.  The plaintiffs' motion for
class certification has been granted, but this matter has been
consolidated with other actions where class certification remains
an open issue.

                Mike's Medical Center Action

In December 2005, a lawsuit captioned Mike's Medical Center
Pharmacy, et al. v. Medco Health Solutions, Inc., et al. was filed
against the company and Merck in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California.  The plaintiffs seek to represent
a class of all pharmacies and pharmacists that had contracted with
the Company and California pharmacies that had indirectly
purchased prescription drugs from Merck and make factual
allegations similar to those in the Alameda Drug Company action
discussed below.  The plaintiffs assert claims for violation of
the Sherman Act, California antitrust law and California law
prohibiting unfair business practices.  The plaintiffs demand,
among other things, treble damages, restitution, disgorgement of
unlawfully obtained profits and injunctive relief.

                   Consolidated Action

In April 2006, the Brady plaintiffs filed a petition to transfer
and consolidate various antitrust actions against PBMs, including
North Jackson, Brady, and Mike's Medical Center before a single
federal judge.  The motion was granted in August 2006.

These actions are now consolidated for pretrial purposes in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.  The
consolidated action is known as In re Pharmacy Benefit Managers
Antitrust Litigation.

The plaintiffs' motion for class certification in certain actions
is currently pending before the Multidistrict Litigation Court.

Medco Health Solutions, Inc. -- http://www.medcohealth.com/-- is
pioneering the world's most advanced pharmacy(R) and its clinical
research and innovations are part of Medco making medicine
smarter(TM) for approximately 65 million members.  With more than
20,000 employees dedicated to improving patient health and
reducing costs for a wide range of public and private sector
clients, and 2009 revenue of nearly $60 billion, Medco ranks 35th
on the Fortune 500 list and is named among the world's most
innovative, most admired and most trustworthy companies.


MEDCO HEALTH: "Alameda Drug" Suit in California Still Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Medco Health Solutions, Inc., continues to defend the lawsuit
captioned Alameda Drug Company, Inc., et al. v. Medco Health
Solutions, Inc., et al. pending the Superior Court of California.

In January 2004, a lawsuit captioned Alameda Drug Company, Inc.,
et al. v. Medco Health Solutions, Inc., et al. was filed against
the company and Merck in the Superior Court of California.  The
plaintiffs, which seek to represent a class of all California
pharmacies that had contracted with the company and that had
indirectly purchased prescription drugs from Merck, allege, among
other things, that since the expiration of a 1995 consent
injunction entered by the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, if not earlier, the Company failed to
maintain an Open Formulary (as defined in the consent injunction),
and that the company and Merck had failed to prevent nonpublic
information received from competitors of Merck and the company
from being disclosed to each other.

The plaintiffs further allege that, as a result of these alleged
practices, the company had been able to increase its market share
and artificially reduce the level of reimbursement to the retail
pharmacy class members, and that the prices of prescription drugs
from Merck and other pharmaceutical manufacturers that do business
with the company had been fixed and raised above competitive
levels.  The plaintiffs assert claims for violation of California
antitrust law and California law prohibiting unfair business
practices.

The plaintiffs demand, among other things, compensatory damages,
restitution, disgorgement of unlawfully obtained profits and
injunctive relief.  In the complaint, the plaintiffs further
allege, among other things, that the company acted as a purchasing
agent for its plan sponsor customers, resulting in a system that
serves to suppress competition.

No updates were reported in the company's July 22, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 26, 2010.

Medco Health Solutions, Inc. -- http://www.medcohealth.com/-- is
pioneering the world's most advanced pharmacy(R) and its clinical
research and innovations are part of Medco making medicine
smarter(TM) for approximately 65 million members.  With more than
20,000 employees dedicated to improving patient health and
reducing costs for a wide range of public and private sector
clients, and 2009 revenue of nearly $60 billion, Medco ranks 35th
on the Fortune 500 list and is named among the world's most
innovative, most admired and most trustworthy companies.


NEBRASKA: Health Dept. Can't Withhold Medicaid Coverage
-------------------------------------------------------
Timberly Ross, writing for the Associated Press, reports that the
Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services has no power to
withhold Medicaid coverage under a welfare-to-work program, the
state Supreme Court said in a ruling released Friday.

"If the Legislature had intended Medicaid to be removed as a
sanction for noncompliance, there was no reason not to have stated
so" in the statute, the high court wrote in its decision.

HHS had appealed a decision by Lancaster County District Judge
Karen Flowers dismissing the state policy that tied Medicaid
coverage for poor families to weekly work requirements.  Judge
Flowers' 2009 ruling said HHS exceeded its authority when
approving the work requirement, saying it was a matter for
lawmakers to decide.

Her decision stemmed from a class-action lawsuit filed by the
Nebraska Appleseed Center for Law in the Public Interest on behalf
of more than 400 impoverished parents. Plaintiffs argued the
state's Welfare Reform Act allows only cash assistance to be taken
away as a penalty for violating the terms of Employment First. HHS
may not impose a stricter policy by also tying the Medicaid
coverage to the work requirement, they argued.

But in HHS' appeal, attorney Matthew Dunning said state statute
grants the department the authority to set rules for public
programs and that the Welfare Reform Act does not limit that
power.

The Supreme Court rejected that argument, saying: "We will not
ignore the meaning of the statutes relevant to this case simply
because DHHS has passed a regulation and the Legislature has since
failed to amend its law to correct DHHS' error."

Nebraska Appleseed hailed the ruling and said it's expected to
affect more than 6,000 low-income parents.

"Removing access to necessary health care for up to 12 months is
crippling to any parent who has a chronic medical condition,"
executive director Rebecca Gould said. "This case ensures that
low-income parents can maintain their health so they can care for
their children and successfully enter the work force, which is the
ultimate goal of welfare reform."

Nebraska Appleseed had filed its own appeal in the case, arguing
the plaintiffs should have been awarded monetary compensation. The
Supreme Court rejected the claim.

Under the Employment First policy struck down, single parents with
children older than 6 were required to work at least 30 hours a
week to receive Medicaid. Two-parent families had to work a
combined minimum of 35 hours or 55 hours a week, depending on
whether they got federally funded child care.

Cash payments may still be withheld from people who don't work
enough hours.

A copy of the Supreme Court of Nebraska's decision is available
for free at:

     http://www.leagle.com/unsecure/page.htm?shortname=inneco20100723299


OREGON HEALTH: Midwives File Class Action Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------
Julia Gray, writing for KBND News, reports that a class action
federal lawsuit was filed against Oregon Health and Science
University.

A group of midwives and mothers say the facility had no right to
ask for the medical records of Heather Hermans after her breech
home birth ended up in the hospital.

OHSU says they support a family's right to choose a birthing
option that best fits their needs and ensures the health of the
child.


PLAYBOY ENTERPRISES: Fourth Shareholder Suit Filed in Cook County
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ralph Stone, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. Playboy Enterprises, Inc., et al., Case No.
2010-CH-31439 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty. July 22, 2010), brings
claims against certain of Playboy Enterprises, Inc.'s officers and
directors for breaches of their fiduciary duties to the Company's
non-affiliated public shareholders, arising out of an offer by
Hugh Hefner, Playboy's founder and majority stakeholder, to
purchase the remaining stock he does not already own for $5.50 per
share in cash.  Mr. Stone says the individual defendants and
Playboy breached their fiduciary obligations to the class members
by agreeing to accept consideration for the Company that is
substantially less than its value, considering the Company's
growth and anticipated operating results.

Mr. Hefner has made statements in public that he is not prepared
to sell his stake in the Company to anyone.

Mr. Stone says that the class members have suffered damages
because they will only receive $5.50 for each Company share, an
amount substantially less that the value of their Company stock.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew T. Hurst, Esq.
          SUSMAN HEFFNER & HURST LLP
          20 South Clark Street, Suite 600
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 364-3466

               - and -

          Ronen Sarraf, Esq.
          Joseph Gentile, Esq.
          SARRAF GENTILE LLP
          116 John Street, Suite 2310
          New York, NY 10038
          Telephone: (212) 868-3610

               - and -

          Kenneth J. Vianale, Esq.
          VIANALE & VIANALE LLP
          2499 Glades Road, Suite 112
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Telephone: (561) 392-4750

Coverage of Lorenzini v. Hefner, et al., Case No. 2010-CH-30171
(Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty.), appeared in the Class Action Reporter
on Wed., July 21, 2010; coverage of Braun v. Playboy Enterprises,
Inc., et al., Case No. 2010-CH-30121 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty.),
appeared in the Class Action Reporter on Wed., July 21, 2010; and
coverage of Kocses v. Playboy Enterprises, Inc., et al, Case No.
2010-CH-30349 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty.), appeared in the Class
Action Reporter on Thursday, July 22, 2010.


PLAYBOY ENTERPRISES: Fifth Shareholder Suit Filed in Cook County
----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Jason Martin, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. Hugh M. Hefner, et al., Case No.
2010-CH-31573 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty. July 22, 2010), asserts
claims against Playboy Enterprises, Inc., its Board of Directors,
and its controlling shareholder, Hugh M. Hefner, for their
breaches of fiduciary duty and other violations of state law,
arising out of an offer by Mr. Hefner to purchase the remaining
outstanding shares of stock he does not already own for an unfair
price of $5.50 per share in cash.  Mr. Stone says the $5.50 per
share offer of Mr. Hefner is too low considering the tremendous
growth potential for Playboy.  Mr. Martin relates that the
individual defendants and Playboy breached their fiduciary
obligations to the class members by failing to take steps to
maximize the value of Playboy to its shareholders and by failing
to ensure that the minority shareholders are protected from Mr.
Hefner's "overreaching".

Mr. Hefner has publicly announced that he is not interested in
selling his shares to any third party.

Mr. Martin explains that unless enjoined by the Court, the
individual defendants will continue to breach their fiduciary
duties to the class members and may consummate the proposed
transaction, to the irreparable harm of the class members.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark D. Belongia, Esq.
          Harry O. Channon, Esq.
          BELONGIA, SHAPIRO & FRANKLIN, LLP
          20 S. Clark Street, Suite 300
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 662-1030

               - and -

          Eduard Korsinsky, 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 W. Powers, Esq.
          Mark Taylor, Esq.
          CASH POWERS TAYLOR, LLP
          8150 North Central Expy., Suite 1575
          Dallas, TX 75206
          Telephone: (214) 239-8900

Coverage of Lorenzini v. Hefner, et al., Case No. 2010-CH-30171
(Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty.), appeared in the Class Action Reporter
on Wed., July 21, 2010; coverage of Braun v. Playboy Enterprises,
Inc., et al., Case No. 2010-CH-30121 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty.),
appeared in the Class Action Reporter on Wed., July 21, 2010;
coverage of Kocses v. Playboy Enterprises, Inc., et al, Case No.
2010-CH-30349 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty.), appeared in the Class
Action Reporter on Thursday, July 22, 2010; and coverage of Stone
v. Playboy Enterprises, Inc., et al., Case No. 2010-CH-31439 (Ill.
Cir. Ct., Cook Cty.), appeared in today's Class Action Reporter.


QUINNIPIAC UNIVERSITY: Court Rules Cheerleading Isn't a Sport
-------------------------------------------------------------
Cheerleading is not a real sport and universities can't use it to
achieve gender balance in athletics to comply with Title IX
regulations, a U.S. judge ruled, according to UPI.

The ruling came in the case of a Connecticut university planning
to eliminate women's volleyball to save money. The school added a
competitive cheer squad and counted its 30 members as athletes
meeting Title IX gender-equality requirements, The Christian
Science Monitor reported Friday.

Ruling in a class action suit brought on behalf of the volleyball
athletes, U.S. District Judge Stefan Underhill ruled the school
discriminated "by failing to provide equal athletic participation
opportunities for women."

Competitive cheerleading "is still too underdeveloped and
disorganized to be treated as offering genuine varsity athletic
participation," he concluded.

The ruling sets an important precedent that will influence
universities around the country, a legal analyst said.

"We understand that in these difficult economic times . . .
schools are looking for ways to tighten their budgets . . . but
this case sends a clear message that schools cannot cut costs on
the backs of women," said Neena Chaudhry of the National Women's
Law Center in Washington.


SIGMA ALDRICH: Ohio Supreme Court Reverse Appellate Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------
The Ohio Supreme Court reversed the Ohio Court of Appeals and
reinstated the trial court jury instructions and thereby the
verdict rendered by the jury in a class action complaint filed
against a subsidiary of Sigma-Aldrich Corp., according to the
company's July 22, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

A class action complaint was filed against a subsidiary of the
company in the Montgomery County, Ohio Court of Common Pleas
related to a 2003 explosion in a column at the company's Isotec
facility in Miamisburg, Ohio.

The case was separated into these four phases:

     -- phase one - existence of liability,
     -- phase two - quantification of any compensatory damages,
     -- phase three - existence of any punitive damages and
     -- phase four - quantification of any punitive damages.

Class certification was granted to phases one, three and four, but
denied to phase two.

Compensatory damages for all plaintiffs must be established before
the case can proceed to the punitive damages phases.

The company has accepted responsibility for phase one, existence
of liability.

The case is currently in the compensatory damages phase, where,
because no class status exists, each plaintiff must individually
establish actual damages.

The initial phase two, compensatory damages trial for 31
plaintiffs was completed on April 27, 2007 with a jury verdict
establishing actual damages of approximately two hundred dollars
per plaintiff.

The plaintiffs filed an appeal staying further action on the case
until the appeal has been resolved.

The Ohio Court of Appeals reversed the jury's verdict on
compensatory damages.

The Ohio Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case pursuant to the
company's request with oral argument likely commencing in early
2010.

In a decision dated June 9, 2010, the Ohio Supreme Court reversed
the Ohio Court of Appeals and reinstated the trial court jury
instructions and thereby the verdict rendered by the jury.  The
company expects to try additional phase two compensatory damage
trials in 2011.

Sigma-Aldrich Corp. -- http://www.sigma-aldrich.com/-- is a
leading Life Science and High Technology company.  The company's
biochemical and organic chemical products and kits are used in
scientific research, including genomic and proteomic research,
biotechnology, pharmaceutical development, and as key components
in pharmaceutical, diagnostic and other high technology
manufacturing.  The company has customers in life science
companies, university and government institutions, hospitals and
in industry.  Over one million scientists and technologists use
our products. Sigma-Aldrich operates in 38 countries and has 7,800
employees providing excellent service worldwide.  The company is
committed to accelerating the company's Customers' success through
leadership in Life Science, High Technology and Service.


TERRAPIN RESTAURANT: Says Class Suit Is Meritless
-------------------------------------------------
Larry Hertz, writing for Poughkeepsie Journal, reports that a
former waiter at a Rhinebeck restaurant has filed a lawsuit in
federal court claiming he was denied overtime pay and had some of
his tips withheld unfairly.

The ex-employee, Christopher Jurowski, filed the lawsuit against
the Terrapin, an upscale restaurant in the village.

In the suit, Mr. Jurowski contends he and other waiters were
forced to work overtime without being paid properly and some tips
left for him and other waiters were shared by "non-tipped
employees." He claimed the practices violated provisions of the
federal Fair Labor Standards Act.

Mr. Jurowski worked at the Terrapin from May 1, 2009, until
Jan. 31, when he was fired because he complained about the
allegedly unfair practices, according to the lawsuit. He is
seeking unspecified damages for back pay and "mental anguish and
emotional distress."

Mr. Jurowski filed the lawsuit against Hunter Kroner Ltd., doing
business as Terrapin Restaurant, as well as the restaurant's
owner, Josh Kroner, and Todd Dutt, identified in the lawsuit as
the restaurant's general manager.

Kroner's attorney, Michael Cook, Esq., of Kingston, said, "All
claims in this complaint are without merit and will be vigorously
defended."

Mr. Cook said the case had been assigned to U.S. District Judge
Cathy Seibel in White Plains.

The first issue that must be decided, Mr. Cook said, is whether
Mr. Jurowski's attorney, Todd Krakower, Esq., of White Plains,
will be permitted to make the case a class-action lawsuit, in
which damages could be sought for other employees and former
employees of the restaurant.

Mr. Cook said both sides were exchanging documents and legal
arguments, and he did not expect Seibel to make a decision on the
class-action issue for several months. The merits of the case will
not be argued until Seibel issues a decision on Mr. Krakower's
class-action request, he said.


TRAVELERS COS: Appeal on Dismissal of Antitrust Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
The appeal of the plaintiffs on the dismissal of the matter In re
Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation remains pending in the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, according to The
Travelers Companies, Inc.'s July 22, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2010.

In 2005, four putative class action lawsuits were brought against
a number of insurance brokers and insurers, including the company
and/or certain of its affiliates, by plaintiffs who allegedly
purchased insurance products through one or more of the defendant
brokers.  The plaintiffs alleged that various insurance brokers
conspired with each other and with various insurers, including the
company and/or certain of its affiliates, to artificially inflate
premiums, allocate brokerage customers and rig bids for insurance
products offered to those customers.  To the extent they were not
originally filed there, the federal class actions were transferred
to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey and were
consolidated for pre-trial proceedings with other class actions
under the caption In re Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation.

On Aug. 1, 2005, various plaintiffs, including the four named
plaintiffs in the class actions, filed an amended consolidated
class action complaint naming various brokers and insurers,
including the company and certain of its affiliates, on behalf of
a putative nationwide class of policyholders.  The complaint
included causes of action under the Sherman Act, the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, state common law and the
laws of the various states prohibiting antitrust violations.  The
complaint sought monetary damages, including punitive damages and
trebled damages, permanent injunctive relief, restitution,
including disgorgement of profits, interest and costs, including
attorneys' fees.

All defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state
a claim.  After giving plaintiffs multiple opportunities to
replead, the court dismissed the Sherman Act claims on
Aug. 31, 2007 and the RICO claims on Sept. 28, 2007, both with
prejudice, and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over
the state law claims.

The plaintiffs appealed the district court's decisions to the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.  Oral argument before the
Third Circuit took place on April 21, 2009.  The parties continue
to await a ruling from the Third Circuit.

The Travelers Companies, Inc. -- http://www.travelers.com-- is a
holding company.  Through its subsidiaries, the company is
principally engaged in providing a range of commercial, and
personal property and casualty insurance products and services to
businesses, government units, associations and individuals.  The
company is organized into three business segments.  The Business
Insurance segment offers an array of property and casualty
insurance, and insurance-related services to its clients primarily
in the United States.  The Financial, Professional & International
Insurance segment includes surety and financial liability
coverages, which primarily use credit-based underwriting
processes, as well as property and casualty products that are
primarily marketed on a domestic basis in the United Kingdom,
Canada and the Republic of Ireland, and on an international basis,
through Lloyd's.  The Personal Insurance segment writes a range of
property and casualty insurance covering personal risks.


TYCO ELECTRONICS: Approval of Settlement in "Stumpf" Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
The approval of Tyco International Ltd.'s agreement settling the
matter Stumpf v. Tyco International Ltd., et al., for $79 million,
remains pending.

Tyco International and certain of its former directors and
officers were named as defendants in over 40 purported securities
class action lawsuits.  As a part of the Separation and
Distribution Agreement, any existing or potential liabilities
related to the securities class actions were allocated among Tyco
International, Covidien, and the company.

The company is responsible for 31% of potential liabilities that
may arise upon the resolution of remaining pending litigation.
In 2007, Tyco International settled 32 of the purported
securities class action lawsuits arising from the actions alleged
to have been taken by its prior management in a class action
settlement, for which the company was responsible for 31% of the
settlement amount.  A number of individuals and entities who opted
out of the class action settlement filed actions against Tyco
International and/or Tyco International, Covidien, and the
company, all of which actions have been settled subsequently.

Nearly all of the remaining securities lawsuits were subsequently
settled, and in the second quarter of fiscal 2010, Tyco
International reached an agreement in principle to settle the
remaining significant lawsuit, Stumpf v. Tyco International Ltd.,
et al., for $79 million, with the company being responsible for
$24 million, pursuant to the sharing formula in the Separation and
Distribution Agreement.

The settlement will be subject to court approval and may be
subject to opt-out claims.  As the company had previously
established reserves for this case during the second quarter of
fiscal 2009, the agreement in principle did not impact its
Condensed Consolidated Statement of Operations.

No further updates were reported in the company's July 23, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 25, 2010.

Tyco Electronics Limited -- http://www.tycoelectronics.com/-- is
a global provider of engineered electronic components,
network solutions, wireless systems and undersea telecommunication
systems.  The company designs, manufactures,
and markets products for customers in industries from automotive,
appliance, and aerospace and defense to telecommunications,
computers, and consumer electronics.  Its products are produced in
approximately 100 manufacturing sites in over 25 countries.  The
company is a wholly owned subsidiary of Tyco International
Limited.


UNION PACIFIC: Appellate Court Affirms Judge Friedman's Ruling
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia affirmed
the ruling of the Hon. Paul Friedman of the U.S. District Court
for the District of Columbia dismissing the indirect purchasers'
claims against Union Pacific Corporation based on various state
laws, according to the company's July 23, 2010, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2010.

Twenty small rail shippers, many of whom are represented by the
same law firms, filed virtually identical antitrust lawsuits in
various federal district courts against the company and four other
Class I railroads in the U.S.  The original plaintiff filed the
first of these claims in the U.S. District Court in New Jersey on
May 14, 2007, and the additional plaintiffs filed claims in
district courts in various states, including Florida, Illinois,
Alabama, Pennsylvania, and the District of Columbia.  These suits
allege that the named railroads engaged in price-fixing by
establishing common fuel surcharges for certain rail traffic.

The company received additional complaints following the initial
claim, increasing the total number of complaints to 30.

In addition to suits filed by direct purchasers of rail
transportation, a few of the suits involve plaintiffs alleging
that they are or were indirect purchasers of rail transportation
and seek to represent a purported class of indirect purchasers of
rail transportation that paid fuel surcharges.

These complaints have added allegations under state antitrust and
consumer protection laws.

On Nov. 6, 2007, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
ordered that all of the rail fuel surcharge cases be transferred
to Judge Paul Friedman of the U.S. District Court in the District
of Columbia for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.
Subsequently, the direct purchaser plaintiffs and the indirect
purchaser plaintiffs filed Consolidated Amended Class Action
Complaints against Union Pacific Railroad Company and three other
Class I railroads.

One additional shipper filed a separate anti-trust suit during
2008.  Subsequently, the shipper voluntarily dismissed the action
without prejudice.

On Oct. 10, 2008, Judge Friedman heard oral arguments with respect
to the defendant railroads' motions to dismiss.  In a ruling on
Nov. 7, 2008, Judge Friedman denied the motion with respect to the
direct purchasers' complaint, and, therefore, that case has moved
into discovery.

On Dec. 31, 2008, Judge Friedman ruled that the allegations of the
indirect purchasers based upon state antitrust, consumer
protection and unjust enrichment laws must be dismissed.  He also
ruled, however, that the plaintiffs can proceed with their claim
for injunctive relief under the federal antitrust laws, which is
identical to a claim by the direct purchaser plaintiffs.  The
indirect purchasers are appealing Judge Friedman's ruling to the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

On April 16, 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia affirmed Judge Friedman's ruling dismissing the indirect
purchasers' claims based on various state laws.

Union Pacific Corporation -- http://www.up.com/-- is engaged in
the transportation business. The Company's operating company,
Union Pacific Railroad Company (UPRR), links 23 states in the
western two-thirds of the United States.  Union Pacific Railroad
Company's business mix includes agricultural products, automotive,
chemicals, energy, industrial products and intermodal.  UPRR has
approximately 32,094 route miles, linking Pacific Coast and Gulf
Coast ports with the Midwest and eastern United States gateways
and providing several corridors to Mexican gateways. The freight
traffic consists of bulk, manifest and premium business.  Bulk
traffic consists of coal, grain, rock, or soda ash in unit trains.
Manifest traffic is individual carload or less than train-load
business, including commodities, such as lumber, steel, paper and
food.  The transportation of finished vehicles and intermodal
containers is part of the premium business.


UNITED STATES: Suit Seeks Lifetime Care for Veterans With PTSD
--------------------------------------------------------------
Amelia Templeton, writing for OPB News, reports that Post-
Traumatic Stress Disorder has forced thousands of soldiers who
served in Iraq and Afghanistan to medically retire from the
military. A class-action lawsuit alleges that many of them have
been short changed out of lifetime medical care. Fifty-seven
Oregon and Washington veterans are participating.

Brent Shupe of Spokane, Washington, spent nine years in the Army
and the Marines. The military was his career.  But after a tour in
Iraq, Mr. Shupe says he developed post-traumatic stress disorder.

Brent Shupe: "I still only sleep probably four hours a day. That's
been true since I got back. When I go to restaurants I can't sit
in a booth, I have to sit in a corner. I have to know that there's
nothing behind me."

Mr. Shupe was given an official diagnosis and even participated in
a military treatment program. But it didn't work.  Mr. Shupe
wanted to go back to Iraq with his unit. Instead, the military
forced him to retire.  He was given a disability rating of 10
percent. That meant he got a $54,000 severance package.

Bart Stichman directs the National Veterans Legal Services
program. He says veterans like Mr. Shupe, who had to retire due to
PTSD, should have been automatically given a 50-percent disability
rating.

Bart Stichman: "I think it's fair to say a lot of them didn't
realize what they were losing by getting the low rating they got."

Even though soldiers like Mr. Shupe may have gotten lump-sum
payments, Mr. Stichman says they were made ineligible for lifetime
medical care for themselves and their families.
And they also lost other retirement and disability benefits.

Mr. Stichman's organization is representing about 1,800 veterans,
including Brent Shupe, in a class action lawsuit.

Military Spokeswoman Cynthia Smith says the military cannot
comment on ongoing litigation.


VIVENDI SA: Asks Court to Dismiss $9.3 Billion Verdict
------------------------------------------------------
Patricia Hurtado, writing for Bloomberg News, reports that Vivendi
SA asked a judge in New York Monday to dismiss a jury's fraud
verdict against the company or cut most of the $9.3 billion in
damages sought by shareholders in light of a U.S. Supreme Court
ruling.

A Manhattan federal court jury sided with investors in January,
concluding that the world's largest music company acted recklessly
and inflated its shares. Jurors found that Paris- based Vivendi
misled shareholders 57 times from 2000 to 2002 with upbeat
statements that hid a liquidity crisis. The judge must eventually
determine the amount to be awarded.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled June 24 in an unrelated case that
federal securities laws don't protect foreign investors who buy
stocks of non-U.S. companies on overseas exchanges.  Vivendi
argued Monday that the Manhattan trial judge should apply that
ruling and limit the size of the class of plaintiffs. From 2000 to
2002, Americans held only 25 percent of Vivendi's ordinary shares,
according to the company.

The high court ruling "in our view precludes all claims by any
purchasers of ordinary shares, common shares on any foreign
exchange," Paul Saunders, a lawyer for Vivendi, told U.S. District
Judge Richard Holwell in Manhattan. "It has a dramatic effect on
this case. It affects the jury's verdict, it affects the
definition of the class."

                   1 Million Shareholders

Judge Holwell didn't immediately issue any rulings Monday. "There
is quite a lot of work for the court to do," he said. "My goal is
to make a consolidated opinion and not do this piecemeal."

Plaintiffs' lawyers said after the verdict in the class- action
suit in New York that investors could recover as much as $9.3
billion. They said more than 1 million shareholders are covered by
the case, which went to trial in October.

Matthew Gluck, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, contended the Supreme
Court's ruling doesn't affect either U.S. or foreign purchasers of
Vivendi securities because the company's ordinary shares were
"listed on an American stock exchange."

"It is our position the court need not consider" the ruling, Mr.
Gluck said Monday.

The company said in court papers the high court's June 24 decision
in the case called Morrison v. National Australia Bank "will
likely reduce potential damages by at least 80 percent and may
reduce them significantly more."

                       Ordinary Shares

The company also asked the judge to dismiss the jury's verdict
outright on the grounds that it was "inconsistent" for jurors to
find Vivendi liable while voting not to assign liability to former
Chief Executive Officer Jean-Marie Messier and Guillaume Hannezo,
the company's former finance chief.

The company "believed, and continues to believe strongly, that it
did nothing wrong," Vivendi said in an e-mailed statement after
the verdict. The company has also said it will appeal the verdict.

Jurors calculated the amount by which Vivendi securities were
inflated. Amounts included 0.15 euros a share on Oct. 30, 2000, 11
euros a share on Jan. 2, 2002, and 1.75 euros a share on
Aug. 13, 2002, jurors said. One euro is worth $1.30 at Monday's
exchange rate.

Jurors evaluated 57 public comments from October 2000 to June
2002. They determined whether each statement was false, and if so
whether it was made by the company, Mr. Messier or Mr. Hannezo.

From 19 percent to 35 percent of shareholders typically submit
claims in class-action suits, Mr. Saunders, of New York-based
Cravath Swaine & Moore LLP, previously said, adding that it may be
years before damages are determined.

                       Founded in 1800s

Vivendi was founded in France in the 1800s as a water utility. Its
units now include the world's largest music company, Universal
Music Group, along with a video game company, pay-television
operations and telecommunications, its largest business.

At the trial, plaintiffs' attorney Arthur N. Abbey told jurors
Vivendi hid debt stemming from a $77 billion acquisition spree in
the 1990s that turned the company into a media and
telecommunications giant.

Investors claimed to have lost billions of dollars when Vivendi's
true financial condition became public. Shares fell from 84.70
euros on Oct. 31, 2000, to 9.30 euros on Aug. 16, 2002, the period
covered by the suit.

Vivendi's lawyers denied there was a liquidity crisis at the
company and accused the investors of distorting public comments
made by company officials.

                       French Investors

About two-thirds of the investors in the New York case are in
France, according to Vivendi. Investors that sued include the
Seventh Swedish National Pension Fund and Danske Invest
Administration A/S, a Copenhagen-based mutual-fund manager.

Holwell in 2007 certified a class of "all persons from the United
States, France, England and the Netherlands" who purchased
American Depository Shares of Vivendi between Oct. 30, 2000, and
Aug. 14, 2002.

Vivendi asked Judge Holwell to exclude purchasers of Vivendi
ordinary shares and keep "only people from the U.S. France,
England and the Netherlands who purchased Vivendi ADSs on the New
York Stock Exchange."

Vivendi agreed in 2003 to pay $50 million to settle U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission accusations of civil fraud, and
Messier agreed to pay a $1 million fine.

The SEC claimed Vivendi issued misleading press releases under
Messier and altered financial statements to make it appear the
company was generating more cash than it actually was.

The case is In Re Vivendi Universal SA Securities Litigation, Case
No. 02-cv-5571 (S.D.N.Y.).

Plaintiffs' counsel are:

     Matthew Gluck, Esq.
     MILBERG LLLP
     One Pennsylvania Plaza
     New York, NY 10119
     Telephone: (212) 594-5300
     E-mail: mgluck@milberg.com

          - and -

     Arthur N. Abbey, Esq.
     ABBEY SPANIER RODD ABRAMS & PARADIS, LLP
     212 East 39th Street
     New York, NY 10016
     Telephone: (212) 889-3700
     Facsimile: (212) 684-5191
     E-mail: aabbey@abbeygardy.com

Vivendi is defended in the case by:

     Daniel Slifkin, Esq.
     Paul C. Saunders, Esq.
     CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE LLP
     825 Eighth Avenue
     New York, NY 10019
     Telephone: (212) 474-1000
     Facsimile: (212) 474-3700
     E-mail: dslifkin@cravath.com
             psaunder@cravath.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  * * *