CAR_Public/100803.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Tuesday, August 3, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 151

                             Headlines

A.H. BELO: Agrees to Settle Suit by Home Delivery Contractors
ALABAMA: Governor Bob Riley Faces Class Suit Over Voting Rights
ALLSCRIPTS-MISYS: Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Suit Pending
AMEDISYS INC: Berman DeValerio Files Securities Class Action
APPLE INC: Scott Cole File Suit Over iPad Overheating

ASSOCIATED BANK: Sued for Charging Excessive Overdraft Fees
AT&T OPERATIONS: Accused of Failing to Pay for All Hours Worked
AVENT AMERICA: 7th Circuit Puts Insurers Off the Hook
BOUCHARD TRANSPORTATION: Settles Buzzard Bay Spill for $11.5MM
BROADCOM CORP: Court Gives Preliminary Nod to Settlement Pact

C.R. BARD: St. Francis Medical's Appeal of Junked Suit Pending
CANAL INSURANCE: Fla. Appeals Court Reverses Certification Order
CASEY'S GENERAL: Faces 3 Class Suits Over Takeover Offer
CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Appeal of Denied Class Certification Pending
E.I. DUPONT: Appeal of Plaintiffs in W.Va. PFOA Suit Pending

E.I. DUPONT: Continues to Defend Two PFOA Suits in New Jersey
EAGLE TECHNOLOGIES: Suit Expanded to Add Protection Strategies
FILA ACADEMY: Students File Class Suit & Seek $67MM in Damages
FIRESIDE BANK: Calif. Appeals Court Dismisses Appeal as Moot
GOOGLE INC: Sued for Using Street View to Intercept Private Data

GOOGLE INC: Judges Ponder Location for Privacy Lawsuits
HURONIA, CANADA: Court Formally Certifies Class Action
INTEL CORP: Court Denies Class Action Status to Antitrust Case
JAKKS PACIFIC: Settlement Fairness Hearing Set for October 19
LENNOX INTERNATIONAL: Defends "Keilholtz" Suit in California

NALCO HOLDING: Unit Faces Suits Over Use of Dispersant in Spill
NETFLIX INC: Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint Denied by Court
NYMAGIC INC: Third Shareholder Suit Filed in New York County
OFFICE DEPOT: Appeal of Lead Plaintiff on Suit Dismissal Pending
PLAYBOY ENTERPRISES: Sixth Shareholder Suit Filed in Cook County

PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE: Faces Class Action Over Veterans' Benefits
QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Defends Suit Over Defective NID Test Kits
SEARS HOLDING: West Bend Mutual Won't Honor Insurance Policy
SHERWIN-WILLIAMS: Defends Various Suits Over Lead-Based Paints
SHERWIN-WILLIAMS: Defends Various Personal Injury-Related Suits

SHERWIN-WILLIAMS: Appeal on Payment Ruling Pending in High Court
TORONTO HYDRO: Consumers May Have to Pay $8 Million Compensation
TURKEY: Armenians File Class Suit Over Century-Old Asset Seizure
U.S. STEEL: Antitrust Suit Over Products Ongoing in Illinois
UNITED STATES: Suit v. Social Security Results in $700MM Payout

UNITIL CORP: Continues to Defend Amended "Bellerman" Complaint
VAXGEN INC: Suits Dismissed After Merger Fails to Get Approval
XENOPORT INC: Holzer Firm Files Securities Class Suit in Calif.

                            *********

A.H. BELO: Agrees to Settle Suit by Home Delivery Contractors
-------------------------------------------------------------
A. H. Belo Corporation has agreed to settle a purported class
action lawsuit pending in the Superior Court of the State of
California, Riverside County, according to the company's July 27,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

On April 13, 2009, four former independent home delivery
contractors of The Press-Enterprise filed a purported class action
lawsuit against A. H. Belo Corporation, Belo Corp., Press-
Enterprise Company, and others in The Superior Court of the State
of California, Riverside County.

Plaintiffs allege, on behalf of themselves and those similarly
situated, that they were improperly classified as independent
contractors instead of as employees.  Plaintiffs assert that they
and members of the purported class were not paid all wages owed,
including minimum wages, hourly wages, and overtime wages; and
that Defendants failed to provide meal periods and rest periods or
compensation in lieu thereof, failed to reimburse for reasonable
and necessary business expenses, unlawfully withheld wages due,
failed to provide accurate wage statements, failed to keep
accurate payroll records, failed to pay wages timely, and thus
committed unfair business practices.

Plaintiffs will file a first amended complaint in July 2010 that
adds a claim under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act.
The original and amended complaints seek recovery of allegedly
unpaid wages, meal and rest period payments, penalties, expenses,
interest, attorneys' fees, and costs.

During the second quarter of 2010, A. H. Belo Corporation and the
other parties to the lawsuit reached a preliminary agreement to
settle the lawsuit, subject to Court approval.

If approved, the maximum payment under the settlement, if all
class members file valid and timely claims, is $2,500,000.
Accordingly, during the three months ended June 30, 2010, the
company recorded $2,500,000 in expense a current liability on the
balance sheet.  The parties have agreed to cooperate and take all
steps necessary and appropriate to obtain preliminary and final
approval of the settlement, to effectuate its terms, and to record
the satisfaction of judgment with the Court.

A. H. Belo Corporation -- http://www.ahbelo.com/-- headquartered
in Dallas, Texas, is a distinguished newspaper publishing and
local news and information company that owns and operates four
daily newspapers and a diverse group of Web sites.  A. H. Belo
publishes The Dallas Morning News, Texas' leading newspaper and
winner of nine Pulitzer Prizes since 1986; The Providence Journal,
the oldest continuously-published daily newspaper in the U.S. and
winner of four Pulitzer Prizes; The Press-Enterprise (Riverside,
CA), serving southern California's Inland Empire region and winner
of one Pulitzer Prize; and the Denton Record-Chronicle.  The
company publishes various specialty publications targeting niche
audiences, and its partnerships and/or investments include the
Yahoo! Newspaper Consortium and Classified Ventures, owner of
cars.com.  A. H. Belo also owns direct mail and commercial
printing businesses.


ALABAMA: Governor Bob Riley Faces Class Suit Over Voting Rights
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Demopolis Times reports that voters and elected officials in
Greene and Macon County in Alabama on July 29, 2010, filed a
class-action suit in federal court against Governor Bob Riley and
Task Force commander John Tyson.  The complaint alleges that the
governor violated the Voting Rights Act by nullifying the votes of
the electorates in Greene and Macon counties who approved state
constitutional amendments in 2003 authorizing electronic bingo
operations in their counties.

The complaint also alleges that the raids carried out by the
governor and his Task Force have the purpose of perpetuating
Alabama's historical denial of home rule to Black Belt counties,
in violation of the Ku Klux Klan Act and the 13th, 14th and 15th
Amendments to the United States Constitution.


ALLSCRIPTS-MISYS: Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Allscripts-Misys Healthcare Solutions Inc.'s motion to dismiss a
second amended complaint alleging violations of federal securities
laws remains pending, according to the company's
July 27, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended May 31, 2010.

On Aug. 4, 2009, a lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois against the company, Glen
Tullman and William Davis by the Plumbers and Pipefitters Local
Union No. 630 Pension-Annuity Trust Fund on behalf of a purported
class consisting of stockholders who purchased Allscripts common
stock between May 8, 2007 and Feb. 13, 2008.

The complaint alleges that during the class period, the company,
Glen Tullman and William Davis made materially false and
misleading statements regarding the Company's financial condition
and prospects, and on that basis the complaint asserts violations
of federal securities laws.

The plaintiff seeks to recover the price declines in Allscripts'
common stock that occurred on Nov. 8, 2007, when the company
released its third quarter 2007 financial results, and on Feb. 13,
2008, when the company released full year 2007 results.

On Oct. 5, 2009, David Robb moved for appointment as Lead
Plaintiff and for approval of selection of lead and liaison
counsel.  On Oct. 13, 2009, David Robb was appointed lead
plaintiff, and on Nov. 25, 2009, an amended complaint was filed.

On Jan. 11, 2010, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
lawsuit.  The motion is fully briefed and awaiting ruling.

On Oct. 13, 2009, David Robb was appointed lead plaintiff, and on
Nov. 25, 2009, an amended complaint was filed containing
allegations that the company, Tullman and Davis made materially
false and misleading statements and/or omissions in connection
with the release of TouchWorks EHR, Version 11.

On Jan. 11, 2010, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
lawsuit.  On April 13, 2010, the court granted the company's
motion to dismiss on the grounds that plaintiffs failed to
sufficiently describe the confidential sources upon which the
allegations in the amended complaint were based.

On May 12, 2010, the court granted plaintiffs leave to replead.

On May 14, 2010, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint,
which attributed certain allegations to four different
confidential witnesses, but made no other substantive changes.

On June 11, 2010, the company filed a motion to dismiss the second
amended complaint.  The motion is fully briefed and awaiting
ruling.

Headquartered in Chicago, Allscripts-Misys Healthcare Solutions
Inc. -- http://www.allscripts.com/-- uses innovation technology
to bring health to healthcare.  More than 160,000 physicians, 800
hospitals and nearly 8,000 post-acute and homecare organizations
utilize Allscripts to improve the health of their patients and
their bottom line.  The company's award-winning solutions include
electronic health records, electronic prescribing, revenue cycle
management, practice management, document management, hospital
care management, emergency department information systems and
homecare automation.  Allscripts is the brand name of Allscripts-
Misys Healthcare Solutions, Inc.


AMEDISYS INC: Berman DeValerio Files Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Berman DeValerio filed a securities fraud lawsuit
on July 28, 2010, against Amedisys, Inc., and certain of its top
officials.

The complaint was filed on behalf of investors who purchased or
otherwise acquired publicly traded Amedisys securities between
April 30, 2008, and July 12, 2010, and were damaged by the conduct
asserted.

Berman DeValerio -- http://www.bermandevalerio.com/-- filed the
complaint in the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Louisiana, where it was filed as Brinkley v. Amedisys,
Inc. et al., Case No. 3:10-cv-00497 (M.D. La.)

The action seeks to recover losses under Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by the United States Securities and Exchange
Commission. Pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform
Act of 1995, investors wishing to serve as the Lead Plaintiff are
required to file a motion for appointment as Lead Plaintiff by no
later than August 9, 2010.

The complaint asserts that Amedisys, a provider of home health
services, and the individual defendants engaged in a fraudulent
income-generating scheme to repeatedly inflate the Company's
publicly reported revenue and earnings by pushing patients into
extra and sometimes unnecessary home-health visits. This scheme
enabled the Company to hit threshold levels that secured
additional Medicare reimbursements, thereby issuing materially
false and misleading financial results. Medicare reimbursements
represented 88%, 87% and 89% of its net service revenue in 2009,
2008 and 2007, respectively, and are its primary focus over the
near and intermediate term, according to the complaint.

The true financial state of the Company began to emerge on
April 26, 2010, when The Wall Street Journal published an article
questioning whether healthcare companies, including Amedisys, were
taking advantage of the Medicare reimbursement system. Following
the article's publication, the Company's stock closed at $56.52 on
April 27, 2010, dropping 6.58% on heaving volume from the previous
day's close of $60.50.

Amedisys stock suffered additional significant drops following a
May 12, 2010 follow-up article by the Journal revealing the
existence of an inquiry letter from the Senate Finance Committee,
the official announcement of the inquiry letter and the Company's
June 30, 2010 announcement of a formal SEC investigation, the
complaint states.  Finally, on July 13, 2010, the Company's second
quarter earnings announcement triggered another stock drop.

As a result of these multiple disclosures concerning the Company's
revenue and billing practices, the Company's stock price collapsed
to a close of $26.57 on July 13, 2010, damaging plaintiffs and
Class members, the complaint alleges.

To receive a copy of the complaint, please call Berman DeValerio
at (800) 516-9926.

Requests for Lead Plaintiff appointment are due August 9, 2010.

Berman DeValerio is a national law firm representing plaintiffs in
lawsuits against corporate wrongdoers, chiefly for violations of
securities and antitrust laws. The firm has 39 lawyers in Boston,
San Francisco and Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.


APPLE INC: Scott Cole File Suit Over iPad Overheating
-----------------------------------------------------
A national class action lawsuit was filed July 23, 2010, by Scott
Cole & Associates, APC against Cupertino-based Apple, Inc., on
behalf of iPad tablet computer purchasers.  The suit alleges that
the iPad, launched in April of this year, shuts down from
overheating under normal operating conditions, even far below
Apple's advertised temperature limits, making the product
virtually unusable for many of its advertised functions.

"The iPad was touted as a revolutionary invention -- a product
that Apple claimed could be used inside or outside and for
purposes such as playing games and reading e-books," claim the
attorneys at Scott Cole & Associates, the law firm that filed the
action.  "Books and board games don't close up after a few minutes
of use and require you to stick them in a refrigerator to cool
off."

While the lawsuit alleges technical problems with the iPad, the
focus of the action is on Apple's advertising of the product. "Had
the company told consumers about this issue, at least they could
make informed decisions whether to buy it. That's the crux of the
case," explains Scott Cole. The lawsuit seeks damages, including
punitive damages, and restitution for the alleged false
advertising scheme. Since rolling out the iPad earlier this year,
Apple has sold over 3 million units.

The lawsuit is entitled Baltazar, et al. v. Apple, Inc., case no.
10-03231 (N.D. Calif.).

Oakland-based Scott Cole & Associates, APC is one of California's
premiere class action law firms and is devoted to representing
individuals in employment and consumer rights litigation. For more
information about its practice and cases, visit
http://www.scalaw.com/or contact Michael Lubofsky, Marketing
Specialist at (510) 891-9800 or mlubofsky@scalaw.com


ASSOCIATED BANK: Sued for Charging Excessive Overdraft Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Associated Bank charges
excessive overdraft fees by allowing customers' debit charges to
be processed even when an account lacks funds, a class action
claims in Milwaukee Federal Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Harris v. Associated Bank, N.A., Case
No. 10-cv-012266 (Wis. Cir. Ct., Milwaukee Cty.), is available at:

    http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/07/29/Associated%20Bank.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert H. Friebert, Esq.
          Matthew W. O'Neill, Esq.
          FRIEBERT, FINERTY & ST. JOHN, S.C.
          Two Plaza East, Suite 1250
          330 East Kilbourn Ave.
          Milwaukee, WI 53202
          Telephone: 414-271-0130
          E-mail: rhf@ffsj.com
                  mwo@ffsj.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey M. Ostrow, Esq.
          KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON WEISELBERG KEECHL
          200 SW 1st Ave., Suite 1200
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: 954-525-4100
          E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com


AT&T OPERATIONS: Accused of Failing to Pay for All Hours Worked
---------------------------------------------------------------
Petina R. Thigpen, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated v. AT&T Operations, Inc., Case No. 2010-CH-31945 (Ill.
Cir. Ct., Cook Cty. July 26, 2010), accuses AT&T Operations, Inc.
of failing to pay its call center workers for all hours worked, in
violation of the minimum wage and overtime provisions of the
Illinois Minimum Wage Law.  Ms. Thigpen explains that AT&T did not
correctly record all time worked, including work spent performing
integral and indispensable duties, like logging into various
computer applications before and after the workers' paid shifts.

Ms. Thigpen works as an hourly paid telephone-dedicated call
center worker in AT&T Operations' call center facility in
Arlington Heights, Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas M. Ryan, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF THOMAS M. RYAN, P.C.
          35 E. Wacker Drive, Suite 650
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 726-3400

               - and -

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


AVENT AMERICA: 7th Circuit Puts Insurers Off the Hook
-----------------------------------------------------
Leigh Jones, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that
the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals determined that insurers for
a seller of sippy cups, baby bottles, nipples and other plastic
products had no duty to defend the company in a multidistrict
class action.

Finding that the insurers were not responsible for defending Avent
America Inc. in a so-called no-injury class action, a three-judge
panel ruled that the lawsuit alleged only economic damages that
Avent's insurance didn't cover.

The court on July 15 affirmed a ruling in favor of Medmarc
Casualty Insurance Co., State Farm Fire and Casualty Co. and
Pennsylvania General Insurance Co. in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois.

The lawsuit involved 15 consolidated class actions brought by
parents who claim that Avent failed to inform them of health risks
posed by the leaching of bisphenol-A (BPA), a substance found in
certain plastics and other products. At high levels, BPA has been
associated with early puberty, obesity, cancer and neurological
damage. Philips Electronic North America Corp. is the successor in
interest to Avent.

The insurance law issue appeared to be one of first impression for
the federal appeals courts. William Savino, Esq., representing
Medmarc and Pennsylvania General, said that he was unaware of any
other federal appeals court decisions addressing an insurer's duty
to defend no-injury product liability lawsuits alleging economic
loss. Mr. Savino is managing partner of Rivkin Radler in
Uniondale, N.Y.

The 7th Circuit decision, written by Judge Joel Flaum, found that
the insurers had no duty to defend Avent because its policies
covered only bodily injuries and the plaintiffs alleged only
damages from economic loss. The court rejected Avent's claims that
the insurers were responsible because the claims arose "because of
bodily injury." Specifically, Avent argued that claims that the
products were unusable stemmed from the plaintiffs' fear of bodily
injury, which implicated the insurers.

The court was unconvinced.

"The problem with Avent's argument is that even if the underlying
plaintiffs proved every factual allegation in the underlying
complaints, the plaintiffs could not collect for bodily injury
because the complaints do not allege any bodily injury occurred,"
Judge Flaum wrote.

He added that "this is not a drafting whim or mistake on the part
of the plaintiffs' attorneys." The decision to claim only economic
damages represented a "strategic decision" by plaintiffs'
attorneys in seeking class status.

Representing Avent was Kenneth Frenchman, a partner at New York-
based Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman. He could not be reached
for comment.

Also on the appeals panel were judges Diane Wood and David
Hamilton.

Representing Medmarc and Pennsylvania General:

     William M. Savino, Esq.
     RIVKIN RADLER
     926 RXR Plaza
     Uniondale, New York 11556-0926
     Telephone: (516) 357-3349
     Facsimile: (516) 357-3333
     Email: william.savino@rivkin.com

Representing Avent:

     Kenneth H. Frenchman, Esq.
     KASOWITZ, BENSON, TORRES & FRIEDMAN LLP
     1633 Broadway
     New York, New York 10019
     Telephone: (212) 506-3323
     Facsimile: (212) 506-1800
     Email: kfrenchman@kasowitz.com


BOUCHARD TRANSPORTATION: Settles Buzzard Bay Spill for $11.5MM
--------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Boyd, writing for southcoasttoday.com, reports that a class-
action lawsuit brought by property owners against Bouchard
Transportation Co. over the 2003 Buzzards Bay oil spill could be
settled for $11.5 million.

The plaintiffs and the Long Island-based oil barging company have
agreed to a proposed settlement to compensate damage to waterfront
property, according to Jason Adkins, the plaintiffs' attorney.

The proposed settlement, which involves approximately 2,500
property owners from nine towns, still requires court approval,
Mr. Adkins said.

"Hopefully, it will put to rest damages from an event that
happened over seven years ago," he said.

Officials at Bouchard could not be reached for comment.

The company owned a barge that struck an underwater reef in the
bay and leaked up to 98,000 gallons of No. 6 oil in April 2003.
The oil polluted more than 90 miles of coastline, killed at least
450 federally protected birds and temporarily shut down about
180,000 acres of shellfish beds.

Bouchard pleaded guilty to violating the Clean Water Act and paid
the federal government $9 million in criminal fines.

In April, a jury decided Bouchard must pay eight Mattapoisett
property owners varying amounts in damages for oil that polluted
their beaches for months or years following the spill. That
decision stemmed from a separate lawsuit.

Under the proposed agreement for the federal class-action lawsuit,
class members would be defined as anyone who owns waterfront
property, including a deeded easement (right to beach access),
damaged by the oil spill. Mattapoisett owners covered by the other
lawsuit and government entities would be excluded, according to
Mr. Adkins.

The agreement deals with property damage only, he said.

Federal Judge Nathaniel Gorton is currently considering whether to
give the agreement preliminary, not final approval. Gorton held a
hearing Wednesday in Boston and will hold another one Tuesday
before deciding preliminary approval, Mr. Adkins said.

This approval would allow notification of class members, including
the establishment of a phone number and website. People would then
file claims to demonstrate damages. Following the preliminary
steps, there would be a hearing for final approval of the
settlement, which could happen in early winter, he said.

Contact:

     Jason B. Adkins, Esq.
     ADKINS, KELSTON & ZAVEZ, P.C.
     90 Canal Street, Suite 500
     Boston, MA 02114
     Telephone: 617-367-1040
     Facsimile: 617-742-8280
     Email: jadkins@akzlaw.com


BROADCOM CORP: Court Gives Preliminary Nod to Settlement Pact
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
gave its preliminary approval to the agreement settling a
consolidated shareholder class action for $160.5 million,
according to the company's July 27, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2010.

From August through October 2006 several plaintiffs filed
purported shareholder class actions in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California against Broadcom and certain of
its current or former officers and directors.

The suits are Bakshi v. Samueli, et al. (Case No. 06-5036 R
(CWx)), Mills v. Samueli, et al. (Case No. SACV 06-9674 DOC
R(CWx)), and Minnesota Bakers Union Pension Fund, et al. v.
Broadcom Corp., et al. (Case No. SACV 06-970 CJC R (CWx)), (the
Stock Option Class Actions).

The essence of the plaintiffs' allegations is that the company
improperly backdated stock options, resulting in false or
misleading disclosures concerning, among other things, its
business and financial condition.  Plaintiffs also allege that the
company failed to account for and pay taxes on stock options
properly, that the individual defendants sold its common stock
while in possession of material nonpublic information, and that
the defendants' conduct caused artificial inflation in our stock
price and damages to the putative plaintiff class.

The plaintiffs assert claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

In November 2006 the Court consolidated the Stock Option Class
Actions and appointed the New Mexico State Investment Council as
lead class plaintiff.

In October 2007 the federal appeals court resolved a dispute
regarding the appointment of lead class counsel.  In March 2008
the district judge entered a revised order appointing lead class
counsel.

The lead plaintiff filed an amended consolidated class action
complaint in late April 2008, naming additional defendants
including certain current officers and directors of Broadcom as
well as Ernst & Young LLP, the company's former independent
registered public accounting firm.

In October 2008 the district judge granted defendants' motions to
dismiss with leave to amend.  In October 2008 the lead plaintiff
filed an amended complaint.  In November 2008 defendants filed
motions to dismiss.  In February 2009 these motions were denied
except with respect to E&Y and the former Chairman of the Audit
Committee, which were granted with leave to amend, and with
respect to the former Chief Executive Officer, which was granted
without leave to amend.

The lead plaintiff did not amend its complaint with respect to the
former Chairman of the Audit Committee and the time period to do
so has expired.  With respect to E&Y, in March 2009 the district
judge entered a final judgment for E&Y and against the lead
plaintiff.  The lead plaintiff has appealed the final judgment.

In December 2009, the company agreed in principle to settle the
Stock Option Class Actions.

Under the proposed settlement, the claims against Broadcom and its
current and former officers and directors will be dismissed with
prejudice and released in exchange for a $160.5 million cash
payment by Broadcom.  The parties entered into a stipulation and
agreement of settlement dated as of April 30, 2010.  The company
recorded the settlement amount as a one-time charge in 2009 and
subsequent payment was made in June 2010 into a settlement fund
for distribution pending final approval.

On June 1, 2010, the District Court granted preliminary approval
for the proposed settlement and entered an order providing for
notice and a hearing in connection with the proposed settlement.
On July 12, 2010 the lead plaintiff filed an unopposed motion for
final approval of the proposed settlement.

Broadcom Corporation -- http://www.broadcom.com/-- is a provider
of semiconductors for wired and wireless communications.  Broadcom
provides a portfolio of system-on-a-chip (SoC) solutions to
manufacturers of computing and networking equipment and, broadband
access products and mobile devices. Its product portfolio includes
solutions for the home (Broadband Communications), solutions for
the hand (Mobile and Wireless) and solutions for network
infrastructure (Enterprise and Networking).  In December 2009, the
company acquired Dune Networks, a company, which is engaged in the
designing of switch fabric solutions for data center networking
equipment.


C.R. BARD: St. Francis Medical's Appeal of Junked Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
The appeal of St. Francis Medical Center on the dismissal of the
class action lawsuit against C. R. Bard, Inc., remains pending.

On Feb. 21, 2007, Southeast Missouri Hospital filed a putative
class action complaint on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated against the company and another manufacturer,
Tyco International, Inc., which was subsequently dismissed from
the action.

The complaint was later amended to add St. Francis Medical Center
as an additional named plaintiff.

The action was re-named as St. Francis Medical Center, et al. v.
C. R. Bard, Inc., et al., (Civil Action No. 1:07-cv-00031, in the
U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Missouri, Southeastern
District) when the court denied Southeast's motion to serve as a
class representative and dismissed Southeast from the lawsuit.

In September 2008, the court granted St. Francis's motion for
class certification and determined the measurement period for any
potential damages.  St. Francis alleges that the company conspired
to exclude competitors from the urological catheter
market and that the company sought to maintain market share by
engaging in conduct in violation of state and federal antitrust
laws.  St. Francis seeks injunctive relief and has presented an
expert report that calculates damages of up to approximately $320
million, a figure that the company believes is unsupported by the
facts.

The company's expert report establishes that, even assuming a
determination adverse to the company, the plaintiffs suffered no
damages.

In September 2009, the District Court granted Bard's summary
judgment motion and dismissed with prejudice all counts in this
action.

St. Francis has appealed the court's decision to the Eighth
Circuit Court of Appeals.

No further updates were reported in the company's July 27, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

C. R. Bard, Inc. -- http://www.crbard.com/-- headquartered in
Murray Hill, NJ, is a leading multinational developer,
manufacturer and marketer of innovative, life-enhancing medical
technologies in the fields of vascular, urology, oncology and
surgical specialty products.


CANAL INSURANCE: Fla. Appeals Court Reverses Certification Order
----------------------------------------------------------------
The District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District, reversed
a trial court's order certifying a class action involving Canal
Insurance Company.  The carrier argued that the trial court
incorrectly determined that the four required elements for
establishing a class action were satisfied.

"When the layers are peeled away, what is left is insufficient
proof of numerosity to support the certification of the class. We
therefore reverse and remand the case to the trial court to
decertify the class," the District Court of Appeal ruled.

Pursuant to section 627.7283, Florida Statutes (2004), insurance
carriers are required to pay interest on unearned premiums
returned more than thirty days after the effective date of
cancellation or receiving the notice or request for cancellation,
whichever is later. The underlying dispute arose when the
insurance carrier allegedly failed to pay interest on the late-
returned unearned insurance premiums. In 2004, three premium
finance companies -- Gibraltar Budget Plan, Inc., Puritan Budget
Plan, Inc., and Equity Premium, Inc. -- filed a class action suit
against Canal Insurance Company and Canal Indemnity Company. The
complaint alleged claims for a "Declaration of Rights," "Money Had
and Received," and "Breach of Contract." The carrier filed a
Motion to Deny Class Status Certification.

A copy of the decision is available for free at:

    http://www.leagle.com/unsecure/page.htm?shortname=inflco20100728243


CASEY'S GENERAL: Faces 3 Class Suits Over Takeover Offer
--------------------------------------------------------
Nicolas Van Praet, writing for The Financial Post, reports that
Casey's General Stores Inc. is facing three lawsuits related to a
takeover offer by Alimentation Couche-Tard Inc. as investors
demand the Iowa-based corner store chain abandon its defensive
tactics and explore a potential sale.

The most recent suit, filed last week in Iowa, is a class-action
petition by the Kentucky State District Council of Carpenters
Pension Trust Fund.  It alleges Casey's board members breached
their fiduciary duty to shareholders though "disproportionate,
draconian and preclusive defensive measures" that have hurt
investors.

"The board's refusal to negotiate in good faith and present the
company's shareholders an opportunity to fairly consider Couche-
Tard's offer is causing substantial harm to Casey's shareholders,"
the suit says.  "These (individual directors) have demonstrated a
course of action consistent only with their self-serving motives -
- namely creating barriers to a change of control in order to
ensure that they will retain their prestigious and lucrative
positions with the company."

The Carpenters Pension Trust alleges that instead of engaging in
talks with Couche-Tard, the board of Casey's created a number of
roadblocks to ward off the Quebec company's approaches. Chief
among them was a so-called "poison pill" shareholder rights
agreement adopted in April.  Under the agreement, once any single
shareholder amasses a 15% stake in Casey's, all other shareholders
except the acquiring investor would have the right to purchase new
stock in the company at half the market price.

The Pension Trust also takes issue with Casey's 10-cent dividend
announced on June 15, saying it is out of line with previous
dividends and "designed to make the company less attractive to
potential suitors by reducing its cash on hand." And it blasts
amended employment agreements Casey's struck May 27 and June 1
with certain executives.

The legal action is one of three suits filed against Casey's
related to Couche-Tard.  The others, also class-action complaints,
assert claims for breach of fiduciary duty.  One seeks an order
requiring the Casey's board to put the company up for auction. The
other seeks an order requiring the board to evaluate other deals.

Casey's said last week it believes all the claims are without
merit and that it intends to defend itself against them. None of
the allegations have been proven.

After receiving an opinion by advisers Goldman Sachs & Co.,
Casey's board on Wednesday unanimously rejected Couche-Tard's
latest offer of $36.75 US a share, saying it undervalues the
company. Casey's said it would buy back about one quarter of its
stock for between $38 US and $40 US a share in a move to increase
value for shareholders.

"(They found) a big bat" to stave off suitors, RBC Capital Markets
analyst Irene Nattel said in a research note. "The next move must
come from (Couche-Tard): Walk away or raise the offer to above $38
US to $40."

Couche-Tard executives have met with several large Casey's
shareholders in recent weeks to solicit their support for formal
negotiations between the two companies. One of those shareholders,
New York-based Clear-Bridge Advisors, has said the Casey's board's
intransigence discourages a higher offer.

Casey's is based in Ankeny, Iowa and operates roughly 1,500
convenience stores in nine midwestern states, including Missouri
and Illinois. Laval, Que.-based Couche-Tard runs a network of
5,878 stores in the United States and Canada under the names
Couche-Tard, Mac's, and Circle K.


CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Appeal of Denied Class Certification Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the denial of class certification in a lawsuit
against Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., in California remains
pending.

The lawsuit alleges violations of state laws regarding employee
record-keeping, meal and rest breaks, payment of overtime and
related practices with respect to its employees.

The case seeks damages, penalties and attorney's fees on behalf of
a purported class of the company's present and former employees.

The court denied the plaintiff's motion to certify the purported
class, and as a result the action can proceed, if at all, as an
action by a single plaintiff.  The plaintiff has appealed the
court's denial of class certification, and the appeal remains
pending.

No further updates were reported in the company's July 27, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. -- http://www.chipotle.com/--
operates fast casual, fresh Mexican food restaurants serving
burritos, tacos, bowls and salads.


E.I. DUPONT: Appeal of Plaintiffs in W.Va. PFOA Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
The appeal of the plaintiffs on the final judgment entered in
favor of E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Company in a purported class
action remains pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth
Circuit, according to the company's July 27, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2010.

In the second quarter 2006, three purported class actions were
filed alleging that drinking water had been contaminated by PFOA
(perfluorooctanoic acids and its salts, including the ammonium
salt) in excess of 0.05 ppb due to alleged releases from certain
DuPont plants.

One of these cases was filed in West Virginia state court by three
individual plaintiffs on behalf of customers of the Parkersburg
City Water District, but was removed on DuPont's motion to the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia.

In September 2008, the U.S. District Court ruled that the case
could not proceed as a class action.  Plaintiffs' appeal of the
ruling was denied.

In the second quarter 2009, the plaintiffs added a claim based on
public nuisance and moved for again class certification.
In the third quarter 2009, the Court granted summary judgment in
DuPont's favor dismissing all claims brought by the three
plaintiffs, including public nuisance and class certification,
except for medical monitoring.  In the fourth quarter 2009,
plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the medical monitoring claims.

The court entered final judgment for DuPont in January 2010.  In
the first quarter 2010, plaintiffs' appealed the final judgment to
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

A ruling is expected in 2011.

E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Company is a science-based products and
services company.  Founded in 1802, DuPont puts science to work by
creating sustainable solutions essential to a better, safer,
healthier life for people everywhere.  Operating in more than 70
countries, DuPont offers a wide range of innovative products and
services for markets including agriculture and food; building and
construction; communications; and transportation.


E.I. DUPONT: Continues to Defend Two PFOA Suits in New Jersey
-------------------------------------------------------------
E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Company continues to defend two suits
in New Jersey in connection with alleged contamination of
perfluorooctanoic acids in the drinking water, according to the
company's July 27, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

In the second quarter 2006, three purported class actions were
filed alleging that drinking water had been contaminated by PFOA
(perfluorooctanoic acids and its salts, including the ammonium
salt) in excess of 0.05 ppb due to alleged releases from certain
DuPont plants.

Two of the purported class actions were filed in New Jersey.

One was filed in federal court on behalf of individuals who
allegedly drank water contaminated by releases from DuPont's
Chambers Works plant in Deepwater, New Jersey.  The second was
filed in state court on behalf of customers serviced primarily by
the Pennsville Township Water Department and was removed to New
Jersey federal district court on DuPont's motion.

The New Jersey cases have been combined for purposes of discovery
and the complaints have been amended to allege that drinking water
had been contaminated by PFOA in excess of 0.04 ppb.

In December 2008, the court denied class action status in both
cases, but ordered additional briefing on certain issues.

In October 2009, the Court granted class certification for certain
sub-classes regarding public and private nuisance claims, while
denying class certification for all other claims.  The court also
certified a legal question related to strict liability.

In April 2010, the Court allowed plaintiffs in both cases to add a
claim under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
alleging "imminent and substantial endangerment to health and or
the environment."

The Court will set a trial date upon resolution of motions to be
filed in the third and fourth quarter 2010.

Pending further rulings by the Court, the remedies sought by the
class are expected to include abatement of the alleged nuisance,
e.g. reduction of PFOA in drinking water to less than 0.04 ppb,
and monetary damages for alleged property diminution.

E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Company is a science-based products and
services company.  Founded in 1802, DuPont puts science to work by
creating sustainable solutions essential to a better, safer,
healthier life for people everywhere.  Operating in more than 70
countries, DuPont offers a wide range of innovative products and
services for markets including agriculture and food; building and
construction; communications; and transportation.


EAGLE TECHNOLOGIES: Suit Expanded to Add Protection Strategies
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Huntemann, staff writer for Gazette.net, reports that a
$5 million class-action lawsuit filed by security guards at Fort
Detrick has been expanded to include their employer's new owner.

The guards, employees of contractor Eagle Technologies of Lanham,
claim they were cheated out of promised pay and benefits.  After
filing the suit in Prince George's County Circuit Court in March,
the guards learned Eagle Technologies recently had been acquired
by Protection Strategies of Arlington, Va., according to new court
filings by the plaintiffs.

The workers are seeking more than $5 million in punitive damages,
plus compensatory damages and legal fees.

The guards claim that they worked 12-hour shifts during holidays
but were paid for only eight hours of work. They also allege Eagle
Technologies failed to compensate them for training, failed to set
up 401(k) accounts after collecting money for such accounts and
failed to provide them with proper equipment or uniforms.

Protection Strategies "operates with knowledge that [Eagle
Technologies] engaged in illegal employment practices," according
to the plaintiffs' new filing this month.

Protection Strategies "knowingly, intentionally, willfully . . .
received [Eagle Technologies'] assets with no intention of
properly compensating plaintiffs for the work they performed," the
guards claim.

The plaintiffs work as armed guards at Fort Detrick's National
Biodefense Analysis and Countermeasures Center.  Eagle
Technologies has a five-year, $22 million contract with the base,
said plaintiff William Shank of Hagerstown.  Eagle Technologies
has more than 600 employees, according to Protection Strategies'
Web site.

Mr. Shank said up to 40 other officers now are represented in the
suit, an increase from the original dozen plaintiffs.

"We are letting taxpayers be aware that they are being cheated by
these contractors," Mr. Shank said. "We want to correct what has
been going on."

Mr. Shank said he sought help from Rep. Roscoe G. Bartlett
(R-Dist. 6) of Buckeystown. In a statement, spokeswoman Lisa
Wright said Mr. Bartlett sought additional information from all
parties involved.

"He was very disappointed that Eagle Technologies was unresponsive
to repeated requests from him for information," Ms. Wright said.

The officers are represented by the Hermina Law Group of Laurel.
John Hermina, Esq., a partner, declined to comment on the case.

Officials at neither Eagle Technologies nor Protection Strategies
returned phone messages seeking comment.  Eagle Technologies is
represented by Richard C. Daniels, Esq., of College Park, who
could not be reached for comment.

Privately held Protection Strategies provides security services to
federal agencies, including the Departments of State, Defense,
Energy and Homeland Security.

Representing the plaintiffs:

     John Hermina, Esq.,
     HERMINA LAW GROUP
     Laurel Lakes Executive Park
     8327 Cherry Lane
     Laurel, Maryland 20707
     Telephone: 301-206-3166; 410-792-2727
     Facsimile: 301-490-7913
     Email: law@herminalaw.com

Representing Eagle Technologies:

     Richard C. Daniels, Esq.
     4509 Beechwood Road
     College Park, Maryland 20740
     Telephone: (301)864-8406


FILA ACADEMY: Students File Class Suit & Seek $67MM in Damages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Daugherty, staff writer for The Capital newspaper in
Maryland, reports that students who paid $16,300 to an area
cosmetology school to learn how to cut hair were instead required
to clean toilets, solicit new customers and peddle the school's
styling products, according to two class action lawsuits filed in
county Circuit Court.

In all, seven former students are suing the Fila Academy and its
owner, Larry Fila Jr. of Linthicum.  They claim officials with the
academy, which previously purported an association with Paul
Mitchell, lied about how the Glen Burnie school's various programs
on barbering, nail technology and skin care therapy would
eventually make them as much money as "doctors and lawyers."

In reality, they claim, the administrators wanted to "collect the
federal and other funds and then rid themselves of the students."

Mr. Fila and his attorney, Stephen Thienel, did not return calls
for comment about the lawsuits, which seek a total of $27 million
in compensatory and $40 million in punitive damages. In court
papers, Mr. Fila has denied any wrongdoing.

     Stephen C. Thienel, Esq.
     THIENEL LAW FIRM LLC
     10624 Harpoon Hill
     Columbia, MD 21044
     Telephone: 443-535-9715
     Facsimile: 443-535-9716

Allan Steinhorn and George Hermina, the attorneys who filed both
lawsuits on behalf of the students, and officials with Paul
Mitchell also did not return calls.

     Allan Steinhorn, Esq.
     11720 Beltsville Dr.
     Beltsville, MD 20705
     Telephone: (301) 572-5000

     -- and --

     George Hermina, Esq.
     HERMINA LAW GROUP
     Laurel Lakes Executive Park
     8327 Cherry Lane
     Laurel, Maryland 20707
     Telephone: 301-206-3166; 410-792-2727
     Facsimile: 301-490-7913
     Email: law@herminalaw.com

According to the lawsuits -- which claim among other things fraud,
deceptive trade practices and breach of contract -- the academy
lied about being associated with Paul Mitchell, having acceptance
standards, and even the extent to which students would be required
to pay the tuition.

The academy "falsely informed plaintiffs that they need only sign
financial aid forms and they would not need to worry about paying
funds," a lawsuit said, noting several students were surprised
when they started getting bills.

The academy also did not tell students upon their registration
they would need to buy their own equipment, meet sales quotas to
stay enrolled or bring in their own clients to receive hands-on
training, a lawsuit said. Students who did not have any clients on
whom to work were asked to clean toilets or perform other
"demeaning tasks."

When students ran afoul of Mr. Fila or their teachers, the academy
did not abide by a "progressive discipline" policy laid out in its
catalog, a lawsuit said. While a student was supposed to receive
six warnings before he or she was dismissed, some students were
kicked out after their first infraction.

The lawsuits highlighted incidents in which the school enrolled a
16-year-old girl and then dismissed her for being "immature." She
was charged 60 percent of her total tuition bill. Another student
-- a single mother -- was kicked her out when she missed a day of
work to stay home with her sick child. She was charged her entire
tuition.

"In other words, plaintiffs knowingly enrolled (students) they
knew they would dismiss," a lawsuit said.

Finally, the students complained Mr. Fila, the sole shareholder
and director of the academy, is "an unprofessional bully who is
incapable of respecting the students," a lawsuit said. They argued
Mr. Fila regularly inflicted "severe emotional distress" on them.

One student -- the 16-year-old girl -- attempted suicide after her
dismissal, a lawsuit said.

The lawsuits were filed Aug. 31, 2009, and July 8, 2010, in county
Circuit Court in Annapolis. The first lawsuit involves three
students while the second involves four. All seven students were
briefly parties to the first lawsuit.


FIRESIDE BANK: Calif. Appeals Court Dismisses Appeal as Moot
------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of California, Sixth District, denied as moot
a writ petition in the Fireside Bank Cases and dismissed as moot
an appeal insofar as it is taken from orders denying leave to
intervene and refusing to certify a subclass consisting of
judgment debtors.

In these coordinated class actions challenging a lender's
collection practices, the trial court denied all relief to, and
eventually entered dismissals with prejudice against, all class
members against whom the lender had previously secured judgments
in separate collection actions. The chief ground on which this
ruling is challenged is that the Unfair Competition Law (UCL),
Business and Professions Code sections 17200 et sequitur,
empowered the trial court to disregard the judgments, or even
grant affirmative relief from them, on a class-wide basis. The
Appeals Court holds that the act cannot be so understood. Since no
other ground of relief is urged, the Appeals Court affirmed the
orders and judgment from which the appeal is taken.

A copy of the decision is available for free at:

     http://www.leagle.com/unsecure/page.htm?shortname=incaco20100728061


GOOGLE INC: Sued for Using Street View to Intercept Private Data
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sharon and Salvatore Sedita, on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated v. Google, Inc., Case No. 10-cv-03286 (N.D.
Calif. July 27, 2010), accuses Google of wrongfully acquiring
person and private information from "thousands of individuals
throughout the United States", without permission or consent.  The
Plaintiffs allege that Google, in operating its service called
Street View, which allows users of Google Maps and Google Earth to
view actual photos of addresses throughout the United States and
the world, collected information sent over open WiFi networks,
including passwords, credit card numbers and email communications,
in violation of the Wiretap Act.

Google Inc. is a global technology company that provides a web
based search engine through its Web site.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Guido Saveri, Esq.
          R. Alexander Saveri, Esq.
          Cadio Zirpoli, Esq.
          SAVERI & SAVERI, INC.
          706 Sansome Street
          San Francisco, CA 941112
          Telephone: (415) 217-6810
          E-mail: guido@saveri.com
                  rick@saveri.com

               - and -

          Bryan L. Clobes, Esq.
          Michael S. Tarringer, Esq.
          CAFFERTY FAUCHER LLP
          1717 Arch Street, Suite 3610
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 864-2800
          E-mail: bclobes@caffertyfaucher.com
                  mtarringer@millerfaucher.com

               - and -

          Terry Gross, Esq.
          Adam C. Belsky, Esq.
          GROSS BELSKY ALONSO LLP
          180 Montgomery Street, Suite 2200
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          E-mail: terry@grossbelsky.com
                  adam@gba-law.com

               - and -

          Michael J. Flannery, Esq.
          CAREY, DANIS & LOWE
          8235 Forsyth Blvd., Suite 1100
          St. Louis, MO 63105
          E-mail: mflannery@careydanis.com


GOOGLE INC: Judges Ponder Location for Privacy Lawsuits
-------------------------------------------------------
Rebecca Boone, writing for The Associated Press, reports that a
panel of federal judges is deciding where to consolidate several
lawsuits against Google Inc. that allege the company violated
wiretapping laws.

At least nine lawsuits seeking class-action status have been filed
in the United States so far contending that Google collected
fragments of e-mails, Web surfing data and other online
information from unencrypted wireless networks as it photographed
neighborhoods for its "Street View" Google Maps feature.  Google
is also facing investigations or inquiries in 38 states as well as
in several countries, including Germany, Spain and Australia.

The Mountain View, Calif., company said in May it inadvertently
collected the data from public Wi-Fi networks in more than 30
countries, but it maintains it never used the data and it hasn't
broken any laws.

Google attorney David Burman asked the U.S. Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation to consolidate the cases on Google's home
turf in the Northern District of California.  Some of the
plaintiffs suing Google are pushing for the same location, Mr.
Burman told the judges, and the majority of witnesses are likely
to be from the region.

But Robert Curtis, an attorney who filed one of the first cases
against Google on behalf of Hamilton County, Ohio, resident
Matthew Burlage, pointed out that other plaintiffs could come from
anywhere in the United States.

"In the allegations of the complaint, the Google Street View cars
drove down almost every street in America, so it could be in the
tens of millions of people," Mr. Curtis said. "Everybody who had a
wireless or Internet connection accessible at the street level."

Still, Mr. Curtis said his clients supported consolidating the
cases in the Northern California as well. Other possibilities
sought by some plaintiffs include Washington, D.C., and
Massachusetts.

The judges didn't indicate when they would make a decision.

Some of the lawsuits are filed by people who say they saw Google's
Street View vehicles outside their homes and later learned the
cars were equipped with devices that could intercept, capture and
store information from their wireless networks.  Some say they
believe Google may have gathered personal and business e-mails,
passwords, documents and other information transmitted over the
Internet.

The attorneys were arguing for their choice of venue in Boise
because the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, which
is charged with assigning complex cases that cross several
jurisdictions, was holding its July meeting at Boise's U.S.
District Court.

Representing Google:

     David J. Burman, Esq.
     PERKINS COIE
     1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4800
     Seattle, Washington 98101-3099
     Telephone: 206-359-8426
     Facsimile: 206-359-9426
     Email: DBurman@perkinscoie.com


HURONIA, CANADA: Court Formally Certifies Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Beth Marlin, writing for The Globe and Mail, reports that
Mr. Justice Maurice Cullity formally certified last week a
$1 billion class-action lawsuit against the provincial government
alleging systemic abuse and neglect of former residents of
Ontario's largest ever institution for people with developmental
disabilities.

The Ontario Superior Court judge, who retired on his 75th birthday
Saturday, told a packed Osgoode Hall courtroom that a trial judge,
still to be appointed, will take over the case.

The province, which has yet to file a statement of defense, will
hand over the names of former residents between 1945 and Huronia's
March 31, 2009, closing to plaintiffs' counsel within 120 days,
Crown lawyer Robert Ratcliffe told the court.

"In the case of family members, it may take up to six months to be
able to track that information back," Mr. Ratcliffe said in court,
explaining that family law courts were not introduced in Ontario
until 1978.  In material filed with the court Wednesday, Mr.
Ratcliffe said the province believes there are no more than 1,000
former residents covered by the lawsuit, not the thousands
suggested by the plaintiffs.  Outside court, he declined to
comment further.

Lynda Gourlie, a retired school teacher from Brampton whose sister
Diane lived at Huronia between 1959 and 1979, and others left the
courtroom visibly upset, even though the lawsuit may now proceed
as they'd hoped.

"It's very painful to talk about. It brings tears to my eyes,"
said Ms. Gourlie, who describes her sister as "a recovering
survivor."

"Siblings [of former Huronia residents] have a lot of painful
memories on account of having children ripped from our family
unit," she said. "It was a nightmare. We went to visit her two
times a year and saw her being taken away through the clanking
doors with the orderlies literally dragging her kicking and
screaming."

The institution, which first opened as the Orillia Asylum for
Idiots in 1876, held 2,600 people at its height in 1968.  For
decades, the provincial government, which operated Huronia
Regional Centre, was accused of ignoring widespread allegations of
abuse and neglect and the recommendations for reform included in a
scathing government-commissioned report. In 2004, when the
provincial government finally announced plans to shut the
facility, there were fewer than 350 residents remaining.

Marilyn Dolmage, who once worked at Huronia as a social worker,
initiated the lawsuit with her husband, Jim. Ms. Dolmage says
records at the institution suggested her brother was not treated
for the pneumonia that led to his death at Huronia when he was
eight years old.

In her affidavit, Ms. Dolmage has described residents being kept
in caged cots, having all their teeth removed for safety reasons
and being held upside down with their heads under running water as
punishment for not eating. Other affidavits filed on behalf of
former residents describe routine beatings, degrading treatment
and the frequent use of psychotropic drugs to manage behavior.

Contact:

     Robert Ratcliffe, Esq.
     Attorney General of Ontario
     720 Bay Street, 8th Floor
     Toronto, Ontario M5G 2K1
     Telephone: (416) 326-4128
     Facsimile: (416) 326-4181
     E-mail: robert.ratcliffe@ontario.ca


INTEL CORP: Court Denies Class Action Status to Antitrust Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
Don Clark at The Wall Street Journal reports that Intel Corp. won
a key ruling in a suit against the company on behalf of computer
buyers, which found no evidence that consumers have been hurt by
the company's discounting practices in the market for computer
chips.

A special master in the case, filed in U.S. District Court in
Delaware, recommended the court reject a motion to certify the
case for class-action status.  Under the court's rules, the
recommendation will serve as the court's ruling unless the
plaintiffs object within 21 days.

The case had proceeded in parallel with a private antitrust suit
brought in June 2005 by Advanced Micro Devices Inc., which Intel
agreed to settle in November along with a $1.25 billion payment to
AMD. Both cases alleged that Intel used improper discounts and
other tactics to deter computer makers from buying microprocessor
chips from AMD, with the proposed class-action case focusing on
alleged harm to consumers from Intel's behavior.

Intel's tactics have also been challenged by antitrust agencies on
three continents, including a suit by the U.S. Federal Trade
Commission that is in settlement negotiations. Throughout the
process, Intel has denied wrongdoing and argued that its
discounting practices represented a lawful form of competition
that has helped bring PC prices down.

Special Master Vincent Poppiti appeared to give support to that
argument. In a 112-page opinion, he wrote that PC makers had
discretion about how to use Intel discounts. In some cases, he
wrote, they passed the benefits on to consumers in the form of
lower prices -- undercutting the idea that all members of the
proposed class of consumers suffered a "common impact" from
Intel's action.  Mr. Poppiti based his conclusions on what he
called the "unreliable analyses" of an expert witness for the
plaintiffs, who argued that consumers had been overcharged as a
result of Intel's tactics.

Chuck Mulloy, an Intel spokesman, said the ruling supports what
Intel has been saying in the litigation for five years.
"Consumers, as well as computer manufacturers, have benefited from
Intel's price discounts," he said. "When Intel's competitors offer
lower prices, Intel responds with its own discounts that lower
Intel's prices, just as any competitive company would."

Guido Saveri, a San Francisco lawyer representing the plaintiffs,
said he plans to appeal the ruling, which he called "travesty" in
view of the fact that AMD and European regulators had received
compensation for Intel's alleged actions. "It's ridiculous that
that the only people who are not getting paid are the guys who are
hurt," he said.

Contact:

     Guido Saveri, Esq.
     SAVERI & SAVERI, INC.
     706 Sansome Street
     San Francisco, California 94111-1730
     Telephone: 888-787-8681
     Facsimile: 415-217-6813


JAKKS PACIFIC: Settlement Fairness Hearing Set for October 19
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York, in In re JAKKS Pacific, Inc. Shareholders Class Action
Litigation, Civil Action No. 04-CV-8807 (RJS), a summary notice
has been issued:

TO: all persons who purchased shares of the common stock of JAKKS
Pacific, Inc., during the time period from December 3, 1999
through and including October 19, 2004

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an order of the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York, that a hearing will
be held on October 19, 2010, at 10:00 a.m., before the Honorable
Richard J. Sullivan, at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan U.S.
Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, New York, New York 10007, for the
purpose of determining: (1) whether the proposed settlement of the
claims asserted by Lead Plaintiffs in the captioned class action
against Defendants JAKKS, Jack Friedman, Steven G. Berman and Joel
M. Bennett for the sum of $3,925,000 in cash pursuant to the terms
set forth in the Stipulation of Settlement dated November 2, 2009,
should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable and adequate;
(2) whether, thereafter, the Litigation should be dismissed with
prejudice as set forth in the Stipulation; (3) whether the
proposed Plan of Allocation is fair, reasonable and adequate and
therefore should be approved; and (4) whether the application of
Plaintiffs' Co-Lead Counsel for the payment of attorneys' fees and
expenses incurred in connection with the Litigation should be
approved.

If you purchased shares of JAKKS common stock during the period
from December 3, 1999 through and including October 19, 2004, your
rights may be affected by the settlement of the Litigation, which
is described in the detailed Notice of Pendency of Class Action
and Proposed Settlement, Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Settlement
Fairness Hearing. The Notice also describes the proposed
settlement and the steps Class Members must take to share in the
proposed settlement, request exclusion from the Class, or object
to the proposed settlement and any application for attorneys' fees
and expenses. If you have not yet received copies of the Notice
and the Proof of Claim and Release, you may obtain copies of these
documents by contacting the Claims Administrator:

     In re Jakks Pacific Securities Litigation
     c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC, Claims Administrator
     P.O. Box 8040
     San Raphael, CA 94912-8040
     Telephone: (888) 878-1361
     http://www.gilardi.com/jakks

Inquiries, other than requests for the forms of Notice and Proof
of Claim, may be made to Plaintiffs' Co-Lead Counsel:

     Ellen Gusikoff Stewart, Esq.
     ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
     655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
     San Diego, CA 92101
     Telephone: (619) 231-1058

     -- and --

     Matthew A. Kupillas, Esq.
     MILBERG LLP
     One Penn Plaza
     New York, NY 10119-0165
     Telephone: (212) 594-5300

If you are a Class Member, in order to share in the distribution
of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof of Claim
postmarked no later than November 18, 2010, establishing that you
are entitled to recovery. If you are a Class Member and do not
submit a proper Proof of Claim, you will not share in the
Settlement but you nevertheless will be bound by any judgment
entered in the Litigation.

If you desire to be excluded from the Class, you must submit a
request for exclusion postmarked by September 28, 2010, in the
manner and form explained in the detailed Notice referred to
above. All Class Members who have not requested exclusion from the
Class will be bound by any judgment entered in the Litigation.

Any objection to the settlement must be mailed or delivered such
that it is received by the Court and by counsel no later than
September 28, 2010.

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING
THIS NOTICE. If you have any questions about the settlement, you
may contact Plaintiffs' Co-Lead Counsel at the addresses listed
above.

By Order of The United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York.


LENNOX INTERNATIONAL: Defends "Keilholtz" Suit in California
------------------------------------------------------------
Lennox International Inc., continues to defend the matter styled
Keilholtz v. Lennox Hearth Products, Lennox Industries and Lennox
International, Inc., pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, according to the company's
July 27, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2010.

The class action lawsuit against the company was filed on
Feb. 6, 2008.

The lawsuit, which involves no personal injury claims, alleges
that certain of the company's single-pane, glass-front, gas
fireplaces are hazardous and that consumers were not adequately
warned, and seeks economic damages.

On Feb. 16, 2010, the court issued an order certifying a
nationwide class of plaintiffs.

Through its subsidiaries, Lennox International Inc. --
http://www.lennoxinternational.com/-- is a global leader in the
heating, air conditioning, and refrigeration markets.


NALCO HOLDING: Unit Faces Suits Over Use of Dispersant in Spill
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nalco Holding Company's indirect subsidiary, Nalco Company, faces
suits relating to its use of its COREXIT dispersant in connection
with the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, according to the company's
July 27, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

In June 2010, Nalco Company was named, along with other
unaffiliated defendants, in three putative class action complaints
filed in either the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Louisiana (Parker et al. v. Nalco Company et al., Civil Action
No. 2:10-cv-01749-CJB-SS), the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Alabama, Southern Division (Lavigne v. BP
PLC, et al, Civil Action No. 1:10-cv-00222-C) or the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Florida, Pensacola Division
(Walsh v. BP, PLC et al., Civil Action No. 3:10-cv-00143-RV-MD) on
behalf of various potential classes of persons who live and work
in or derive income from the Coastal Zone.

The Parker case has since been administratively transferred for
pre-trial purposes with other related cases under Civil Action No.
2:10-cb-01156-CJB-SS, In re: Deepwater Horizon.

On July 23, 2010, Nalco Company was named, along with other
unaffiliated defendants, in a complaint filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana (Harris et al. v. BP
PLC et al., Civil Action No. 2:10-cv-02078-CJB-SS).

Each of these actions contains substantially similar allegations,
generally alleging, among other things, negligence relating to the
use of the company's COREXIT dispersant in connection with the
Deepwater Horizon oil spill.  The plaintiffs in each of these
putative class action lawsuits are generally seeking awards of
unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, and attorneys' fees
and costs.

Nalco Holding Company -- http://www.nalco.com/-- is the world's
leading water treatment and process improvement company,
delivering significant environmental, social and economic
performance benefits to our customers.  The company helps its
customers reduce energy, water and other natural resource
consumption, enhance air quality, minimize environmental releases
and improve productivity and end products while boosting the
bottom line.  Together the company's comprehensive solutions
contribute to the sustainable development of customer operations.
Nalco is a member of the Dow Jones Sustainability World Index.
More than 11,500 Nalco employees operate in 150 countries
supported by a comprehensive network of manufacturing facilities,
sales offices and research centers to serve a broad range of end
markets.  In 2009, Nalco achieved sales of more than $3.7 billion.


NETFLIX INC: Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint Denied by Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Netflix, Inc.'s motion to dismiss an amended complaint claiming
that the company, along with Wal-Mart Stores Inc., and Walmart.com
USA LLC, colluded to divide the rental and retail markets for
DVDs, thus driving up Netflix subscription prices allowing Wal-
Mart to overcharge for DVD sales, has been denied, according to
the company's July 27, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2010.

In January through April 2009, a number of purported anti-trust
class action suits were filed against the company.  Wal-Mart
Stores, Inc. and Walmart.com USA LLC were also named as defendants
in these suits.

Most of the suits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California and other federal district courts
around the country.  A number of suits were filed in the Superior
Court of the State of California, Santa Clara County.

The plaintiffs, who are current or former Netflix customers,
generally allege that Netflix and Wal-Mart entered into an
agreement to divide the markets for sales and online rentals of
DVDs in the United States, which resulted in higher Netflix
subscription prices.  On April 10, 2009, the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation ordered all cases pending in federal
court transferred to the Northern District of California to be
consolidated or coordinated for pre-trial purposes.

These cases have been assigned the multidistrict litigation number
MDL-2029.

On March 19, 2010, plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification.

The cases pending in the Superior Court of the State of
California, Santa Clara County have been consolidated.

In addition, in May of 2009, three additional lawsuits were filed
-- two in the Northern District of California and one in the
Superior Court of the State of California, San Mateo County --
alleging identical conduct and seeking identical relief.
In these three cases, the plaintiffs are current or former
subscribers to the online DVD rental service offered by
Blockbuster Inc.  The two cases filed in federal court on behalf
of Blockbuster subscribers have been related to MDL-2029.
On Dec. 1, 2009, the federal Court entered an order granting
defendants' motion to dismiss the two federal cases filed on
behalf of Blockbuster subscribers.  Plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint on March 1, 2010.

Defendants moved to dismiss the Blockbuster subscribers' amended
complaint on March 31, 2010.

The Court denied the motion to dismiss on July 6, 2010.

The lawsuit filed in Superior Court of the State of California,
San Mateo County has been coordinated with the cases pending in
Santa Clara County.  The complaints, which assert violations of
federal and/or state antitrust laws, seek injunctive relief, costs
(including attorneys' fees) and damages in an unspecified amount.

Netflix, Inc. -- http://www.netflix.com/-- provides online movie
rental subscription service in the United States to approximately
10 million subscribers.  The company offers a variety of plans and
provides subscribers access to over 100,000 digital versatile disc
(DVD) and Blu-ray titles plus more than 12,000 streaming content
choices.


NYMAGIC INC: Third Shareholder Suit Filed in New York County
------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Walker, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v.
Nymagic, Inc., et al., Case No. 109851/2010 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New
York Cty. July 26, 2010), accuses the Board of Directors of
Nymagic of breaching its fiduciary duties in connection with the
proposed sale of Nymagic to ProSight Specialty Insurance Holdings,
Inc., a specialty property and casualty insurance company, in an
all-cash transaction valued at roughly $230 million.

Mr. Walker is a shareholder of Nymagic, an insurance holding
company whose property and casualty subsidiaries specialize in
underwriting ocean marine, inland marine, and non-marine liability
insurance.

On July 15, 2010, Nymagic announced it signed a definitive merger
agreement in connection with the proposed transaction, under which
Nymagic shareholders will receive $25.75 per share in cash upon
completion of the merger.  The proposed transaction is expected to
close in the fourth quarter of 2010.  Mr. Walker alleges that the
$25.75 per share offer is too low given the Company's present and
future growth and profitability objectives.

Mr. Walker says the Board failed to discharge its fiduciary duties
to the Company's shareholders by failing to obtain maximum value
for their shares, failing to conduct a fair sale process, and by
facilitating certain Company insiders' entry into voting
agreements with ProSight pursuant to which they have agreed to
vote, in the aggregate, roughly 40% of their outstanding Nymagic
shares in favor of the transaction.

Mr. Walker also brings claims against Nymagic and ProSight for
aiding and abetting the individual defendants' breaches of
fiduciary duties.

Mr. Walker says the individual defendants are using their
positions of power and control to benefit themselves, to the
exclusion of the Company's public shareholders.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian P. Murray, Esq.
          MURRAY FRANK & SAILER LLP
          275 Madison Avenue, 8th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 682-1818

Coverage of Gross v. Nymagic, Inc., et al., Case No. 650979/2010
(N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty.), appeared in the Class Action
Reporter on Friday, July 23, 2010; and coverage of Cambridge
Retirement System v. Nymagic, Inc., et al., Case No. 651058/2010
(N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty.), appeared in the Class Action
Reporter on Wednesday, July 28, 2010.


OFFICE DEPOT: Appeal of Lead Plaintiff on Suit Dismissal Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
The appeal of The New Mexico Educational Retirement Board, lead
plaintiff in a consolidated securities fraud lawsuit against
Office Depot, Inc., remains pending in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Florida.

Initially, two putative class-action complaints were filed against
the company and certain of its executive officers,
alleging violations of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The allegations in the lawsuits, which were both filed in November
2007, primarily relate to the accounting for vendor
program funds.

Each of the lawsuits was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida, and is captioned as:

       * Nichols v. Office Depot, Steve Odland and Patricia
         McKay, Case Number, 07-14348), filed on Nov. 6, 2007;
         and

       * Sheet Metal Worker Local 28 v. Office Depot, Steve
         Odland and Patricia McKay, Case Number, 07-81038),
         filed on Nov. 5, 2007.

On Jan. 4, 2008, certain parties in the Nichols case moved to
consolidate the two class action lawsuits.  On March 21, 2008,
the court entered an order consolidating the cases.  The lead
plaintiff in the consolidated case, the New Mexico Educational
Retirement Board, filed a consolidated amended complaint on July
2, 2008.

On Sept. 2, 2008, Office Depot filed a motion to dismiss the
Consolidated Amended Complaint on the basis that it fails to
state a claim.

On March 31, 2009, the court dismissed the Consolidated Amended
Complaint, but allowed the lead plaintiff leave to amend.

On April 20, 2009, the lead plaintiff filed a Second Consolidated
Amended Complaint.

On May 21, 2009, the company filed a motion to dismiss the Second
Consolidated Amended Complaint.

On Jan. 14, 2010, the Court dismissed the Second Consolidated
Amended Complaint.

On Feb. 9, 2010, the lead plaintiff filed a notice to appeal this
decision, and that appeal remains pending.

No further updates were reported in the company's July 27, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 26, 2010.

The suit is Nichols v. Office Depot, Inc. et al., Case No.
07-cv-14348, (S.D. Fla.) (Hurley, J.).

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          David J. George, Esq.
          COUGHLIN STOIA GELLER RUDMAN & ROBBINS LLP
          120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500
          Boca Raton, FL 33432
          Telephone: 561-750-3000
          Facsimile: 561-750-3364
          E-mail: dgeorge@csgrr.com

               - and -

          Alfred G. Yates, Jr., Esq.
          ALLEGHNEY BUILDING
          429 Forbes Avenue, Suite 1618
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: 412-338-2266

Representing the defendants is:

          Alvin F. Lindsay, III, Esq.
          HOGAN & HARTSON
          1111 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1900
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: 305-459-6500
          Facsimile: 305-459-6550
          E-mail: aflindsay@hhlaw.com


PLAYBOY ENTERPRISES: Sixth Shareholder Suit Filed in Cook County
----------------------------------------------------------------
Enclave Asset Management, LLC, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. Hugh Hefner, et al., Case No.
2010-CH-31951 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty. July 26, 2010), asserts
claims against Playboy Enterprises, Inc., members of Playboy's
Board of Directors, and Hugh M. Hefner, Playboy's founder and
owner of 69.5 of the Company's Class A securities and 27.7% of the
Company's Class B securities, for their breaches of fiduciary duty
in connection with the offer by Mr. Hefner to purchase the
remaining outstanding shares of Playboy stock he does not already
own for $5.50 per share in cash.  Enclave says the offer of Mr.
Hefner is "unfair and inadequate" given Playboy's intrinsic value,
growth, profitability and anticipated operating results.  Further,
Enclave explains, FriendFinder Networks, formerly Penthouse Media
Group, has made an offer 10% higher than Mr. Hefner's offer, but
Mr. Hefner has refused to consider it, saying he is "buying, not
selling."

According to Enclave, the individual defendants also breached
their fiduciary duty owed to Company's public shareholders by
obtaining for themselves personal benefits, including personal
financial benefits not equally shared with the Company's public
shareholders.   Mr. Hefner, as controlling shareholder, breached
those fiduciary duties by making an offer which undervalues
Playboy's shares for his personal benefit.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Charles W. Branham, III, Esq.
          Hamilton Lindley, Esq.
          GOLDFARB BRANHAM, LLP
          Saint Ann Court
          2501 North Harwood Street, Suite 1801
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (214) 583-2233

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; coverage of Stone
v. Playboy Enterprises, Inc., et al., Case No. 2010-CH-31439 (Ill.
Cir. Ct., Cook Cty.), appeared in the Class Action Reporter on
Thursday, July 29, 2010; and coverage of Martin v. Hugh M. Hefner,
et al., Case No. 2010-CH-31573 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty.) appeared
in the Class Action Reporter on Thursday, July 29, 2010.


PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE: Faces Class Action Over Veterans' Benefits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Joel Rosenblatt at Bloomberg News reports Prudential Insurance Co.
of America was sued over claims it earns interest of more than
5.69% on veterans' life-insurance policies and pays beneficiaries
only 1%.

The insurer, a unit of Prudential Financial Inc., "paid to
beneficiaries on the accrued claims only one percent interest on
the accrued monies as of the day of death or traumatic injury of
the insured," according to the lawsuit, filed July 29, 2010, in
federal court in Springfield, Massachusetts.

The suit seeks class action, or group, status. It was brought by
Kevin and Joyce Lucey, the beneficiaries of a $250,000 life
insurance policy for their son, Jeffrey Lucey, a former member of
the armed forces who died in 2004, according to the suit.

The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs said July 28 it is
investigating life insurance companies' practice of putting
veterans' death benefits in corporate accounts and keeping most of
the investment profits instead of paying the survivors.

The Luceys were paid $53,000 in 2004, and the balance of the
policy, or $197,000, in 2009, and an added one percent annual
interest rate when the funds were distributed, according to the
complaint.

The suit cites Department of Veterans Affairs reports showing that
Prudential Insurance, as the administrator of the veterans'
policies, collected $982.8 million in veterans' policy premiums in
2009, $144.1 million in investment income and held reserves of
more than $2.5 billion, "indicating earnings exceeding 5.69
percent per year," according to the complaint.

                         "Doesn't Belong"

The interest accrued during the delay "is money that doesn't
belong to Prudential," Cristobal Bonifaz, Esq., a lawyer
representing plaintiffs, said in a phone interview.  "If you delay
the payment, you better turn that money over."

Bob DeFillippo, a spokesman for Newark, New Jersey-based
Prudential Insurance, the second-largest U.S. life insurer, said
the company hasn't seen the lawsuit and declined to comment.

Prudential Financial said it's in talks with the Department of
Veterans Affairs over the concerns raised by the agency.

"It is important that the beneficiaries of our fallen service men
and women are treated with dignity and respect during a very
difficult time," Prudential Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
John Strangfeld said in a statement. "Given the questions raised
over the life insurance program we administer for the Department
of Veterans Affairs, we welcome an opportunity to address the
concerns and to set the record straight."

The case is Lucey v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America, Case No.
10-30163 (D. Mass.).

Representing the plaintiffs:

     Cristobal Bonifaz, Esq.
     180 Maple Street
     P.O. Box 180
     Conway, MA 01341
     Telephone: (413) 369-4263


QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Defends Suit Over Defective NID Test Kits
------------------------------------------------------------
Quest Diagnostics Inc. and its subsidiary, Nichols Institute
Diagnostics, defends a putative class action filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York, according to
the company's July 27, 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 April 2010, York on behalf of entities that
allegedly purchased or paid for certain of NID's test kits.

The complaint alleges that certain of NID's test kits were
defective and that defendants, among other things, violated the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and state
consumer protection laws.

The complaint alleges an unspecified amount of damages.

The test kits are the automated test to measure parathyroid
hormone levels in human blood or urine samples.  Parathyroid
hormone (PTH) regulates calcium levels and bone cells; parathyroid
gland failure is a common complication of severe kidney disease.
Doctors must monitor hormone levels to ensure that patients
continue to experience burn turnover and a regulated metabolism.

Insufficient levels of vitamin D can cause bone pain, while too
much calcium can cause nausea, vomiting, kidney stones and other
side effects.

Quest Diagnostics Inc. -- http://www.QuestDiagnostics.com/-- is
the world's leading provider of diagnostic testing, information
and services that patients and doctors need to make better
healthcare decisions.  The company offers the broadest access to
diagnostic testing services through its network of laboratories
and patient service centers, and provides interpretive
consultation through its extensive medical and scientific staff.
Quest Diagnostics is a pioneer in developing innovative diagnostic
tests and advanced healthcare information technology solutions
that help improve patient care.


SEARS HOLDING: West Bend Mutual Won't Honor Insurance Policy
------------------------------------------------------------
West Bend Mutual Insurance Company v. Sears Holding Management
Corporation, et al., Case No. 2010-CH-32218 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook
Cty. July 27, 2010), asks the Court to enter a Declaratory
Judgment finding that it is not obligated to defend or indemnify
Sears in connection with the lawsuit filed by Bradley/Morris under
General No. 06 L 0095, because, among other things, Sears does not
qualify as an additional insured on the West Bend Policy issued to
DRF Plumbing.

Louise Bradley and Earleen Morris, who filed a class suit against
Sears in 2006 in the Circuit Court of St. Clair County, Illinois,
under General No. 06 L 0095, for breach of contract for failure to
properly install refrigerator ice makers and water dispensers sold
in Illinois, are named as defendants in this complaint as
necessary parties to bind them to this Court's Judgment.

West Bend issued Contractors Businessowners' Liability Policy No.
BCD 0583464 to DRF Plumbling & Irrigation, Inc., covering the
annual policy periods from June 14, 2004, to June 14, 2005,
through June 14, 2009, to June 14, 2010.  The West Bend Policy
provides coverage for "property damage" or "bodily injury" caused
by "occurrence," meaning "an accident, including continuous or
repeated exposure to substantially the same general harmful
conditions."  The West Bend Policies in effect for the policy
years June 14, 2006, to June 14, 2007, and June 14, 2007, to
June 14, 2008, contain Additional Insured Endorsement WB Form
1450, captioned ADDITIONAL INSURED - NOT OTHERWISE CLASSIFIED.

On March 30, 2010, Sears tendered the defense of the
Bradley/Morris Class Action suit to West Bend, seeking a defense
and indemnity as an additional insured on the West Bend Policy
issued to DRF Plumbling.  West Bend says that Sears does not
qualify as an additional insured under Additional Insured
Endorsement WB 1450 of the West Bend Policy, because there are no
allegations in the Class Action Complaint indicating that Sears'
liability to Bradley/Morris would be incurred solely as a result
of some act or omission of DRF Plumbing and that Sears is not
entitled to a defense or indemnity as an additional insured under
Additional Insured Endorsement WB 1450 of the West Bend Policy
because the Class Action Complaint against Sears does not allege
liability for "property damage" caused by an "occurrence" but,
instead, seeks damages for breach of contract which are not
covered by a Commercial General Liability Policy.  West Bend,
therefore, claims that it is not obligated to defend or indemnify
Sears for the Bradley/Morris Class Action suit.  West Bend also
claims that Sears was aware of the Bradley/Morris Class Action
suit at least as early as 2006, but failed to provide notice of
the occurrence alleged, or send any of the legal papers relating
to the lawsuit to West Bend until March 2010, therefore violating
the notice provisions of the West Bend Policy.  West Bend asked
for the withdrawal of Sears' tender of the defense of the
Bradley/Morris Class Action suit, but as of the filing of this
declaratory judgment action, has refused to withdraw its tender of
the defense West Bend, prompting West to file this complaint for
declaratory judgment action.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas F. Lucas, Esq.
          Sumi Yang, Esq.
          MCKENNA STORER
          33 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1400
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 558-3900


SHERWIN-WILLIAMS: Defends Various Suits Over Lead-Based Paints
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Sherwin-Williams Company remains a defendant in various suits
relating to the manufacture and sale of lead pigments and lead-
based paints.

The company, along with other companies, is and has been a
defendant in a number of legal proceedings, including individual
personal injury actions, purported class actions, and actions
brought by various counties, cities, school districts and other
government-related entities, arising from the manufacture and sale
of lead pigments and lead-based paints.

The plaintiffs' claims have been based upon various legal
theories, including negligence, strict liability, breach of
warranty, negligent misrepresentations and omissions, fraudulent
misrepresentations and omissions, concert of action, civil
conspiracy, violations of unfair trade practice and consumer
protection laws, enterprise liability, market share liability,
public nuisance, unjust enrichment and other theories.  The
plaintiffs seek various damages and relief, including personal
injury and property damage, costs relating to the detection and
abatement of lead-based paint from buildings, costs associated
with a public education campaign, medical monitoring costs and
others.

No additional information was disclosed in the company's
July 27, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

The Sherwin-Williams Company -- http://www.sherwin.com/--
manufactures, develops, distributes, and sells coatings and
related products to professional, industrial, commercial, and
retail customers. The company manufactures products under well-
known brands such as Sherwin-Williams(R), Dutch Boy(R), Krylon(R),
Minwax(R), Thompson's(R) Water Seal(R), and many more.   With
global headquarters in Cleveland, Ohio, Sherwin-Williams(R)
branded products are sold exclusively through a chain of more than
3,500 company-operated stores and facilities, while the company's
other brands are sold through leading mass merchandisers, home
centers, independent paint dealers, hardware stores, automotive
retailers, and industrial distributors.  The Sherwin-Williams
Global Finishes Group distributes a wide range of products in more
than 70 countries around the world.


SHERWIN-WILLIAMS: Defends Various Personal Injury-Related Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Sherwin-Williams Company remains a defendant in various suits
seeking damages from alleged personal injury.

The company and other companies are defendants in a number of
legal proceedings seeking monetary damages and other relief from
alleged personal injuries.

These proceedings include claims by children allegedly injured
from ingestion of lead pigment or lead-containing paint, claims
for damages allegedly incurred by the children's parents or
guardians, and claims for damages allegedly incurred by
professional painting contractors.

These proceedings generally seek compensatory and punitive
damages, and seek other relief including medical monitoring
costs.

These proceedings include purported claims by individuals, groups
of individuals and class actions.

No additional information was disclosed in the company's
July 27, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

The Sherwin-Williams Company -- http://www.sherwin.com/--
manufactures, develops, distributes, and sells coatings and
related products to professional, industrial, commercial, and
retail customers. The company manufactures products under well-
known brands such as Sherwin-Williams(R), Dutch Boy(R), Krylon(R),
Minwax(R), Thompson's(R) Water Seal(R), and many more.   With
global headquarters in Cleveland, Ohio, Sherwin-Williams(R)
branded products are sold exclusively through a chain of more than
3,500 company-operated stores and facilities, while the company's
other brands are sold through leading mass merchandisers, home
centers, independent paint dealers, hardware stores, automotive
retailers, and industrial distributors.  The Sherwin-Williams
Global Finishes Group distributes a wide range of products in more
than 70 countries around the world.


SHERWIN-WILLIAMS: Appeal on Payment Ruling Pending in High Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Sherwin-Williams Company's appeal on the ruling allowing
payment of contingent fees to private attorneys remains pending in
the California Supreme Court.

The company and other companies are defendants in legal
proceedings seeking recovery based on public nuisance liability
theories, among other theories, brought by the County of Santa
Clara, California and other public entities in the State of
California.

The Santa Clara County, California proceeding was initiated in
March 2000 and purports to be a class action on behalf of all
public entities in the State of California other than the State
and its agencies.  The plaintiffs' asserted various claims
including fraud and concealment, strict product liability/failure
to warn, strict product liability/design defect, negligence,
negligent breach of a special duty, public nuisance, private
nuisance, and violations of California's Business and Professions
Code.

A number of the asserted claims were resolved in favor of the
defendants through pre-trial proceedings.

On March 3, 2006, the Court of Appeal, Sixth Appellate District,
among other determinations, reversed the dismissal of the public
nuisance claim for abatement brought by the cities of Santa Clara
and Oakland and the City and County of San Francisco, and affirmed
the dismissal of the public nuisance claim for damages to the
plaintiffs' properties.

The plaintiffs have filed a motion for leave to file a fourth
amended complaint.

On April 4, 2007, the trial court entered an order granting the
defendants' motion to bar payment of contingent fees to private
attorneys.  The plaintiffs appealed the trial court's order and,
on April 8, 2008, the California Court of Appeal reversed the
trial court's order.

The defendants filed a petition for review with the California
Supreme Court and the Supreme Court has decided to review the
Court of Appeal's decision.  Proceedings in the trial court are
stayed pending the appeal.

No further updates were reported in the company's July 27, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

The Sherwin-Williams Company -- http://www.sherwin.com/--
manufactures, develops, distributes, and sells coatings and
related products to professional, industrial, commercial, and
retail customers. The company manufactures products under well-
known brands such as Sherwin-Williams(R), Dutch Boy(R), Krylon(R),
Minwax(R), Thompson's(R) Water Seal(R), and many more.   With
global headquarters in Cleveland, Ohio, Sherwin-Williams(R)
branded products are sold exclusively through a chain of more than
3,500 company-operated stores and facilities, while the company's
other brands are sold through leading mass merchandisers, home
centers, independent paint dealers, hardware stores, automotive
retailers, and industrial distributors.  The Sherwin-Williams
Global Finishes Group distributes a wide range of products in more
than 70 countries around the world.


TORONTO HYDRO: Consumers May Have to Pay $8 Million Compensation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Small, writing for Toronto Star, reports that Toronto Hydro
consumers may be forced to compensate the utility almost $8
million for its share of a class-action lawsuit settlement
involving illegal interest charges on late payments.

The electricity utility intends to ask the Ontario Energy Board
for approval to recover its portion of the $17-million settlement,
spokesperson Denise Attallah said Wednesday.

Since Toronto Hydro has about 690,000 customers, that means the
average customer will have to pay more than $11.

But Ms. Attallah added the settlement will not be finalized until
Sept. 22, after the end of a 30-day opt-out period for eligible
customers and a 30-day appeal period for the litigants.

In a ruling released last week, Ontario Superior Court Justice
Peter Cumming approved the settlement of the lawsuit launched on
behalf of customers against Toronto Hydro and other Ontario
utilities for charging illegally high interest on late payments.

"The litigation has contributed to achieving behavior modification
by causing Toronto Hydro and the members of the defendant class to
abolish the unlawful (late payment penalties)," the judge said.

After legal costs are deducted from the $17 million settlement,
the remaining $12 million will be used to help needy Ontario
consumers pay their hydro bills, the judge said.

The United Way of Greater Toronto will administer the money for
all parts of Ontario except Ottawa, where the funds will be
controlled by United Way/Centraide Ottawa.

United Way of Greater Toronto's Susan Vardon said the settlement
money will be distributed to various economically disadvantaged
hydro users over 10 years.  "It will go far."

The judge said it was "very problematic and excessively costly" to
determine how much each overcharged customer should be
compensated, so the alternative of helping disadvantaged hydro
users provides "a public and social good."

Up until the early 2000s, Toronto Hydro and other municipal
electrical utilities charged late payment penalties of 5 or 7 per
cent a month. But the Criminal Code prohibits charging interest of
more than 60 per cent a year.

"If a utility bill was paid one day late, the 5 per cent (late
payment fee) could have an extremely high effective annual
interest rate percentage," Mr. Justice Cumming said.

Toronto Hydro reduced its late payment penalties to 1.5% per month
in 2000, and other utilities followed suit by 2002.

An economist retained by the plaintiffs estimated that, as of the
end of 2009, Toronto Hydro customers saved $96.8 million after the
utility reduced its penalty.


TURKEY: Armenians File Class Suit Over Century-Old Asset Seizure
----------------------------------------------------------------
Linda Deutsch, writing for The Associated Press, reports that
Armenian-American lawyers filed a federal lawsuit Thursday against
the Turkish government and two banks seeking compensation for the
heirs of Armenians whose property was allegedly seized nearly a
century ago as they were driven from the Turkish Ottoman Empire.

Lawyers were seeking class-action status for the suit, a process
that attorney Brian Kabateck said could take as long as three
years.

"We are rolling up our sleeves and are going forward," he said.

The suit was filed on behalf of plaintiffs Garbis Davouyan of Los
Angeles and Hrayr Turabian of Queens, N.Y. It alleges breach of
statutory trust, unjust enrichment, human rights violations and
violations of international law.

It seeks compensation for land, buildings and businesses allegedly
seized from Armenians along with bank deposits and property,
including priceless religious and other artifacts, some of which
are now housed in museums in the Republic of Turkey.

Attorney Mark Geragos said it was the first such lawsuit directly
naming the government of the Republic of Turkey as a defendant.

"All of the lawyers involved have relatives who perished or fled
the Armenian genocide, which gives it a special poignancy for us,"
he said.

The lawsuit claims more than a million Armenians were killed in
forced marches, concentration camps and massacres "perpetrated,
assisted and condoned" by Turkish officials and armed forces.

The U.S. government does not recognize the mass killings of
Armenians during World War I as genocide.

Also named in the lawsuit were the Central Bank of Turkey and
T.C., Ziraat Bankasi, the largest and oldest Turkish bank with
origins dating back to the 1860s.

The lawsuit claims the government of Turkey agreed to administer
the property, collect rents and sale proceeds from the seized
assets and deposit the receipts in trust accounts until the
property could be restored to owners.

Instead, the government has "withheld the property and any income
derived from such property," the lawsuit said.

A message left with the Turkish Consul General's office in Los
Angeles was not immediately returned. After-hours e-mails seeking
comment from both banks were not immediately returned.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs believe records of the properties and
profits still exist, and they are seeking an accounting that could
reach billions of dollars.

Mr. Geragos said the biggest issue in Armenian communities is
seeking recognition for the ethnic bloodshed that allegedly
claimed the lives of as many as 1.5 million Armenians between 1915
and 1919.

In 2000, the California Legislature recognized the deaths as
genocide when it allowed heirs to seek payment on life insurance
policies of dead relatives.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals later invalidated the law.
Mr. Geragos has appealed that ruling.

Still, the heirs were paid nearly $40 million by New York Life
Insurance Co. and French insurer AXA.

Plaintiffs' lawyers:

     Mark J. Geragos, Esq.
     GERAGOS & GERAGOS
     Engine Co. No. 28
     644 South Figueroa Street
     Los Angeles, California 90017
     Telephone: (213) 625-3900
     Facsimile: (213) 625-1600
     Email: mark@geragos.com

          -- and --

     Brian S. Kabateck, Esq.
     KABATECK BROWN KELLNER, LLP
     Engine Company No. 28 Building
     644 South Figueroa Street
     Los Angeles, CA 90017
     Telephone: 213-217-5000
     Facsimile: 213-217-5010
     Email: bsk@kbklawyers.com


U.S. STEEL: Antitrust Suit Over Products Ongoing in Illinois
------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Steel Corp. continues to face several purported antitrust
class-action lawsuits in Illinois over steel products.

In a series of lawsuits filed in U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois beginning Sept. 12, 2008, individual
direct or indirect buyers of steel products have asserted that
eight steel manufacturers, including U. S. Steel, conspired in
violation of antitrust laws to restrict the domestic production of
raw steel and thereby to fix, raise, maintain or stabilize the
price of steel products in the United States.

The cases are filed as class-action lawsuits and claim treble
damages for the period 2005 to present, but do not allege any
damage amounts.

No further details were reported in the company's July 27, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

U.S. Steel Corp. -- http://www.ussteel.com-- is an integrated
steel producer with production operations in North America and
Central Europe. The company has an annual raw steel production
capability of 24.3 million net tons in the North America and 7.4
million tons in Central Europe.  U.S. Steel is also engaged in
several other business activities, most of which are related to
steel manufacturing. These include the production of coke in both
in North America and Central Europe, and the production of iron
ore pellets from taconite, transportation services (railroad and
barge operations), real estate operations and engineering and
consulting services in North America.


UNITED STATES: Suit v. Social Security Results in $700MM Payout
---------------------------------------------------------------
Malou Liwanag-Bledsoe, writing for the Asian Journal Press,
reports that a class action lawsuit against the Social Security
Administration has resulted to the payment of $700 million
nationally to people who have been wrongfully refused, denied or
cut off their Social Security and Supplemental Security Income
benefits.

Many of these people -- mostly who are vulnerable elders, people
with disabilities and disproportionately from ethnic groups --
will receive past benefits ranging from $10,000 to $40,000.

The landmark case, Martinez v. Astrue, was filed on behalf of lead
plaintiff Rosa Martinez, 53, of Redwood City, CA, whose benefits
were stopped when her name appeared in an arrest-warrant database.

One Florida plaintiff had a Texas warrant he didn't know about
because of a bounced $300 check he'd written years ago.  The man's
warrant was classified as a felony instead of a misdemeanor
because the state had not updated the old law to account for
decades of inflation.

In a briefing last Tuesday, July 27, at the New America Media in
San Francisco, leading public-interest attorneys involved with the
federal case appealed to the members of the media to get the word
out to those affected. "We rarely get the news from the government
when it's good news," said Gerald McIntyre, Directing Attorney at
the National Senior Citizens Law Center in Los Angeles and lead
counsel in the Martinez v. Astrue case. "This is a call to action
to spread the good news. It depends on us to get the good news out
to the people."

In the case, the agency, headed by Social Security commissioner
Michael J. Astrue, agreed in a Federal District Court settlement
last Fall in Oakland to repay people whose Social Security, SSI or
Special Veterans Benefits were withheld because their names
appeared in an arrest-warrant database.

The case settlement applies a sensible definition to the phrase
"fleeing to avoid prosecution."  Previously, Social Security
considered elders and those with disabilities to be "fleeing"
under the law even if they were unaware they had a warrant or if
the law enforcement agency involved was uninterested in arresting
or prosecuting them for generally minor infractions.

SSA stopped Ms. Martinez's benefits in 2008, claiming that her
name and birth date matched another Rosa Martinez -- a woman eight
inches taller and who had a 1980 drug warrant in Miami. The
California Martinez has never visited Miami. Now with the
settlement, she is among the more than 200,000 vulnerable
individuals whose Social Security and related assistance was
erroneously terminated and can now be reinstated.

Also in the briefing were Andy Chu, Benefits Counseling Program at
Positive Resource Center in San Francisco; Christopher Douglas,
Staff Attorney at the Legal Aid Society of San Mateo County and
Steve Weiss, Staff Attorney at the Alameda County regional office
of Bay Area Legal Aid and Bay Legal's Regional SSI Advocacy
Coordinator. Attorneys explained what affected people need to do
to obtain their past benefits and to begin receiving future help.
In some cases, those eligible need to take action before certain
deadlines.

The SSA has started sending out 60-day notices to people to the
last known addresses.  However, chances are these people are
either already homeless, displaced or have moved. Also, those
affected are either disabled or elderly, and do not have computer
access or do not log on to new, information or social networking
sites. This is why it is important to be able to spread the word
to the communities.

If you think you are among those who were wrongfully denied their
benefits or if you know someone in your community who is possibly
going through the same situation, please contact your local legal
aid organization for assistance. Also, those ages 60 or older can
contact their local area agency on aging for a free referral for
legal services assistance. For a complete state list of agencies
on aging, visit the California Department of Aging Web site at:

     http://www.aging.ca.gov/local_aaa/AAA_listing.asp

To learn more about the class action settlement, visit:

     http://www.nsclc.org/areas/social-security-ssi/Martinez-Settlement

or visit the Social Security Web site at:

     http://www.ssa.gov/martinezsettlement


UNITIL CORP: Continues to Defend Amended "Bellerman" Complaint
--------------------------------------------------------------
Unitil Corp. continues to defend a putative class action complaint
captioned Bellerman v. Fitchburg Gas and Electric Light Company,
pending in the Worcester Superior Court in Worcester,
Massachusetts, according to the company's July 27, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2010.

Fitchburg Gas is the company's wholly owned distribution utility
that provides both electric and natural gas service in the
greater Fitchburg area of north central Massachusetts.

A putative class action Complaint was filed against Fitchburg on
Jan. 7, 2009.

On April 1, 2009 an Amended Complaint was filed in Worcester
Superior Court and served on Fitchburg.

The Amended Complaint seeks an unspecified amount of damages
including the cost of temporary housing and alternative fuel
sources, emotional and physical pain and suffering and property
damages allegedly incurred by customers in connection with the
loss of electric service during the ice storm in Fitchburg's
service territory in December 2008.

The Amended Complaint includes M.G.L. ch. 93A claims for purported
unfair and deceptive trade practices related to the
December 2008 Storm.

On Sept. 4, 2009, the Superior Court issued its order on the
company's Motion to Dismiss the Complaint, granting it in part
and denying it in part.

The company anticipates that the court will decide whether the
lawsuit is appropriate for class action treatment in the fall of
2010.

Unitil Corp. -- http://www.unitil.com/-- is a public utility
holding company. Unitil's principal business is the retail
distribution of both electricity and natural gas in New Hampshire
and Massachusetts, and the retail distribution of
natural gas in Maine.  Unitil has three retail distribution
utility subsidiaries: Unitil Energy Systems, Inc., Fitchburg Gas
and Electric Light Company, and Northern Utilities, Inc.
(Northern).  Unitil's retail distribution utilities serve
approximately 170,000 customers in their franchise areas.  Granite
State Gas Transmission, Inc. (Granite State), an interstate
natural gas transmission pipeline company, was acquired by Unitil,
along with Northern, from NiSource Inc. in December 2008.  Unitil
also provides energy brokering and advisory services to large
commercial and industrial customers throughout the northeastern
United States through its non-regulated business segment, Unitil
Resources, Inc. and its subsidiary, Usource, LLC.


VAXGEN INC: Suits Dismissed After Merger Fails to Get Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
Class action lawsuits protesting VaxGen, Inc.'s proposed merger
with OXiGENE have been dismissed, according to the company's
July 27, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

Beginning on Oct. 23, 2009, several putative stockholder class
action lawsuits were filed against the company, members of its
Board of Directors, OXiGENE and OXiGENE Merger Sub, Inc. in the
Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo in connection
with the proposed merger with OXiGENE.

The complaints are:

     (1) Jensen v. Panek et al., Case No. CIV 488075;
     (2) Ming v. VaxGen, Inc. et al., Case No. CIV 489164; and
     (3) Hawes v. VaxGen, Inc. et al., Case No. CIV 489313.

The complaints allege, among other things, that the members of the
company's Board of Directors violated their fiduciary duties by
failing to maximize value for the company's stockholders when
negotiating and entering into the merger agreement with OXiGENE.
The complaints also allege that the Company and OXiGENE aided and
abetted those purported breaches.

The plaintiffs sought, among other things, to enjoin the
acquisition of the company by OXiGENE or, in the alternative, to
rescind the acquisition should it occur before the lawsuit is
resolved.

On Feb. 3, 2010, the company held a special meeting of
stockholders at which the proposed merger failed to receive
sufficient votes to be approved.  Accordingly, the plaintiffs have
filed requests to dismiss the action without prejudice.

On May 11, 2010, the lawsuits were dismissed without prejudice.

VaxGen, Inc. -- http://www.vaxgen.com/-- is a biopharmaceutical
company.  VaxGen is focused on the development, manufacture and
commercialization of biologic products for the treatment of human
disease.  The company owns a state-of-the-art biopharmaceutical
manufacturing facility with a 1,000-liter bioreactor that can be
used to make cell culture or microbial biologic products.


XENOPORT INC: Holzer Firm Files Securities Class Suit in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC, disclosed that it has filed a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California on behalf of purchasers of
XenoPort, Inc., common stock who purchased shares between May 5,
2009 and February 17, 2010. The lawsuit alleges, among other
things, that the Company knew but failed to disclose that its
experimental drug Horizant showed an increased likelihood of
pancreatic cancer in lab rats. The FDA declined to approve the
drug for treatment of Restless Leg Syndrome in February 2010 even
though it was previously approved for treatment of more serious
conditions.

If you purchased shares of XenoPort common stock during the Class
Period, you have the legal right to petition the Court to be
appointed a "lead plaintiff." A lead plaintiff is a representative
party that acts on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Any such request must satisfy certain criteria and be
made no later than September 27, 2010. Any member of the purported
class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through
counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an
absent class member. If you are a XenoPort investor and would like
to discuss a potential lead plaintiff appointment, or your rights
and interests with respect to the lawsuit, you may contact Michael
I. Fistel, Jr., Esq., or Marshall P. Dees, Esq. via email at
mfistel@holzerlaw.com or mdees@holzerlaw.com or via toll-free
telephone at (888) 508-6832.

Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC is an Atlanta, Georgia law firm that
dedicates its practice to vigorous representation of shareholders
and investors in litigation nationwide, including shareholder
class action and derivative litigation. More information about the
firm is available through its Web site, http://www.holzerlaw.com/
and upon request from the firm.

                           *********

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  * * *