CAR_Public/100809.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Monday, August 9, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 155

                             Headlines

AFFINION GROUP: Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration Denied
AFFINION GROUP: Faces Suit with Trilegiant in California
AKEENA SOLAR: Court Rejects Most Claims in Securities Class Suit
AT&T WIRELESS: Nov. 2 Fairness Hearing in Pa. Phone Locking Case
AURORA LOAN: Sued for Failing to Provide Foreclosure Notice

BED BATH & BEYOND: Recalls 2,000 Cantilever Umbrellas
CALIFORNIA COMMERCE: Calif. Appeals Court Reverses Suit Dismissal
CAPITAL ONE: Settles Suit Over Undeliverable Mail Fees for $3.4MM
CHEMED CORP: Defends Suit Over Unpaid Wages in New York
CITICORP DATA: Subpoena Processing Fee Settlement Proposed

COMMUNITY HEALTH: Counterclaim Certified as Class Action
CONTINENTAL AIRLINES: Settles Suit Aimed to Ground United Merger
CORRECTIONS CORP: Asks Court to Dismiss "Gladiator School" Lawsuit
COVIDIEN PLC: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set for Aug. 25
CUSHING MLP: Sept. 13 Fairness Hearing on $3.6 Mil. Settlement

DAVID STERN: Faces Possible Class Action Lawsuit
DYADIC INTERNATIONAL: Settles Stockholder Class Action Lawsuit
FIRST WINTHROP: Court Grants Summary Judgment Motion
FRANKLIN COUNTY: Mass. Jailhouse Strip-Search Case Settled
GENTIVA HEALTH: Faces Wage and Hour Violations Suit in New York

GENTIVA HEALTH: Faces Wage & Hour Violations Suit in California
GENTIVA HEALTH: Faces 3 Suits Over Planned Odyssey Acquisition
HEARTLAND PAYMENT: Dec. 10 Fairness Hearing re 2008 Data Breach
ILLINOIS COLLECTION: Court Directs Narrower TCPA Class Suit
SEARS ROEBUCK: Court Approves $55,000 for Attorneys in Class Suit

MCKESSON CORP: Certification Hearing in "Douglas County" Set
MCKESSON CORP: No Trial Date Yet in "Connecticut" Suit
MCKESSON CORP: August 31 Hearing Set for Class Certification
MCKESSON CORP: California Court Dismisses "Rodriguez" Suit
MCNEIL CONSUMER: Accused in Fla. Suit of Deceptive Advertising

OLIVE OIL RETAILERS: Callahan Sues Over Poor Quality Oil
REDBOX INC: Moves for Protective Order in Proposed Class Action
RRI ENERGY: Continues to Defend Antitrust Lawsuits
RRI ENERGY: Defends Four Suits Over Planned Mirant Merger
SAIA INC: Plaintiff Appeals Denial of Settlement Agreement

SOUTHBURY TRAINING: Remedial Phase Hearing Set for Aug. 20
SUNRISE PROPANE: Fire Marshall Report Gives Plaintiffs Ammunition
TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE: Oct. 12 Fairness Hearing on Settlement
TISHMAN SPEYER: Court Dismisses A-1 Unitholders' Class Action
UTAH: Agrees to Settle Medicaid Class Action for $5.5 Million

WARRANTECH CORP: Accused of Violating Ill. Service Contract Act
WILLIAMS-SONOMA: Recalls 405 Pottery Barn Kids Bunk Beds

                            *********

AFFINION GROUP: Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration on a ruling granting
Affinion Group, Inc.'s request to compel arbitration has been
denied, according to the company's July 30, 2010, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2010.

On Nov. 12, 2002, a class action complaint was filed against
Sears, Roebuck & Co., Sears National Bank, Cendant Membership
Services, Inc., and Allstate Insurance Company in the Circuit
Court of Alabama for Greene County alleging, among other things,
breach of contract, unjust enrichment, breach of duty of good
faith and fair dealing and violations of the Illinois consumer
fraud and deceptive practices act.

The case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Alabama but was remanded to the Circuit Court of
Alabama for Greene County.

The company filed a motion to compel arbitration, which was
granted by the court on Jan. 31, 2008.  In granting the company's
motion, the court further ordered that any arbitration with
respect to this matter take place on an individual (and not class)
basis.

On Feb. 28, 2008, plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration of
the court's order.  On April 9, 2010, the court denied plaintiffs'
motion for reconsideration.  The time for plaintiffs to file an
appeal has expired and, to date, no arbitration claim has been
filed by plaintiffs.

Affinion Group, Inc. -- http://www.affiniongroup.com/-- is a
global provider of customer engagement and loyalty solutions.  The
company partners with companies to develop and market programs
that provide services to their end customers in customer
engagement, product development, creative design and target
marketing.  It provides credit monitoring and identity-theft
resolution, accidental death and dismemberment insurance (AD&D),
discount travel services, loyalty points programs, various
checking account and credit card enhancement services and other
products and services.  The company operates in two segments:
Affinion North America and Affinion International.


AFFINION GROUP: Faces Suit with Trilegiant in California
--------------------------------------------------------
Affinion Group, Inc., and its wholly owned subsidiary, Trilegiant,
faces a class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Connecticut, according to the company's July 30, 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 June 17, 2010, and asserts various causes of
action on behalf of a nationwide class and a California-only
subclass in connection with the sale by Trilegiant of its
membership programs, including claims under the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act, Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices
Act, California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, and California False
Advertising Law.

The responsive pleading for defendants was filed on July 23, 2010.

Affinion Group, Inc. -- http://www.affiniongroup.com/-- is a
global provider of customer engagement and loyalty solutions.  The
company partners with companies to develop and market programs
that provide services to their end customers in customer
engagement, product development, creative design and target
marketing.  It provides credit monitoring and identity-theft
resolution, accidental death and dismemberment insurance (AD&D),
discount travel services, loyalty points programs, various
checking account and credit card enhancement services and other
products and services.  The company operates in two segments:
Affinion North America and Affinion International.


AKEENA SOLAR: Court Rejects Most Claims in Securities Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court Northern District of California dismissed
certain of the plaintiffs' claims in a putative class action
complaint against Akeena Solar, Inc., according to the company's
July 30, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

On May 18, 2009, the company and certain of its officers were
named in a putative class action complaint in the U.S. District
Court Northern District of California San Jose Division alleging
violations of the federal securities laws.  The suit alleges
various omissions and misrepresentations during the period of Dec.
26, 2007 to March 13, 2008 regarding, among other things, the
company's backlog reporting and bank line of credit.

The company moved to dismiss the complaint on Feb. 12, 2010, for
failure to state a claim for relief.  On May 20, 2010, the
District Court granted in part the company's motion to dismiss the
complaint.

The District Court dismissed plaintiffs' claims relating to
statements made prior to the class period, including statements
relating to the company's backlog, its Andalay product, and its
supply agreement with Suntech Power Holdings Co., Ltd.

Due to the stage of the case, the company has not had the
opportunity to present any defenses to the only two remaining
allegations, which relate to the company's Dec. 26, 2007,
disclosure of the Comerica line of credit and the company's
Jan. 2, 2008, announcement of the Suntech license agreement.

Akeena Solar, Inc. -- http://www.akeena.com/-- is a designer,
integrator and installer of solar power systems, and a designer of
solar panels with integrated microinverters (also referred as AC
solar panels).  The company markets, sells, designs and installs
systems for residential and commercial customers.  It sources
components (such as solar panels and inverters) from
manufacturers, such as Suntech Power Holdings Co. Ltd. (Suntech),
Enphase Energy (Enphase) and SMA America, LLC (SMA).  The company
has provided installation services in California, New York, New
Jersey, Pennsylvania, Colorado and Connecticut.  It sells its AC
solar panels to solar installers, trade workers and do-it-yourself
customers in the United States and Canada through distribution
partnerships, its dealer network and retail home improvement
outlets.


AT&T WIRELESS: Nov. 2 Fairness Hearing in Pa. Phone Locking Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania,
will hold a fairness hearing on Nov. 2, 2010, to consider a
settlement providing up to 28,000 Pennsylvania residents with
either a cash payment or prepaid phone card in a lawsuit accusing
AT&T Wireless and Panasonic Telecommunications Systems Company of
violating state and federal laws by locking wireless phones to
prevent them from being used with other wireless carriers'
networks between Aug. 7, 1998, and Oct. 26, 2004.

The lawsuit is captioned Afrolain v. AT&T Wireless, et al., No.
00469 (Pa. Ct. of Comm. Pleas, Phila. Cty.).  Additional
information about the litigation and swettlement is available at
http://www.pacellphonelocking.com/or by contacting the Claims
Administrator:

         Claims Administrator
         P.O. Box 2335
         Faribault, MN 55021-9035
         Toll Free Number 1-888-812-1644

Class Counsel is:

         Mark R. Cuker, Esq.
         WILLIAMS, CUKER & BEREZOFSKY, LLC
         1515 Market Street, Suite 1300
         Philadelphia, PA 19102
         Telephone: (215) 557-0099

              - and -

         Neal A. Jacobs, Esq.
         THE JACOBS LAW GROUP, PC
         2005 Market Street, Suite 1120
         Philadelphia, PA 19103
         Telephone: (215) 569-9701

Counsel for AT&T Wireless is:

         Seamus C. Duffy, Esq.
         David J. Antczak, Esq.
         DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP
         One Logan Square, Suite 2000
         Philadelphia, PA 19103-6996

Counsel for Panasonic is:

         Walter H. Swayze, III, Esq.
         Theodore C. Flowers, Esq.
         SEGAL McCAMBRIDGE SINGER & MAHONEY
         United Plaza
         30 S. 17th Street, Suite 1700
         Philadelphia, PA 19103


AURORA LOAN: Sued for Failing to Provide Foreclosure Notice
-----------------------------------------------------------
Mauder and Alice Chao, et al., on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated v. Aurora Loan Services, LLC, Case No.
10-cv-03383 (N.D. Calif. August 2, 2010), accuse the residential
loan mortgage servicer of breaching its duty of good faith and
fair dealing to its customers when it foreclosed on their homes
without first providing (1) notice that modifications on their
loans had been rejected; and (2) an opportunity to cure the loan
default.  The Plaintiffs say they entered into Workout Agreements
with Aurora, agreeing to large monthly payments over three or six
months to halt foreclosure in the hopes of obtaining a cure method
for the default of their loan, including possibly loan
modification.  But after the initial term of the Workout
Agreements, Aurora often asked for continued monthly payments.
Because class members were never told that a modification or other
workout was denied they thus had no opportunity to reinstate or
pay off their loans.  The class members, therefore, are entitled
to rescind and obtain back from Aurora the payments they made to
Aurora under the Workout Agreements.

Aurora Loan Services, LLC operates as a subsidiary of Lehman
Brothers Bank, FSB.  Plaintiffs Mauder and Alice Chao are a
married couple residing in Los Altos, California.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Shana E. Scarlett, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202
          Berkeley, CA 94710
          Telephone: (510) 725-3000
          E-mail: shanas@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          Steve W. Berman, Esq.
          Thomas E. Loeser, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          1918 Eight Avenue, Suite 3300
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 623-7292
          E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com
                  toml@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          Andrew Oldham, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF ANDREW OLDHAM
          901 Campisi Way, Suite 248
          Campbell, CA 95008
          Telephone: (888) 842-4930


BED BATH & BEYOND: Recalls 2,000 Cantilever Umbrellas
-----------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Bed Bath & Beyond Inc., of Union, N.J., announced a voluntary
recall of about 7,600 Solar Lighted Cantilever Umbrellas.
Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless
otherwise instructed.

A plastic connector which attaches to the arm of the umbrella can
break, causing the umbrella to collapse.  This poses a risk of
injury to the user.

The firm has received 21 reports of units collapsing. Minor
injuries were reported in three of those incidents including a
bruise, abrasion and nausea.

This recall involves a 13-foot Solar Lighted Cantilever Umbrella.
The umbrella has tan or chocolate colored material, lights and a
black supporting pole.  The UPC numbers are 444444550439 (tan) and
444444583963 (chocolate) and can be found on the product
packaging.  The model numbers are 8070C-S and 8070C-L and can be
found on the assembly and operating instruction that were enclosed
with the product packaging.  Pictures of the recalled products are
available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10311.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold through
Bed Bath & Beyond stores and online at
http://www.bedbathandbeyond.com/and
http://www.bedbathandbeyond.ca/from February 2010 through June
2010 for about $300.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled product and
return it to any Bed Bath & Beyond location for a full refund.
For additional information, contact Bed Bath & Beyond toll-free at
(800) 462-3966, 24 hours a day, seven days a week or visit the
firm's Web site at http://www.bedbathandbeyond.com/and
http://www.bedbathandbeyond.ca/


CALIFORNIA COMMERCE: Calif. Appeals Court Reverses Suit Dismissal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of California, Second District, reversed a
trial court's dismissal of a class action complaint as to all
putative members of the alleged class and as to all representative
and/or class allegations in In re Gutierrez v. California Commerce
Club, Inc., Case No. B212062 (Calif. Ct. App. August 2, 2010).

Sergio Gutierrez and Hector Salazar filed the operative third
amended class action complaint against California Commerce Club,
Inc. (Club), alleging, among other things, that they and other
similarly situated members of the putative class were injured by
the Club's unlawful policy and practice of denying meal and rest
breaks to certain hourly, non-union employees. The trial court
sustained the Club's demurrer without leave to amend, on the
ground the plaintiffs had failed to show the existence of a class,
and dismissed the action as to all representative claims.  The
Appeals Court reversed. "In this action, as in the vast majority
of wage and hour disputes, class suitability should not be
determined on demurrer."

"We will reverse the order dismissing the action following the
sustaining without leave to amend of the demurrer to the TAC based
on the trial court's finding that the pleading failed 'to allege
facts sufficient to show the existence of a class.'  It was
premature for the trial court to make determinations pertaining to
class suitability on demurrer.  The allegations of the operative
complaint are sufficient to move the action beyond the pleading
stage."

A copy of the decision is available for free at:

     http://www.leagle.com/unsecure/page.htm?shortname=incaco20100802008


CAPITAL ONE: Settles Suit Over Undeliverable Mail Fees for $3.4MM
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Firms of Scott+Scott LLP and Whalen and Tusa, P.C.
disclose that a settlement has been reached with Capital One, N.A.
and the Court has approved the following notice:

The Settlement is in the action Gunther v. Capital One, N.A.,
09-cv-2966, pending in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York before the Honorable Arthur D. Spatt.

IF YOU HAVE OR HAD A CHECKING, SAVINGS OR OTHER DEPOSIT ACCOUNT AT
CAPITAL ONE BANK, NORTH FORK BANK OR SUPERIOR SAVINGS OF NEW
ENGLAND, N.A. ANYTIME BETWEEN JANUARY 1, 2007 AND NOVEMBER 20,
2009, PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY, AS IT DESCRIBES A
SETTLEMENT THAT MAY AFFECT YOUR RIGHTS.

Plaintiff in the above action has brought a class action lawsuit
on behalf of himself and others with deposit accounts (including
checking and savings accounts) at Capital One Bank, North Fork
Bank or Superior Savings of New England, N.A. ("CONA/NFB/SSNE")
since January 1, 2007, alleging that those banks charged
Undeliverable Mail Fees in the amount of $15.00 in New York, New
Jersey and Connecticut, where such mail was deliverable and
received.  Capital One Bank acquired North Fork Bank and Superior
Savings of New England, N.A. prior to January 1, 2007 and stopped
charging Undeliverable Mail Fees in November 2009.

On July 2, 2010, the parties agreed to a settlement (the
"Settlement") to resolve this lawsuit. The terms of the Settlement
are contained in a Settlement Agreement, which is available for
review at http://www.CapOneMailFeeSettlement.com/

The parties have agreed to the certification of this case as a
class action for the purposes of settlement.  By this Settlement,
Capital One Bank has agreed to pay an amount equal to 82% of
Undeliverable Mail Fees assessed during the Class Period by
CONA/NFB/SSNE up to a maximum payment of $2,687,789.44 million to
Settlement Class Members who do not opt out and who timely
complete a valid Proof of Claim form and certify the number of
Undeliverable Mail Fees assessed for statements or mail that were
not "undeliverable" but were received. Capital One Bank has also
agreed to pay all costs of this Settlement, reasonable attorneys'
fees and costs to Class Counsel, and an incentive award to the
Plaintiff.  Class Counsel will request no more than $750,000.00 in
total fees and costs. The final amount of attorneys' fees and
Plaintiff's incentive award will be determined by the Court. All
Settlement Class Members who do not request exclusion from this
Settlement will forever release all claims against Capital One
Bank for Undeliverable Mail Fees assessed by CONA/NFB/SSNE from
January 1, 2007 to November 20, 2009 (the "Class Period").

The parties have agreed to a Settlement Class defined as follows:
"All depositors of North Fork Bank, Superior Savings of New
England, N.A. or Capital One Bank in the states of New Jersey, New
York and Connecticut who were charged an Undeliverable Mail Fee by
any of those entities during the Class Period, which Undeliverable
Mail Fee(s) has/have not been refunded and who have not timely
requested exclusion from this Settlement" (the "Settlement
Class").

To get a payment under the Settlement, a Settlement Class Member
must make a claim to the Settlement Administrator in either of the
following ways: 1) complete and mail the "Proof of Claim" form
included with the Notice to the Settlement Administrator at:
Gunther v Capital One, N.A. c/o Rust Consulting, Inc. P.O. Box
2367, Fairbault, MN 55021-9067; or 2) complete and electronically
submit a Proof of Claim form to the Settlement Administrator's Web
site: http://www.CapOneMailFeeSettlement.com/ Please complete
only one Proof of Claim form for each account.  TO BE VALID, ALL
CLAIMS MUST BE POSTMARKED OR SUBMITTED NO LATER THAN SEPTEMBER 28,
2010.

If you are a member of the Settlement Class, you may request
exclusion by sending a letter requesting to be "excluded" from
this settlement to the Settlement Administrator. If you exclude
yourself, your claims against Capital One Bank will not be
released, and you will not be eligible to a refund of any
Undeliverable Mail Fees under the Settlement. TO BE VALID, ALL
EXCLUSION REQUESTS MUST BE POSTMARKED NO LATER THAN AUGUST 30,
2010 and mailed to the Settlement Administrator at: Gunther v.
Capital One, N.A., c/o Rust Consulting, Inc., P.O. Box 2367,
Fairbault, MN 55021-9067.

If you are a member of the Settlement Class and do not request
exclusion, you or your attorney on your behalf may object to the
Settlement. Such objection must be in writing and must provide
evidence of your membership in the Settlement Class. The
procedures for submitting a written objection are identified
below. A written and signed objection (and any support for it)
must be filed with the Court and served on all of the following
attorneys with a postmark no later than August 30, 2010:

For the Settlement Class:          For Capital One, N.A:

Joseph S. Tusa, Esq.               Brian V. Otero, Esq.
WHALEN & TUSA, P.C.                Hunton & Williams LLP
33 West 19th Street, 4th Floor     200 Park Avenue, 52nd Floor
New York, NY 10011                 New York, NY 10166

      -- and --                    For the Court:

Joseph P. Guglielmo, Esq.          Clerk of Court
SCOTT+SCOTT LLP                    U.S. District Court for the
500 Fifth Avenue, 40th Floor          Eastern District of New York
New York, NY 10110                 Long Island Courthouse
                                   100 Federal Plaza
                                   Central Islip, NY 11722-4438

Any objection regarding or related to the Settlement Agreement
shall contain a caption or title that identifies it as "Objection
to Class Settlement in Gunther v. Capital One, N.A., d/b/a Capital
One Bank, EDNY Civil Action No. 09-cv-2966" and shall also contain
information sufficient to identify the objecting Settlement Class
Member and their CONA/NFB/SSNE bank account number, as well as a
clear and concise statement of the Settlement Class Member's
objection, the facts supporting the objection, and the legal
grounds on which the objection is based. If an objecting party
chooses to appear at the hearing, then a notice of intention to
appear, either in person or through an attorney, must be filed
with the Court and list the name, address and telephone number of
the attorney, if any, who will appear.

If you do nothing, you will not receive any payment. If the Court
approves the Settlement, you will no longer have the ability to
sue with respect to Undeliverable Mail Fees during the Class
Period, and your claims during the Class Period will be released
and dismissed.

The law firms Whalen & Tusa, P.C. and Scott+Scott LLP
(collectively "Class Counsel") represent Plaintiff and have been
preliminarily certified by the Court as counsel for the Settlement
Class. Settlement Class Members have the right to hire their own
lawyers, at their own expense, although there is no obligation to
do so, and Class Counsel will represent all members of the
Settlement Class in this Lawsuit who do not object or retain their
own lawyer.

In addition to payments made to the Settlement Class, Capital One
Bank has agreed to pay attorneys' fees and costs to Class Counsel
up to $750,000.00, subject to approval by the Court.

The Honorable Arthur D. Spatt, a District Judge in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (the
"Court"), will hold a hearing (the "Fairness Hearing") at the
federal courthouse located at 100 Federal Plaza, Central Islip, NY
11722-9014 on September 28, 2010 at 9:00 am to decide whether to
approve the Settlement, and to determine the amount of attorneys'
fees and costs and Plaintiff's incentive award. You or your lawyer
may appear at the Fairness Hearing but do not have to do so.

Settlement Class Members can ask questions, complete a Proof of
Claim form and review documents concerning this case at
www.CapOneMailFeeSettlement.com., by calling the Settlement
Administrator toll-free at (888) 952-9086, or by writing the
"Settlement Administrator" at Gunther v Capital One, N.A. c/o Rust
Consulting, Inc. P.O. Box 2367, Fairbault, MN 55021-9067 or email
the Settlement Administrator at info@CapOneMailFeeSettlement.com

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING
RELEASE.

CONTACT:  Scott+Scott LLP
          Telephone: (800) 404-7770
          Facsimile: (860) 537-5537
          E-mail: scottlaw@scott-scott.com


CHEMED CORP: Defends Suit Over Unpaid Wages in New York
-------------------------------------------------------
Chemed Corporation defends a suit seeking unpaid minimum wages and
overtime service technician compensation, according to the
company's July 30, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

On March 1, 2010, Anthony Morangelli and Frank Ercole filed a
class action lawsuit in federal district court for the Eastern
District of New York seeking unpaid minimum wages and overtime
service technician compensation from Roto-Rooter and Chemed.  They
also seek payment of penalties, interest and plaintiffs' attorney
fees.

In June 2010, the Court conditionally certified a nationwide class
of service technicians, excluding those who signed dispute
resolution agreements in which they agreed to arbitrate claims
arising out of their employment.  There has been no final
determination of the merits of collective treatment of the case.
The lawsuit is in its early stage.

Chemed Corporation -- http://www.chemed.com/-- operates through
two wholly owned subsidiaries: VITAS Healthcare Corporation and
Roto-Rooter Group, Inc.  VITAS is focused on providing hospice
care for terminally ill patients.  Through its team of doctors,
nurses, home health aides, social workers, clergy and volunteers,
VITAS provides direct medical services to patients, as well as
spiritual and emotional counseling to both patients and their
families.  Roto-Rooter is focused on providing plumbing and drain
cleaning services to both residential and commercial customers.
The company operates through two business segments: VITAS Group
and the Roto-Rooter Group.


CITICORP DATA: Subpoena Processing Fee Settlement Proposed
----------------------------------------------------------
    NOTICE OF PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND HEARING

If you paid (or reimbursed a payor) for the processing of a
California civil subpoena, pertaining to a Citibank deposit
account held in California, at any time from February 28, 2003,
through March 11, 2009, you could get benefits from a class action
settlement.  The Superior Court of the State of California, County
of Orange, authorized this notice.  The Court will have a hearing
to consider whether to approve the settlement.

WHO''S AFFECTED?

The proposed settlement of a class action lawsuit affects you if
you paid Citicorp Data Systems, Incorporated ("CDSI") (or
reimbursed a payor) for processing a California civil subpoena,
pertaining to a Citibank deposit account held in California, at
any time from February 28, 2003, through March 11, 2009 (the
"Settlement Class").

WHAT'S THIS ABOUT?

The Orange County Superior Court has preliminarily approved a
proposed settlement in a class action entitled Hall & Bailey v.
Citicorp Data Systems, Incorporated, et al., Case No. 06CC00246.
The action alleges that CDSI, Citibank, N.A., and Citigroup Inc.
("Defendants") have charged more than permitted by various
statutes, including California Evidence Code section 1563(b)(1),
for copies and services provided with respect to civil subpoenas.
Defendants deny plaintiff's allegations in their entirety.

WHAT CAN YOU GET FROM THE SETTLEMENT?

Rather than continuing to litigate, CDSI has agreed to: (i) pay
awards to class members who submit valid claims; (ii) change
certain amounts charged for processing civil subpoenas subject to
section 1563(b)(1); (iii) subject to court approval, pay an award
of attorneys'' fees and costs to class counsel and an incentive
award to plaintiff (in the amount of $2,500) in an aggregate
amount not to exceed $110,000; and (iv) pay the costs of this and
online notice of the settlement and claims administration. If the
settlement receives final approval from the Court and you do not
opt out, you will release all claims against Defendants related in
any way to subpoenas processed by CDSI. The complete release is
set forth in the Settlement Notice.

HOW DO YOU GET A PAYMENT?

To apply for a payment, you must sign and return a completed Proof
of Claim to CDSI at:

         Hall & Bailey Settlement Administrator
         Box 152
         300 St. Paul Place
         Baltimore, MD 21202

Only one Proof of Claim per subpoena will be honored. Your Proof
of Claim must be postmarked by November 1, 2010. You may obtain a
Proof of Claim by going to http://www.calsubpoenasettlement.com/

If eligible, you would receive EITHER: (i) $20, if you submit no
proof of payment of an invoice; or (ii) 75% of the amount you paid
up to $100 if you submit proof of payment of an invoice. To the
extent that the number of valid claims submitted would make the
aggregate payments to class members exceed $150,000, the amounts
paid will be reduced on a pro rata basis.

WHAT ARE YOUR OPTIONS?

RIGHT TO OPT OUT: If you do not wish to participate in the
settlement, you may "opt out" by making such request in writing
and mailing it, postage prepaid and postmarked no later than
October 4, 2010, to CDSI at the above address. Your opt out
request must: (i) be signed either by the requestor or party to
the underlying matter for which a subpoena was issued; (ii)
include the full name and address of the person opting out and
either the CDSI invoice number or the name of the underlying
matter for which a subpoena was issued; and (iii) include the
following statement: "I/we request to be excluded from the class
settlement in Hall & Bailey v. Citicorp Data Systems,
Incorporated, et al., Orange County Superior Court, Case No.
06CC00246." If you do not exclude yourself, you will be bound by
any judgment entered with respect to the settlement and you will
not be able to file a separate claim against Defendants based on
the events and circumstances alleged in the action. You may obtain
an "Opt Out" form by going to
http://www.calsubpoenasettlement.com/

RIGHT TO OBJECT: A hearing will be held on November 15, 2010 in
Department CX103 of the Orange County Superior Court, Civil
Complex Center, 751 W. Santa Ana Blvd., Santa Ana, CA 92701 at
10:30 a.m., for the purpose of determining whether the proposed
settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate and should be finally
approved by the Court, and whether the application of class
counsel for attorneys'' fees and costs and an incentive award for
plaintiff should be approved. You may appear at the hearing to
argue that the proposed settlement should not be approved and/or
to oppose the applications for attorneys' fees and costs and
incentive award. To be heard, you must make any objection in
writing and you must first file such objection (along with proof
of Settlement Class membership) with the Clerk of the Court no
later than October 4, 2010, and mail such objection, postmarked no
later than October 4, 2010, to the attorneys for Defendants:

         Lisa M. Simonetti, Esq.
         Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP
         2029 Century Park East
         Los Angeles, CA 90067-3086

If you have any questions regarding this notice or the settlement,
contact Class Counsel:

         Jonathan H. Waller, Esq.
         Haskell Slaughter Young & Rediker, LLC
         1400 Park Place Tower
         2001 Park Place North
         Birmingham, AL 35203
         Telephone: (205) 251-1000

             - and -

         Peter J. McNulty, Esq.
         McNulty Law Firm
         827 Moraga Drive
         Los Angeles, CA 90049
         Telephone: (310) 471-2707)

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT, CDSI OR COUNSEL FOR CDSI.


COMMUNITY HEALTH: Counterclaim Certified as Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
A counterclaim filed against Community Health Systems, Inc., has
been certified as a class action, according to the company's
July 30, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

On April 19, 2009, the company was served in Roswell, New Mexico
with an answer and counterclaim in the case of Roswell Hospital
Corporation d/b/a Eastern New Mexico Medical Center vs. Patrick
Sisneros and Tammie McClain (sued as Jane Doe Sisneros).  The case
was originally filed as a collection matter.

The counterclaim was filed as a putative class action and alleged
theories of breach of contract, unjust enrichment,
misrepresentation, prima facie tort, Fair Trade Practices Act and
violation of the New Mexico RICO statute.

On May 7, 2009, the hospital filed a notice of removal to federal
court.  On July 27, 2009, the case was remanded to state court for
lack of a federal question.

A motion to dismiss and a motion to dismiss mis-joined
counterclaim plaintiffs were filed on Oct. 20, 2009.  These
motions were denied.

Extensive discovery has been conducted.  A motion for class
certification for all uninsured patients was heard on March 3
through March 5, 2010 and on April 13, 2010, the state district
court judge certified the case as a class action.

Located in the Nashville, Tennessee, suburb of Franklin, Community
Health Systems, Inc. -- http://www.chs.net/-- is the largest
publicly-traded hospital company in the United States and a
leading operator of general acute care hospitals in non-urban and
mid-size markets throughout the country.  Through its
subsidiaries, the Company currently owns, leases or operates 123
hospitals in 29 states with an aggregate of approximately 18,400
licensed beds.  Its hospitals offer a broad range of inpatient and
surgical services, outpatient treatment and skilled nursing care.
In addition, through its subsidiary, Quorum Health Resources, LLC,
the Company provides management and consulting services to over
150 independent non-affiliated general acute care hospitals
located throughout the United States.


CONTINENTAL AIRLINES: Settles Suit Aimed to Ground United Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
John Pletz, writing for Crain's, reports that Continental
Airlines, Inc., has settled a class-action lawsuit by shareholders
who sought to block its merger with United Airlines by claiming
the Houston-based airline's board didn't get a high enough price
in the $3.25-billion deal.

Financial terms of the deal, announced Tuesday, were not
disclosed.

The airlines provided additional disclosures to plaintiffs
regarding the negotiations surrounding the merger.

Three suits were filed shortly after the deal was announced May 3,
in which United agreed to give Continental stockholders 1.05
shares of United stock for each of their shares.

Resolving the suits eliminates a potential hurdle to closing the
merger by yearend, although Continental and United still face a
lawsuit from consumers who argue that the merger will result in
higher fares.


CORRECTIONS CORP: Asks Court to Dismiss "Gladiator School" Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Rebecca Boone, writing for The Associated Press, reports that a
major private prison company is asking a federal judge to throw
out a lawsuit over prison violence in Idaho, saying the inmates
bringing the case didn't try to solve their problems through
administrative channels before they turned to the courts.

Lawyers for Corrections Corporation of America told U.S. District
Judge B. Lynn Winmill on Wednesday that the inmates didn't
complete the grievance process at the CCA-run Idaho Correctional
Center, so they are barred under federal court rules from suing
the company.

The American Civil Liberties Union, which is representing the
inmates, says the prisoners took all the necessary steps and that
Nashville, Tenn.-based CCA failed to fix the problems at the Boise
lockup.

The inmates asked for class-action status in the lawsuit earlier
this year, saying ICC is so violent that it's known as "gladiator
school" and prison workers used inmate-on-inmate violence as a
management tool, then refused to provide x-rays to injured
prisoners as part of a cover-up scheme. CCA has denied the claims.

Judge Winmill said he'll try to decide whether the case will be
dismissed or split up, or whether it will move forward as-is,
within the next few weeks.

At issue is the Prison Litigation Reform Act or PLRA, a 1996
federal law that sought to discourage inmates from filing
frivolous lawsuits. The act governs judges' actions in inmate
rights cases, and in part requires that inmates prove they tried
to solve the problem by complaining to prison authorities first.

CCA attorney Dan Struck said the PLRA also bars the main plaintiff
in the case, Marlin Riggs, from adding additional inmates to his
lawsuit.

If Judge Winmill agrees, the inmates could all be forced to file
separate lawsuits, or they could be required to start over under
the prison's sometimes lengthy grievance process before filing a
new lawsuit seeking class-action status.

"The PLRA doesn't give them any wiggle room here," Mr. Struck told
the judge. "They chose to cobble this action onto the Riggs case
and I'm not sure why."

Besides, Mr. Struck said, he believes that only a few of the
inmates properly exhausted CCA's grievance procedures before the
lawsuit was filed. That would mean the rest of the claims --
including complaints that CCA provided inadequate medical care,
failed to protect inmates from harm, and that the prison was too
crowded to give inmates safe quarters -- all must be dismissed.

But Judge Winmill said that may just delay the inevitable.

"Let's be realistic. There is probably more than a 'hypothetical
inmate' willing to make those claims," the judge said. "Why is it
inappropriate to consolidate cases for trial where common issues
are raised?"

Stephen Pevar, the ACLU attorney representing the inmates, said
Mr. Struck was twisting the issues -- and that the inmates only
had to broadly raise their concerns through the prison grievance
process, not use proper legal terminology and theory to state
their cases to prison officials.

For instance, he said one group of inmates called "The Chowhall 5"
in court documents satisfied the grievance process for the claim
about protection from harm when they complained that CCA set them
up to get bad disciplinary reports by allowing them to be beaten
by other inmates in the dining area. The Chowhall 5 say they
didn't fight back but got bad disciplinary reports for being
involved in a fight, and the reports ruined their chances at
parole.

Mr. Pevar said CCA's interpretation of the PLRA would violate
another court rule that allows plaintiffs to amend their lawsuits
in some circumstances.

Mr. Riggs and the ACLU are suing for $155 million in damages --
CCA's entire net profit for 2009.

According to its Web site, CCA manages about 75,000 inmates in 64
facilities in 19 states and the District of Columbia.


COVIDIEN PLC: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set for Aug. 25
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey set an
Aug. 25, 2010, hearing date to consider final approval of the
settlement agreement resolving the matter Stumpf v. Tyco
International Ltd., according to the company's July 30, 2010, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 25, 2010.

In connection with the company's separation from Tyco
International, the company assumed a portion of potential
liabilities relating to various outstanding Tyco International
litigation matters.

One of these outstanding legacy matters is Stumpf v. Tyco
International Ltd., a class action lawsuit in which the plaintiffs
alleged that Tyco International, among others things, violated the
disclosure provisions of the federal securities laws.

The matter arises from Tyco International's July 2000 initial
public offering of common stock of TyCom Ltd., and alleges that
the TyCom registration statement and prospectus relating to the
sale of common stock were inaccurate, misleading and failed to
disclose facts necessary to make the registration statement and
prospectus not misleading.  The complaint further alleged the
defendants violated securities laws by making materially false and
misleading statements and omissions concerning, among other
things, executive compensation, TyCom's business prospects and
Tyco International's and TyCom's finances.

On May 6, 2010, the Court preliminarily approved the settlement
resolving the suit for $79 million.

The court has scheduled the final approval hearing for Aug. 25,
2010.

As of June 25, 2010, there were no remaining significant
litigation matters for which Covidien, Tyco International and Tyco
Electronics are jointly and severally liable.

Covidien plc -- http://www.covidien.com/-- is a leading global
healthcare products company that creates innovative medical
solutions for better patient outcomes and delivers value through
clinical leadership and excellence.  Covidien manufactures,
distributes and services a diverse range of industry-leading
product lines in three segments: Medical Devices, Pharmaceuticals
and Medical Supplies.  With 2009 revenue of $10.7 billion,
Covidien has 42,000 employees worldwide in more than 60 countries,
and its products are sold in over 140 countries.


CUSHING MLP: Sept. 13 Fairness Hearing on $3.6 Mil. Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas will
convene a fairness hearing on Sept. 13, 2010, to consider approval
of a $3.6 million settlement for the benefit of purchasers of
shares in the Cushing MLP Total Return Fund from Sept. 1, 2008, to
Dec. 19, 2008, inclusive, who sold those shares after Dec. 19,
2008, or continue to hold them.   The proposed Settlement resolves
claims in Bachow v. Swank Energy Income Advisors, LP, et al., Case
No. 09-cv-00262 (N.D. Tex.) (Kinkeade, J.), about whether the
Fund's reports and releases misrepresented and omitted to disclose
material information regarding the Fund's financial condition and
future earnings.

A court-approved 12-page Notice about the proposed settlement is
available at http://www.gcginc.com/cases/pdf/CSH/CSHNotice.pdf
from Garden City Group, the the Claims Administrator, and
additional information is available by calling 1-800-231-1815 or
writing to:

Cushing MLP Litigation
c/o The Garden City Group, Inc.
PO Box 9349
Dublin, OH 43017-4249

In this litigation, the Plaintiffs are represented by:

         Roger Mandel, Esq.
         BECKHAM & MANDEL
         3400 Carlisle Avenue, Suite 550
         Dallas, TX 75204

              - and -

         Mark C. Rifkin, Esq.
         WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
         270 Madison Avenue, 10th Floor
         New York, NY 10016

and the Defendants are represented by:

         Rodney Acker, Esq.
         Karl G. Dial, Esq.
         FULBRIGHT & JAWORSKI L.L.P.
         2200 Ross Avenue, Suite 2800
         Dallas, TX 75201-2784


DAVID STERN: Faces Possible Class Action Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------
Kimberly Miller, Palm Beach Post staff writer, reports that
Florida's purported largest foreclosure law firm filed thousands
of documents to take people's homes that contained deceptive and
intentionally ambiguous information, according to a proposed class
action lawsuit.

The suit, filed last month in U.S. District Court, Southern
District of Florida, says David J. Stern and his Plantation-based
legal team violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act by generating fraudulent mortgage assignments
when pursuing foreclosures.

An assignment is held by the entity that has the right to receive
mortgage payments.

Mr. Stern's practice, which the lawsuit claims filed up to 7,000
new foreclosure cases in Florida every month last year, also is
alleged to have pursued foreclosures for lenders that didn't own
the debt on the homes.

"There really is no proper plaintiff to sue and foreclose and
that's what this charade is designed to cover," said Fort
Lauderdale attorney Kenneth Eric Trent, Esq., who is seeking class
action status and filed the suit on behalf of Oakland Park
resident Ignacio Damian Figueroa. "There is no real holder of the
note and the mortgage anymore because they broke it up and sold it
to 10, 12, 20 people."

During the real estate boom, loans traded hands often, sometimes
being bundled or split up and sold to investors.

Tracking the true owner of the debt sometimes can be a challenge.
When pressed for proof of debt ownership, Mr. Trent said Mr.
Stern's office would create an assignment signed by a Stern
employee instead of a representative of the lender attempting to
foreclose.

"The assignments were meaningless shells designed to pull the wool
over the eyes of the judiciary and ease the burden upon the
unknown real parties of interest," the lawsuit states.

Miami attorney Jeffrey Tew, Esq., of Tew Cardenas law firm, is
representing Mr. Stern.  He said Mr. Stern and his company have
done nothing wrong, and that it is accepted practice for a firm
employee to be given power to approve assignments.

"This foreclosure crisis was not created by David Stern, but it is
so huge and a lot of people are in very bad shape, so some of the
finger-pointing goes to him," Mr. Tew said.

Mr. Trent also named the Mortgage Electronic Registration Service
Corp. as a defendant. The private entity, known as MERS, was
created by banks in 1995 to track mortgage ownership
electronically and reduce paper documents.

Mr. Trent says MERS helps hide the identity of loan ownership and
that it conspired with Stern to "confuse everyone as to who owned
what."

Mr. Tew called that claim "fantastical." He did acknowledge,
however, that errors can happen.

West Palm Beach foreclosure defense attorney Thomas Ice found 21
examples last year of assignments from Mr. Stern's office that had
been executed with a date before the notary's commission was
issued.

In a deposition, a Stern employee agreed with Mr. Ice that
"sloppiness" was to blame for the irregularity.

Palm Beach County Circuit Judge Meenu Sasser, who handles the
county's foreclosures, said she's dismissed cases when she found
problems with assignments. She wasn't speaking directly about
cases filed by Stern, and said it's only happened a few times.

"I haven't seen any widespread problem," Judge Sasser said.

Plaintiffs' lawyer may be reached at:

     Kenneth E. Trent, Esq.
     831 E. Oakland Park Blvd.
     Fort Lauderdale, FLORIDA, 33334
     Telephone: 954-567-5877

Defendant may be reached at:

     LAW OFFICES OF DAVID J. STERN P.A.
     900 S. Pine Island Rd., Ste. 400
     Plantation, FL 33324-3903
     Telephone: (954) 233-8000
     Facsimile: (954) 233-8333

Defendant's counsel may be reached at:

     Jeffrey Tew, Esq.
     TEW CARDENAS LLP
     Four Seasons Tower
     1441 Brickell Avenue, 15th FL.
     Miami, FL 33131
     Telephone: (305) 536-8452
     Facsimile: (305) 536-1116
     Email: JT@tewlaw.com

The foreclosure defense attorney may be reached at:

     Thomas E. Ice, Esq.
     ICE LEGAL, P.A.
     1015 N. State Road 7, Suite D
     Royal Palm Beach, FL 33411
     Telephone: (561) 729-0530
     Facsimile: (866) 507-9888
     Email: tom@icelegal.com


DYADIC INTERNATIONAL: Settles Stockholder Class Action Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dyadic International, Inc., disclosed that the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Florida has approved
the final resolution of the consolidated stockholder class action
lawsuit, Miller v. Dyadic International, Inc., et al., and
dismissed the lawsuit with prejudice.

The lawsuit initially filed in October 2007 asserted class action
claims under federal securities laws based on allegations of
misstatements and omissions by Dyadic and certain of its current
and former officers and directors arising out of alleged
improprieties at Dyadic's Asian subsidiaries.  As reported in
Dyadic's latest consolidated financial statements, Dyadic
established a cash reserve in connection with the class action
lawsuit which adequately covers the costs associated with
resolving this matter.

Dyadic's President and Chief Executive Officer, Mark Emalfarb,
stated, "We are pleased to put this matter behind us so we can
continue focusing on growing our business through the ongoing sale
of enzymes and the monetization of our C1 platform technology
through potential licensing arrangements and other
collaborations."

Dyadic -- http://www.dyadic.com/-- is a global biotechnology
company that uses its patented and proprietary technologies for
the discovery, development, manufacture and sale of enzyme
products and solutions to address the needs of the bioenergy,
biopharmaceutical and industrial enzyme markets.


FIRST WINTHROP: Court Grants Summary Judgment Motion
----------------------------------------------------
Chief Judge Susan J. Dlott of the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Ohio, Western Division, granted First
Winthrop Corporation, et al.'s motion for summary judgment in In
re Boland v. First Winthrop Corporation, Case No. 1:09-cv-218
(S.D. Ohio August 2, 2010)

On March 25, 2009, Plaintiffs Richard L. Boland and John E. Boland
filed a Complaint for Accounting and to Certify Claim as a Class
Action against Defendants First Winthrop Corporation; Winthrop
Financial Co., Inc.; Woodland II Associates; Coordinated Services
of Valdosta, LLC.; Linnaeus-Boston Associates; and unnamed John
Does.  Plaintiffs allege in the Complaint that they were solicited
by Defendants to invest in a financial "scheme."  Specifically,
Plaintiffs allege that "Defendants, individually or
collectively[,] put out a plan whereby investors, such as a [sic]
Plaintiffs, would invest money in a scheme where by the Plaintiffs
would receive income tax losses to report on their tax return to
the respective federal and state tax authority."  Plaintiffs
further allege that Defendants notified them on or about
August 12, 2003, that real estate known as Woodland Manor II would
be sold, but instead on or about December 4, 2003 "the scheme's
holdings in the real estate were sold to an unknown entity."
Plaintiffs allege that they sought information regarding "what was
done" from Defendants without success.

The Court notes that some of the discovery Plaintiffs seek in
their proposed third set of interrogatories is repetitive of
discovery which Defendants have already provided.  The Court will
not allow Plaintiffs to conduct a "fishing expedition" in the
search for a viable claim for relief. Riser v. WSYX-TV ABC-6, No.
2:02-cv-091, 2002 WL 31409427, at *11 (S.D. Ohio July 17, 2002).

Judge Dlott said the defendants are entitled to summary judgment
as a matter of law on the Plaintiffs' class action claim.
"Plaintiffs did not plead any basis for relief in regards to the
class allegations other than the alleged need for an accounting.
Given the failure of the equitable accounting claim, the class
action claim necessarily fails as well."

A copy of the decision is available for free at:

     http://www.leagle.com/unsecure/page.htm?shortname=infdco20100802965


FRANKLIN COUNTY: Mass. Jailhouse Strip-Search Case Settled
----------------------------------------------------------
You could get a payment from a class action settlement in Garvey,
et al., v. Macdonald, et al., Case No. 07-cv-30049 (D. Mass.), if
you meet ALL of the following conditions:

  -- You were held in the Franklin County Jail at any
     time between March 28, 2004, and February 24, 2007;

  -- You were held after an arrest but before a bail
     hearing or first court appearance (this includes
     arrests on default and other warrants);

  -- You were not charged with a crime involving drugs
     or weapons or a violent felony; and

  -- You were strip searched, AND the strip search was
     "without cause."  If you were strip-searched "for
     cause," you are not in the class.  An example of a
     strip-search "for cause" is a strip-search after
     a correctional officer finds drugs or a weapon in
     a person's clothing or has a reason to expect to
     find hidden contraband.

To participate, you must submit a Settlement Claim Form and it
must be received by Oct. 11, 2010.  You may get the Form at the
Franklin County Jail or by writing to:

         Garvey Claims Administrator
         P.O. Box 2007
         Chanhassen, MN 55317-2007

or by visiting http://www.FranklinCountyJailClass.com/

Under a Settlement Agreement dated July 14, 2010, total claims may
not exceed $1,162.468, and are capped at $3,500 per person.

The Plaintiff Class is represented by:

         Howard Friedman, Esq.
         David Milton, Esq.
         LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD FRIEDMAN, P.C.
         90 Canal St., 5th Floor
         Boston, MA 02114
         Telephone: (617) 742-4100
         E-mail: hfriedman@civil-rights-law.com
                 dmilton@civil-rights-law.com


GENTIVA HEALTH: Faces Wage and Hour Violations Suit in New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gentiva Health Services, Inc., faces a class action complaint in
New York alleging wage and hour law violations, according to the
company's July 30, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 4, 2010.

On May 10, 2010, a collective and class action complaint entitled
Lisa Rindfleisch et al. v. Gentiva Health Services, Inc. was filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York
against the company in which five former employees allege wage and
hour law violations.

The former employees claim they were paid pursuant to "an unlawful
hybrid" compensation plan that paid them on both a per visit and
an hourly basis, thereby voiding their exempt status and entitling
them to overtime pay.  The plaintiffs allege continuing violations
of federal and state law and seek damages under the Fair Labor
Standards Act, as well as under the New York Labor Law and North
Carolina Wage and Hour Act.

Plaintiffs seek class certification of similar employees and seek
attorneys' fees, back wages and liquidated damages going back
three years under the FLSA, six years under the New York statute
and two years under the North Carolina statute.

Gentiva Health Services, Inc. is a leading provider of home health
and hospice services, delivering innovative, high quality care to
patients across the United States. Gentiva is a single source for
skilled nursing; physical, occupational, speech and
neurorehabilitation services; hospice services; social work;
nutrition; disease management education; help with daily living
activities; and other therapies and services.


GENTIVA HEALTH: Faces Wage & Hour Violations Suit in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gentiva Health Services, Inc., faces a class action complaint in
California alleging wage and hour law violations, according to the
company's July 30, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 4, 2010.

On June 11, 2010, a collective and class action complaint entitled
Catherine Wilkie, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Gentiva Health Services, Inc. was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California
against the company in which a former employee alleges wage and
hour violations under the Fair Labor Standards Act and California
law.

The complaint alleges that the Company paid some of its employees
on both a per visit and hourly basis, thereby voiding their exempt
status and entitling them to overtime pay.  The plaintiff seeks
class certification, attorneys' fees, back wages, penalties, and
damages going back three years on the FLSA claim and four years on
the state wage and hour claims.

Gentiva Health Services, Inc. is a leading provider of home health
and hospice services, delivering innovative, high quality care to
patients across the United States. Gentiva is a single source for
skilled nursing; physical, occupational, speech and
neurorehabilitation services; hospice services; social work;
nutrition; disease management education; help with daily living
activities; and other therapies and services.


GENTIVA HEALTH: Faces 3 Suits Over Planned Odyssey Acquisition
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gentiva Health Services, Inc., faces three putative class action
lawsuits in connection with the company's proposed acquisition of
Odyssey HealthCare, Inc., according to the company's July 30,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended July 4, 2010.

The first, entitled Pompano Beach Police & Firefighters'
Retirement System v. Odyssey HealthCare, Inc. et al., was filed on
May 27, 2010 in the County Court, Dallas County, Texas.  The
second, entitled Eric Hemminger et al. v. Richard Burnham et al.,
was filed on June 9, 2010 in the District Court, Dallas, Texas.
The third, entitled John O. Hansen v. Odyssey HealthCare, Inc. et
al., was filed on July 2, 2010 in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas.

All three lawsuits name the company, GTO Acquisition Corp.,
Odyssey and the members of Odyssey's board of directors as
defendants.

All three lawsuits are brought by purported stockholders of
Odyssey, both individually and on behalf of a putative class of
stockholders, alleging that Odyssey's board of directors breached
its fiduciary duties in connection with the Merger by failing to
maximize shareholder value and that the company and Odyssey aided
and abetted the alleged breaches.

All three lawsuits seek equitable relief, including, among other
things, to enjoin consummation of the Merger, rescission of the
related Agreement and Plan of Merger and an award of all costs,
including reasonable attorneys' fees.  The Pompano Beach Police &
Firefighters' suit also seeks additional proxy disclosure
regarding the Merger.

Gentiva Health Services, Inc. is a leading provider of home health
and hospice services, delivering innovative, high quality care to
patients across the United States. Gentiva is a single source for
skilled nursing; physical, occupational, speech and
neurorehabilitation services; hospice services; social work;
nutrition; disease management education; help with daily living
activities; and other therapies and services.


HEARTLAND PAYMENT: Dec. 10 Fairness Hearing re 2008 Data Breach
---------------------------------------------------------------
If you used your Credit or Debit Card in the United States between
December 26, 2007 and December 31, 2008, you could get benefits
from a class action settlement involving Heartland Payment
Systems.

A settlement has been reached with Heartland Payment Systems, Inc.
in a class action lawsuit about a 2008 intrusion into credit and
debit card information processed by Heartland. The settlement
provides benefits to those consumers who file valid claims for
losses from the intrusion.

The United States District Court for the Southern District of
Texas will hold a hearing to decide whether to give final approval
to the settlement, so that the benefits can be issued to those
with valid claims. Those included have legal rights and options,
such as excluding themselves from or objecting to the settlement.
Eligible Class Members can submit a claim for benefits from the
settlement. Get a detailed notice at
http://www.HPScardholdersettlement.com/

Heartland denies any claims of wrongdoing in this case, and the
settlement does not mean that Heartland violated any laws or did
anything wrong.

WHO'S INCLUDED?

The Class includes everyone in the United States who had or has a
payment card (credit or debit) that was used in the United States
from December 26, 2007 to December 31, 2008 (the "Settlement Class
Period"), and who claims or may claim "Losses," which are certain
unreimbursed out-of-pocket expenses (including identity-theft-
related charges) or lost time. To have a valid claim, it must be
determined that your card was processed by Heartland during the
Settlement Class Period. For more information, read the detailed
notice referred to below.
WHAT DOES THE SETTLEMENT PROVIDE?

To make a valid claim for reimbursement of "Losses" under the
settlement, you must submit documentation showing that you had
unreimbursed, out-of-pocket expenses or lost time because your
credit or debit card account information was stolen or placed at
risk of being stolen as a result of the Heartland intrusion.

    a) Qualifying losses are telephone or postage costs, other
third-party charges resulting from card cancellations or
replacements, unauthorized and unreimbursed account charges,
identity-theft-related charges, or time spent to address those
matters. Valid claimants can receive reimbursements up to $175 per
Settlement Class Member, with no more than two valid claims
allowed per household.

    b) In the event the losses in a valid claim include identity-
theft-related charges, claimants can receive reimbursements of up
to $10,000. To qualify as "identity-theft-related," the charges
must result from someone's assuming the claimant's identity as a
result of the Heartland intrusion and taking out and using credit
or otherwise obtaining monies or other things of value
fraudulently in the name of the claimant. The identity-theft-
related charges must be separate and apart from any charges on the
affected credit or debit card account itself.

    c) All claims must include the number and expiration date of
the payment card account for determination whether the card was
processed by Heartland during the Settlement Class Period and
evaluation of the claim. The Claims Administrator will determine,
on a "more likely than not" basis, whether the documentation
submitted by the claimant supports the claim, including whether
the loss resulted from the Heartland intrusion. Reimbursements
will be reduced proportionally if the amount payable on all valid
and final claims exceeds $2.4 million.

For more information, including limitations and conditions on
these benefits, read the detailed notice referred to below.

HOW DO YOU ASK FOR BENEFITS?

Eligible Class Members can call 1-877-271-1547 or go to the
website for a claim form, then fill it out, sign it, include the
documentation it requires, and mail it to the address on the form.
The deadline to make a claim for benefits is August 1, 2011.

YOUR OTHER OPTIONS.

If you do not want to be legally bound by the settlement, you must
exclude yourself by November 19, 2010, or you will not be able to
sue, or continue to sue, Heartland about the legal claims this
settlement resolves, ever again. If you exclude yourself, you
cannot get any benefits from the settlement. If you stay in the
Settlement Class, you may object to it by November 19, 2010. The
detailed notice explains how to exclude yourself or object.

The Court will hold a hearing in this case, known as In re:
Heartland Payment Systems, Inc. Customer Data Security Breach
Litigation, No. 4:09-MD-2046, on December 10, 2010, to consider
whether to approve the settlement, and a request by Class Counsel
for fees of up to $725,000, costs and expenses of up to $35,000,
and incentive awards of $100 to $200 for each named plaintiff who
filed a lawsuit in the case.  You or your own lawyer may ask to
appear and speak at the hearing at your own cost, but you do not
have to do so.  For more information, go to
http://www.HPScardholdersettlement.com/for a copy of the detailed
notice.

Co-Lead Settlement Class Counsel may be reached at:

         Ben Barnow, Esq.
         BARNOW AND ASSOCIATES, P.C.
         One North LaSalle, Suite 4600
         Chicago, IL 60602
         Telephone: (312) 621-2000
         E-mail: b.barnow@barnowlaw.com

              - and -

         Lance A. Harke, Esq.
         HARKE & CLASBY LLP
         155 South Miami Ave., Suite 600
         Miami, FL 33130
         Telephone: (305) 536-8220
         E-mail: lharke@harkeclasby.com

              - and -

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

Heartland Payment Systems, Inc., is represented by:

         Harvey J. Wolkoff, Esq.
         Mark P. Szpak, Esq.
         ROPES & GRAY LLP
         One International Place
         Boston, MA 02110-2624
         Telephone: (617) 951-7000
         E-mail: hwolkoff@ropesgray.com
                 mszpak@ropesgray.com


ILLINOIS COLLECTION: Court Directs Narrower TCPA Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Celentino at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal
judge in Chicago has paved the way for a narrower class action
against a debt collection service that used an automatic dialer to
call debtors' cell phones.

Lead plaintiff James Mitchem says he filled out a personal
information form before receiving medical treatment, "believing
that the information he provided would be used to collect the bill
through mail, not by telephone."  When he failed to pay his bill,
the doctor's office gave Mr. Mitchem's phone number to the
Illinois Collection Service, a debt collection agency that uses an
automatic dialing system.  ICS made about 40 phone calls to Mr.
Mitchem's cell phone, leaving prerecorded voice messages.  Mr.
Mitchem accused ICS of violating the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act by using an automatic dialer to call his cell phone without
his consent.

ICS moved for dismissal, claiming Mr. Mitchem and other medical
debtors consented to automatic dialing when they provided their
cell phone numbers to doctors.

U.S. District Judge Ronald Guzman rejected this argument, ruling
that Mr. Mitchem "has constitutional standing" to challenge the
debt collection agency in court. But Judge Guzman refused to
certify Mr. Mitchem's proposed class of medical debtors in the 312
area code who received automatically dialed phone calls from ICS
since 2005 -- a class of at least 325 members.

Instead, Judge Guzman said Mr. Mitchem could narrow his class
description to members who received auto-dialed calls on their
cell phones.

"Because [ICS] is capable of compiling a list of debtors who did
not, under plaintiff's theory, consent to its calls, an
appropriately tailored class definition could make consent a
class-wide, not an individual, issue," Judge Guzman concluded.

A copy of the Memorandum Opinion and Order in Mitchem v. Illinois
Collection Service, Inc., No. C 7274 (N.D. Ill.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/08/03/ICS.pdf


SEARS ROEBUCK: Court Approves $55,000 for Attorneys in Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Amelia Flood, writing for The Madison County Record, reports that
members of a St. Clair County class action against Kmart and Sears
Roebuck and Co. will receive two vouchers for $5 off any $20 Kmart
purchase, according to an order signed by Circuit Judge Lloyd
Cueto.

Judge Cueto also granted a motion July 9 by attorneys Paul Weiss
of Chicago, Richard Burke of St. Louis and Kevin Hoerner of
Belleville to receive $55,000 in attorney's fees and costs in the
case.

The class action is one in a series of cases filed two years ago
over the effectiveness of generics of the popular immune system
booster "Airborne."

The case against Kmart alleged that its Germ Defense product does
not boost the immune system as claimed.

Lead plaintiff Larry Adams will receive $1,500 in the settlement.

The team of attorneys settled with the defendants for $130,000 on
June 3.

Several other similar cases filed by the same attorneys against
retailers such as Target are also pending before St. Clair County
judges.

The Kmart and Sears class includes all people across the country
who bought Germ Defense between 2004 and November 2009.

The defendants were represented by William Knapp and Mark Brand.

The Kmart case is St. Clair case number 08-L-599.

Plaintiffs' lawyers:

     Paul M. Weiss, Esq.
     FREED & WEISS LLC
     111 West Washington Street, Suite 1331
     Chicago, IL 60602
     Telephone: (866) 779-9610
     Facsimile: (312) 220-7777
     Email: paul@freedweiss.com

          - and -

     Richard J. Burke, Esq.
     RICHARD J. BURKE LLC
     1010 Market St., Suite 660
     St. Louis, MO 63101
     Telephone: (314) 880-7000
     Facsimile: (314) 880-7777
     Email: rich@richardjburke.com

          - and -

     Kevin T. Hoerner, Esq.
     BECKER, PAULSON, HOERNER & THOMPSON, P.C.
     5111 West Main Street
     Belleville, Illinois 62226
     Telephone: (618) 235-0020
                (618) 271-1600
     Facsimile: (618) 235-8558

Defendants' lawyers:

     William J. Knapp, Esq.
     KNAPP, OHL & GREEN
     6100 Center Grove Road
     Edwardsville, IL 62025
     Telephone: (618) 656-5088
     Facsimile: (618) 656-5466

          - and -

     Mark A. Brand, Esq.
     REED SMITH LLP
     10 South Wacker Drive, 40th Floor
     Chicago, IL 60606-7507
     Telephone: (312) 207-2438
     Facsimile: (312) 207-6400
     Email: mbrand@reedsmith.com


MCKESSON CORP: Certification Hearing in "Douglas County" Set
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts has set
an Aug. 31, 2010, hearing regarding class certification in the
matter Board of County Commissioners of Douglas County, Kansas v.
McKesson Corporation, et al., (Civil Action No. 1:08-cv-11349-
PBS), according to the company's July 30, 2010, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2010.

On Aug. 7, 2008, an action was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Massachusetts by the Board of County
Commissioners of Douglas County, Kansas on behalf of itself and a
purported national class of state, local and territorial
governmental entities against the Company and First DataBank, Inc.
alleging violations of civil RICO and federal antitrust laws and
seeking damages and treble damages, as well as injunctive relief,
interest, attorneys' fees and costs of suit, all in unspecified
amounts, Board of County Commissioners of Douglas County, Kansas
v. McKesson Corporation, et al., (Civil Action No. 1:08-CV-11349-
PBS).

Separate class actions based on essentially the same factual
allegations were subsequently filed against the company and FDB in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts by:

     -- the City of Panama City, Florida on Aug. 18, 2008;
     -- the State of Oklahoma on Oct. 15, 2008;
     -- the County of Anoka, Minnesota on Nov. 3, 2008;
     -- Baltimore, Maryland on Nov. 7, 2008;
     -- Columbia, South Carolina on Dec. 12, 2008; and
     -- Goldsboro, North Carolina on Dec. 15, 2008,

in each case on behalf of the filing entity and a class of state
and local governmental entities within the same state, alleging
violations of civil RICO, federal and state antitrust laws and
various state consumer protection and deceptive and unfair trade
practices statutes and seeking damages and treble damages, civil
penalties, as well as injunctive relief, interest, attorneys' fees
and costs of suit, all in unspecified amounts.

On Dec. 24, 2008, an amended and consolidated class action
complaint was filed in the Douglas County, Kansas Action.

The amended complaint added the named plaintiffs from the Florida,
Oklahoma, Minnesota, Maryland, South Carolina and North Carolina
Actions and abandoned the previously alleged antitrust claims.

On Jan. 9, 2009, the Florida, Oklahoma, Minnesota, Maryland, South
Carolina and North Carolina Actions were voluntarily dismissed
without prejudice.

On March 3, 2009, a second amended and consolidated class action
complaint was filed in the Douglas County, Kansas Action, adding
the state of Montana as a plaintiff, adding Montana state law
claims and adding a claim for tortious interference.

On Feb. 10, 2009, plaintiffs in the Douglas County, Kansas Action
filed a notice of dismissal without prejudice of defendant FDB.

On April 2, 2009, the company filed answers to the pending
complaint in the County of Douglas, Kansas Action denying the core
factual allegations and asserting numerous affirmative defenses.
On April 9, 2009, the company filed a demand for a jury in the
action.

The briefing regarding class certification in the Douglas County,
Kansas is complete and the hearing on class certification in the
case is now scheduled for Aug. 31, 2010.

McKesson Corporation -- http://www.mckesson.com/-- is a
healthcare services and information technology company dedicated
to helping its customers deliver high-quality healthcare by
reducing costs, streamlining processes, and improving the quality
and safety of patient care.  Over the course of its 177-year
history, McKesson has grown by providing pharmaceutical and
medical-surgical supply management across the spectrum of care;
healthcare information technology for hospitals, physicians,
homecare and payors; hospital and retail pharmacy automation; and
services for manufacturers and payors designed to improve outcomes
for patients.


MCKESSON CORP: No Trial Date Yet in "Connecticut" Suit
------------------------------------------------------
No new trial date has been set in the matter State of Connecticut
v. McKesson Corporation, (Civil Action No. 1:08-CV-10900-PBS),
according to the company's July 30, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2010.

On May 28, 2008, an action was filed by the State of Connecticut
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts
against the company, as the sole defendant, alleging violations of
civil RICO, the Sherman Act and the Connecticut Unfair Trade
Practices Act and seeking damages, treble damages, restitution,
interest and attorneys' fees, all in unspecified amounts.

On Jan. 13, 2009, an amended complaint was filed in the
Connecticut Action abandoning all previously alleged antitrust
claims.

On July 8, 2010, the court vacated the July 19, 2010 trial date
previously set in the Connecticut Action and has not yet set a new
trial date in that case.

McKesson Corporation -- http://www.mckesson.com/-- is a
healthcare services and information technology company dedicated
to helping its customers deliver high-quality healthcare by
reducing costs, streamlining processes, and improving the quality
and safety of patient care.  Over the course of its 177-year
history, McKesson has grown by providing pharmaceutical and
medical-surgical supply management across the spectrum of care;
healthcare information technology for hospitals, physicians,
homecare and payors; hospital and retail pharmacy automation; and
services for manufacturers and payors designed to improve outcomes
for patients.


MCKESSON CORP: August 31 Hearing Set for Class Certification
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts has set
an Aug. 31, 2010, hearing regarding class certification in the
matter San Francisco Health Plan, et al. v. McKesson Corporation,
(Civil Action No. 1:08-CV-10843-PBS), according to the company's
July 30, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

On May 20, 2008, an action was filed by the San Francisco Health
Plan on behalf of itself and a purported class of political
subdivisions in the State of California and by the San Francisco
City Attorney on behalf of the "People of the State of California"
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts
against the company as the sole defendant, alleging violations of
civil RICO, the California Cartwright Act, California's false
claims act, California Business and Professions Code Sections
17200 and 17500 and seeking damages, treble damages, civil
penalties, restitution, interest and attorneys' fees, all in
unspecified amounts.

On July 3, 2008, an amended complaint was filed in the San
Francisco Action adding a claim for tortious interference.  On
Jan. 13, 2009, a second amended complaint was filed in the San
Francisco Action that abandoned all previously alleged antitrust
claims.

On April 2, 2009, the company filed answers to the pending
complaint in the San Francisco Action.  On April 9, 2009, the
company filed a demand for a jury in the action.

The briefing regarding class certification in the San Francisco
Action is complete and the hearing on class certification in the
case is now scheduled for Aug. 31, 2010.

McKesson Corporation -- http://www.mckesson.com/-- is a
healthcare services and information technology company dedicated
to helping its customers deliver high-quality healthcare by
reducing costs, streamlining processes, and improving the quality
and safety of patient care.  Over the course of its 177-year
history, McKesson has grown by providing pharmaceutical and
medical-surgical supply management across the spectrum of care;
healthcare information technology for hospitals, physicians,
homecare and payors; hospital and retail pharmacy automation; and
services for manufacturers and payors designed to improve outcomes
for patients.


MCKESSON CORP: California Court Dismisses "Rodriguez" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
granted McKesson Corporation's motion to dismiss the matter
Rodriguez et al. vs. Etreby Computer Company et al., (Civil Action
No. CV 10-3522-VBF), according to the company's July 30, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

On April 7, 2010 an action was filed in the Superior Court of the
State of California for the County of Los Angeles against, among
others, the company, its indirect subsidiary, NDCHealth
Corporation and "RelayHealth," a trade name under which NDC
conducts business, styled Rodriguez et al. vs. Etreby Computer
Company et al., (Civ. No. BC435303).

The plaintiffs in Rodriguez purport to represent a class of
California residents whose individual confidential medical
information was allegedly illegally released and used by
defendants, and plaintiffs also purport to bring their claims as a
private Attorney General action.

On May 10, 2010, defendants removed the action to U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California, Rodriguez et al. vs.
Etreby Computer Company et al., (Civil Action No. CV 10-3522-VBF).

On June 10, 2010, the company and NDC Health moved to dismiss the
complaint on grounds that it fails to allege the required element
of knowledge by defendants, fails to allege actual harm to any
plaintiff and improperly names certain defendants, including the
company and "RelayHealth."

On July 23, 2010, the court granted defendants' motion to dismiss
on grounds that plaintiffs had failed to sufficiently plead any of
their causes of action and gave plaintiffs until Aug. 9, 2010 to
file an amended pleading.

At a July 23, 2010 status conference the court set various
discovery, class motion, summary judgment and pretrial hearing
dates and also set a trial date, assuming the matter survives
dismissal, class certification and summary judgment motion
practice, for July 25, 2011.

McKesson Corporation -- http://www.mckesson.com/-- is a
healthcare services and information technology company dedicated
to helping its customers deliver high-quality healthcare by
reducing costs, streamlining processes, and improving the quality
and safety of patient care.  Over the course of its 177-year
history, McKesson has grown by providing pharmaceutical and
medical-surgical supply management across the spectrum of care;
healthcare information technology for hospitals, physicians,
homecare and payors; hospital and retail pharmacy automation; and
services for manufacturers and payors designed to improve outcomes
for patients.


MCNEIL CONSUMER: Accused in Fla. Suit of Deceptive Advertising
--------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Reynolds at Courthouse News Service reports that the
makers of Tylenol PM deceive consumers by marketing the drug as a
nighttime sleep aid, when they have "no competent and reliable
support for these claims," a class claims in Broward County Court.

Lead plaintiff Myrna Eisenberg of Florida says the misleading
marketing campaign "begins with a deceptive name," as Tylenol PM
"implies that it will make you sleepy."

The drug maker's "exhaustive advertising campaign builds on this
deception," the lawsuit states.

But the class says McNeil Consumer Healthcare's claim that the
active properties in its over-the-counter painkiller,
acetaminophen and diphenhydramine, help consumers get a "good
night's rest" are "completely false and deceptive."

The lawsuit quotes Dr. Riker, a health care consultant and editor
of OTC Product News, who allegedly stated that diphenhydramine is
an antihistamine discovered just after World War II and "was never
designed to be [a] sleep aid or analgesic."  There is "no
competent and reliable" evidence that the drug helps people sleep,
the class claims, though Tylenol PM is advertised as "effective
relief of pain and sleeplessness that isn't habit-forming and
won't leave you groggy in the morning."

Marketing the painkiller as a sleep aid without clinical proof
violates Federal Trade Commission rules, the lawsuit states.

But the marketing scheme allegedly worked, as the millions of
dollars McNeil spent advertising Tylenol PM catapulted it above
Advil PM and Excedrin as America's bestselling nighttime
painkiller.

The class of Tylenol PM buyers demand restitution and disgorgement
for violations of Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices
Act and breach of express warranty.

"As a result of the deceptive and misleading messages conveyed
through their campaign, defendants have been able to charge a
significant price premium for Tylenol PM over other similar
products," the lawsuit states.

A copy of the Complaint in Eisenberg v. McNeil Consumer
Healthcare, Case No. 1030400 (Fla. Cir. Ct., Broward Cty.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/08/03/Tylenol%20PM.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stuart A. Davidson, Esq.
          Cullin A. O'Brien, Esq.
          Mark Dearman, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          120 East Palmetto Park Rd., Suite 500
          Boca Raton, FL 33432
          Telephone: 561-750-3000
          E-mail: sdavidson@rgrdlaw.com
                  cobrien@rgdlaw.com
                  mdearman@rgrdlaw.com


OLIVE OIL RETAILERS: Callahan Sues Over Poor Quality Oil
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit was filed last week in Orange County
Superior Court by Callahan & Blaine against some of California's
largest distributors and retailers of Extra Virgin Olive Oil.

According to Daniel J. Callahan, Esq., Esq., of Callahan & Blaine
in Santa Ana, lead counsel for the Plaintiffs, "The Defendants,
olive oil manufacturers, distributors and retailers who sell their
product in the State of California, have been knowingly misleading
and defrauding California consumers for years. Defendants have
been claiming the olive oil they sell meets the high standard of
the extra virgin classification, thus entitling Defendants to
charge a hefty premium for the product, when in fact the product
does not meet that standard and is of inferior quality often
adulterated with cheaper refined oils such as hazelnut oil or
lesser olive oils."

Consumers spend an amazing $700 million a year on this product
relying on the representation of these Defendants, that these oils
are truly either domestic or imported extra virgin or virgin olive
oils.

These misrepresentations have been proven false in a comprehensive
study by the UC Davis Olive Center at the Robert Mondavi Institute
for Wine and Food Science at the University of California, Davis
in its comprehensive July 2010 Report.  The Report is authored by
the leading Ph.D.s, researchers and scientists in the nation on
edible oil research and education.  Cooperating and contributing
to the funding, research and findings in this study were the
California Olive Oil Council, the American Oil Chemists' Society
(AOCS) and the Australian Olive Oil Association.

For years, chefs and home cooks have shared anecdotal tales of
extra virgin olive oil that just did not taste right. It has now
become clear that these tales were based in fact. The result of
this comprehensive study is that 69% of imported olive oil and 10%
of California olive oil failed to meet the IOC/USDA standards.
These samples were found to be adulterated, and/or of poor quality
mixed with cheaper refined oils.

The Plaintiffs' class is led by a group of concerned Plaintiffs
from all walks of life. The named Plaintiffs include famous chefs,
famous restaurants, and home cooking enthusiasts. All of the
Plaintiffs are offended by the fraudulent actions taken by these
Defendants. The Plaintiffs include: Chef David W. Martin, who is
one of the most well recognized chefs from Bravo TV's "Top Chef"
Season One; Michael D. Owings, a well recognized American
restaurateur from Palm Springs, California, who is Culinary
Director of Dink's Restaurant and Ultra Lounge Palm Springs,
California; and Antonello's Ristorante, one of the finest Italian
restaurants in the country located in the South Coast Plaza
Village in Costa Mesa, California.

The Defendants include some of the most well-known olive oil
brands sold in California, including Bertolli, Filippo Berio,
Carapelli, Star, Colavita, Mezzetta, Pompeian, Rachael Ray,
Mazola, and Safeway Select. The Defendants also include the
retailers and supermarkets who sell these products to the
California consumers without testing and verifying the quality of
the products sold, including Bristol Farms, Gelson's Markets,
Vons/Pavilions, Ralphs, Stater Brothers, Albertson's Market,
Target, Walmart, Kmart, and Nob Hill Foods. "The retailers who
have sold this adulterated olive oil cannot claim ignorance since
the industry practice was exposed in The New Yorker magazine on
August 13, 2007, Public Radio on October 18, 2008 and the USA
Today on January 23, 2009.  Despite this information these
retailers continued to sell the product and progressively increase
the prices," said Mr. Callahan.

"Defendants have been defrauding consumers by claiming the olive
oil they are manufacturing, distributing and/or selling is of
sufficient quality to call the product extra-virgin olive oil,
when in fact it is not, and it has been a fact known throughout
the industry for some time," says Mr. Callahan. Additionally, the
Defendants do not ensure that the actual extra virgin olive oil,
which can deteriorate and become rancid with time and sun exposure
remains at a level worthy of the classification of extra virgin.

"Defendants' products are not worthy of the premium price charged
for extra virgin olive oil," said Mr. Callahan. "Nevertheless, the
deceptive statements are printed clearly on the front of every one
of their bottles of extra virgin olive oil. Thus, California
consumers are being sold a low quality product for the price of
what one would expect to pay for a much higher quality product,
which results in an outrageous unjust enrichment to the benefit of
the Defendants."

The Plaintiffs' class is represented by attorney Daniel J.
Callahan of Callahan & Blaine, based in Santa Ana, Calif. Mr.
Callahan is best known for a $934 million verdict which involved
public health and safety issues in which Callahan represented
medical product manufacturer Beckman Coulter.  According to Mr.
Callahan, "This is an egregious fleecing of the California
consumer; these companies placed corporate profiteering over their
integrity and the integrity of their product."

For further comment, please contact:

     Daniel J. Callahan, Esq.
     CALLAHAN & BLAINE
     3 Hutton Centre Drive, Suite 900
     Santa Ana, CA 92707
     Telephone: 714-241-4444 ext. 309
                888-284-0809 (Toll Free)
     Facsimile: 714-241-4445
     Email: daniel@callahan-law.com


REDBOX INC: Moves for Protective Order in Proposed Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Amelia Flood, writing for The Madison County Record, reports that
the owner of the DVD rental kiosks found at many supermarkets and
other stores is moving for a protective order in a class action
pending in St. Clair County, Illinois.

Defendant Redbox Inc. moved July 27 for a protective order in the
suit brought by lead plaintiff Laurie Piechur last year.

The plaintiff, meanwhile, has filed a series of motions asking
Circuit Judge Patrick Young to compel the DVD rental company to
turn over documents she has asked for.

Redbox has objected to numerous requests filed by the plaintiff.

No hearing on the protective order and motions to compel is noted
in the case file to date.

Laurie Piechur claims the company charged unreasonable and illegal
late fees for DVDs rented at its kiosks.

The suit seeks damages in excess of $350,000, costs and attorney's
fees.

A class has not been certified in the suit and could include
members with claims in states such as Wisconsin and California.

Redbox asks for a protective order that would shield what it
considers sensitive and trade-related documents from being made
public during the course of the litigation.

An attempt to take the case to federal court failed earlier this
year.

Two moves by the defense to have the suit dismissed have also
failed, with the most recent defeat coming July 16.

Laurie Piechur also moved July 22 for a briefing schedule on the
issue of class certification.

No hearing is set on that matter as yet either.

The case is St. Clair case number 09-L-562.

The plaintiffs are represented by:

     Peter J. Maag, Esq.
     Thomas G. Maag, Esq.
     MAAG LAW FIRM, LLC
     PO Box 617
     Edwardsville, IL  62025
     Telephone: (888)-572-3060 toll free
     Facsimile: (618)-551-0421
     Email: maag@maaglawfirm.com
            tmaag@maaglaw.com

          - and -

     Thomas Q. Keefe, Jr., Esq.
     THOMAS Q. KEEFE, JR., P.C.
     6 Executive Woods Court
     Belleville, IL 62226
     Telephone: 618-236-2221
     Facsimile: 618-236-2194

The defendant is represented by:

     Eric Brandfonbrener, Esq.
     PERKINS COIE LLP
     131 S. Dearborn Street, Suite 1700
     Chicago, Illinois
     Telephone: 312-324-8602
     Facsimile: 312-324-9400
     Email: EBrandfonbrener@perkinscoie.com

          - and -

     Robert F. Sprague, Esq.
     FIRMIN, SPRAGUE & HUFFMAN CO., L.P.A.
     220 West Sandusky Street, P.O. Box 963
     Findlay, Ohio 45839
     Telephone: 419-423-4321
     Facsimile: 419-423-8484


RRI ENERGY: Continues to Defend Antitrust Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------
RRI Energy, Inc., continues to be party to lawsuits alleging
violation of antitrust laws.

The company is party to seven lawsuits, several of which are class
action lawsuits, in state and federal courts in Kansas, Missouri,
Nevada and Wisconsin.  These lawsuits relate to alleged conduct to
increase natural gas prices in violation of antitrust and similar
laws.  The lawsuits seek treble or punitive damages, restitution
and/or expenses.

The lawsuits also name a number of unaffiliated energy companies
as parties.

In April 2010, in a related lawsuit, the Tennessee Supreme Court
reversed the Court of Appeals and dismissed all claims.

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

RRI Energy, Inc. - http://www.rrienergy.com/-- based in Houston,
provides electricity to wholesale customers in the United States.
The company is one of the largest independent power producers in
the nation with more than 14,000 megawatts of power generation
capacity across the United States.  These strategically located
generating assets use natural gas, fuel oil and coal.


RRI ENERGY: Defends Four Suits Over Planned Mirant Merger
---------------------------------------------------------
RRI Energy, Inc., defends four purported class action lawsuits in
connection with its planned merger with Mirant Corp., according to
the company's July 30, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2010.

In April 2010, RRI Energy together with Mirant and Mirant's board
of directors were named defendants in four purported class action
lawsuits filed in the Superior Court of Fulton County, Georgia,
brought on behalf of proposed classes consisting of holders of
Mirant common stock, excluding defendants and their affiliates.

RRI Energy Holdings, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of RRI Energy
formed for the purpose of effecting the merger, was also named a
defendant in three of the lawsuits. In three of the actions,
amended complaints have been filed adding allegations that the
defendants breached their fiduciary duties by failing to disclose
certain information in the preliminary joint proxy
statement/prospectus of RRI Energy and Mirant, which is a part of
the Registration Statement of RRI Energy that was filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.

The complaints allege, among other things, that the merger
agreement was the product of breaches of fiduciary duties by the
individual defendants, in that it allegedly does not provide for
the best value reasonable under the circumstances for Mirant's
public stockholders, and that the other defendants aided and
abetted the individual defendants' breaches of fiduciary duties.

The complaints seek, among other things:

     (a) a declaration that the merger agreement was entered
         into in breach of the defendants' duties,

     (b) to enjoin defendants from consummating the merger,

     (c) rescission of the merger if it is consummated and/or

     (d) granting the class members any profits or benefits
         allegedly improperly received by defendants.

Motions to dismiss each of the four complaints for failure to
state a claim have been filed on behalf of all of the defendants.

RRI Energy, Inc. -- http://www.rrienergy.com/-- based in Houston,
provides electricity to wholesale customers in the United States.
The company is one of the largest independent power producers in
the nation with more than 14,000 megawatts of power generation
capacity across the United States.  These strategically located
generating assets use natural gas, fuel oil and coal.


SAIA INC: Plaintiff Appeals Denial of Settlement Agreement
----------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiff's appeal on the denial of approval of the settlement
agreement resolving a suit against Saia, Inc., remains pending in
the .S. Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit, according to the
company's July 30, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

The company is a defendant in a lawsuit originally filed in July
2007 in California state court on behalf of California dock
workers alleging various violations of state labor laws.

In August 2007, the case was removed to the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California.  The claims include the
alleged failure of the Company to provide rest and meal breaks and
the alleged failure to reimburse the employees for the cost of
work shoes, among other claims.

In January 2008, the parties negotiated a conditional class-wide
settlement under which the company would pay $800,000 million to
settle these claims.  This pre-certification settlement is subject
to court approval.

In March 2008, the District Court denied preliminary approval and
the named Plaintiff filed a petition with the U.S. Court of Appeal
for the Ninth Circuit seeking permission to appeal this ruling.

The petition was granted and the appeal is now pending.

Saia, Inc. -- http://www.saia.com/-- is an asset-based trucking
company that provides a variety of transportation and supply chain
solutions to a range of industries, including the retail, chemical
and manufacturing industries.  The company provides regional and
interregional less-than-truckload (LTL) services, selected
national LTL and time-definite services across the United States
through its wholly owned subsidiary, Saia Motor Freight Line, LLC
(Saia Motor Freight).  Saia Motor Freight provides delivery in 34
states across the South, Southwest, West, Midwest and Pacific
Northwest.  Saia Motor Freight primarily provides its customers
with solutions for shipments between 100 and 10,000 pounds, but
also provides selected guaranteed, expedited and truckload
service.  As of Dec. 31, 2009, Saia Motor Freight operated a
network consisting of 147 service facilities.


SOUTHBURY TRAINING: Remedial Phase Hearing Set for Aug. 20
----------------------------------------------------------
                 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                   DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

RICHARD MESSIER, ET AL.,            :
                                    :
     PLAINTIFFS,                    :
                                    :  NO. 3:94-CV-1706(EBB)
         v.                         :
                                    :
SOUTHBURY TRAINING SCHOOL, ET AL.,  :
                                    :
     DEFENDANTS.                    :

               NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
        RESOLVING PENDING REMEDIAL PHASE OF CLASS ACTION

ATTENTION: RESIDENTS OF THE SOUTHBURY TRAINING SCHOOL,
          THEIR GUARDIANS, FAMILIES AND OTHER PERSONAL
          AND LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES

The United States District Court has received a Settlement
Agreement negotiated by the parties to this class action civil
rights lawsuit concerning a remedy in accordance with the Court's
Memorandum of Decision and Order of June 4, 2008.

The Court requested that the parties submit procedures to be
implemented to address the Court's finding that the process of
considering Southbury Training School (STS) residents for
community placement did not comply with the Americans with
Disabilities Act. Following both litigation activities and
negotiations regarding a remedy, the parties have reached a
Settlement Agreement for which this Notice is issued.

By Ruling dated July 8, 1996, the District Court certified a
"plaintiff class to include all current STS residents, persons who
might be placed at STS in the future, and persons who were
transferred from STS but remain under the control of the STS
Director." Memorandum, at 1.  Since new admissions to STS were
closed via District Court in 1986, and via state statue in 1997,
and since no person transferred from STS remains "under the
control of the STS Director", this Settlement Agreement is
directed toward the individuals who are residents of STS at the
time of approval by the District Court.

The major component of the Settlement Agreement include the
following:

    1. The training of relevant Interdisciplinary Team (ITD) staff
regarding the exercise of "professional judgment" in recommending
the "most integrated setting" commensurate with a class a member's
needs.

    2. The implementation, following training, of the process for
recommending the "most integrated setting", based upon the
professional judgment of the IDT.

    3. The provision of information to residents, guardians and
families, about, and exposure to, community-based alternatives to
assure that informed choices are made.

    4. The recognition in DDS policy that the concept of
"portability" -- the re-allocation of funding from STS, and from
any publicly operated ICF/MR, to the DDS Regions to support
community-based alternatives -- applies to STS residents, and
residents of publicly operated ICF/MR facilities.

    5. Assessment, evaluation and recommendations in the exercise
of professional judgment regarding community transition services
and support.

    6. Transition planning and resource identification and
development for STS residents for whom there is a professional
judgment/recommendation that the individual can be supported in a
more integrated setting and for whom informed consent to community
placement has been provided by the resident or guardian, as
applicable.

    7. Community transition for such STS residents indentified in
accordance with the Settlement Agreement, including timelines for
effecting such transition.

    8. The retention of a "Remedial Expert" to assist in the
training curriculum, the IDT process, the informational efforts,
and in effecting the community placement of STS residents for whom
the IDT has recommended community placement and the resident or
guardian, as applicable, does not oppose such recommendation.

    9. Regular meetings of the parties and the Remedial Expert to
assess progress under the terms of this Settlement Agreement and
resolve disputes associated with this Settlement Agreement.

The complete text of the Settlement Agreement is posted on the DDS
Web site at http://www.ct.gov/ddsand copies may be obtained by
calling the DDS Division of Legal & Government Affairs at 860-418-
6085.  The District Court will receive written comments from
interested persons until August 6, 2010.  Written comments should
be addressed to The Honorable Ellen Bree Burns, United States
District Judge, United States District Court, District of
Connecticut, 141 Church Street, New Haven, CT 06505.

A hearing will be held before the Honorable Helen Bree Burns,
United States District Judge, on August 20, 2010, at 10:00 a.m.,
United States District Court, 141 Church Street, New Haven,
Connecticut, relating to the fairness of the Settlement Agreement
to the class.

If you have any questions about the Settlement Agreement or about
the process for reviewing the fairness of the Settlement
Agreement, you may contact David C. Shaw, Esq., Attorney for the
Plaintiff Class, at (860) 242-1238.

                            SO ORDERED
    July 14, 2010
                            Honorable Ellen Bree Burns
                            United States District Judge


SUNRISE PROPANE: Fire Marshall Report Gives Plaintiffs Ammunition
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Katie Daubs, staff reporter at Toronto Star, reports that the
brother of a man killed in the Sunrise Propane explosion calls a
report from the Ontario Fire Marshal about the blast a "light from
God."

"From the start of things we already knew many of them were
negligent," Vikramjit Singh Saini said. "Now it is out front of
everybody. Me and my father, my mother, everybody, we are all now
looking for justice."

Almost two years after the tragedy, the Office of the Fire Marshal
has concluded the deadly blast was caused by an illegal tank-to-
tank transfer and a gas hose leak. Sunrise employee Parminder
Singh Saini, 25, was killed in the explosion, and veteran
firefighter Bob Leek died of a heart attack while battling the
resulting inferno.

Alfred Kwinter, who represents the Saini family, said the report
"affirms everything we allege."

A lawyer in the class-action suit against Sunrise agrees. "It
confirms our claim that these people allowed a dangerous
operation," Harvin Pitch said. "The truck to truck transfer was
outlawed by TSSA (Technical Standards and Safety Authority), and
it went on notwithstanding."

In late November, Mr. Pitch and three other law firms will be in
court to secure approval for the class-action suit to go ahead. It
seeks $300 million from Sunrise Propane Energy Group, their
landlord, cargo carriers and TSSA.

"That it was accidental is of no consequence," Mr. Pitch said. "We
never alleged someone lit a match."

Sunrise owner Sean Ben-Moshe could not be reached for comment. Bob
Potts, who represents Sunrise, said a legal team is in the process
of "digesting" the report.

Dave Lisle, a spokesman for TSSA, also said he couldn't comment on
the report or the legal action. "Not to downplay or have a lack of
sympathy or understanding for the people affected, but the
regulatory propane framework in this province is extremely
rigorous and effective," he said. "We still try to improve safety,
but this was a rare and very tragic event."

A block away from where the explosion happened, Jeff Green isn't
convinced. The other day, his father had a 25-year-old propane
tank filled, even though it's illegal to fill tanks more than 10
years old. He reported it to TSSA and said they were very "casual"
about it.

The Sunrise Propane site is now fenced off. Inside, there are
concrete slabs where buildings used to be, scorched earth, and a
lone port-a-john.

The neighborhood has a lot of new sod, new windows and stucco
walls.  On Murray Rd., new homes have been built in place of those
most devastated.  Six are still under construction, but most
people have moved back in.

On Spalding Rd., Jerry Giordano was not surprised by the fire
marshal's report.

"It was negligence," he said. "We're still living with it. It's
pathetic."

Although repairs to his home were completed last year, the
emotional effects linger: His 10-year-old daughter is still afraid
of loud noises. "She told me the other day the two-year
anniversary was coming up," he said.

Maurice Coulter, 89, couldn't return home for six months because
of the damage. She is part of the class-action lawsuit.

"I'm not at all sure what will come of it," she said. "Companies
have a way of getting around these things."

Sunrise is also facing charges under the Occupational Health and
Safety Act and the Environmental Protection Act.

Government representatives said pre-trials are continuing and a
joint trial date has been set for mid-October.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     Alfred M. Kwinter, Esq.
     SINGER, KWINTER PERSONAL INJURY LAWYERS LLP
     The Polo Centre
     1033 Bay St., Suite 214
     Toronto, Ontario M5S 3A5
     Telephone: 416-961-2882
                866-285-6927 (Toll Free)
     Facsimile: 416-961-6760
     Email: akwinter@singerkwinter.com

          - and -

     Harvin Pitch, Esq.
     STEVENSONS LLP
     144 Front Street, Suite 400
     Toronto, Ontario M5J 2L7
     Telephone: 416-865-5310
     Facsimile: 416-365-7702
     Email: hpitch@teplitskycolson.com

Representing the defendant is:

     Robert J. Potts, Esq.
     BLANEY MCMURTRY LLP
     2 Queen Street East, Suite 1500
     Toronto, Ontario M5C 3G5
     Telephone: 416-593-3952
     Facsimile: 416-593-5437
     Email: bpotts@blaney.com


TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE: Oct. 12 Fairness Hearing on Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
If you purchased or otherwise acquired Take-Two Interactive
Software, Inc., common stock during the period from December 17,
2002, through July 10, 2006, inclusive, you could get a payment
from the proposed class action settlement in In re Take-Two
Interactive Securities Litigation, Case No. 06-cv-00803
(S.D.N.Y.).  If you purchased or otherwise acquired Take-Two
common stock during the period from February 6, 1998, through July
10, 2006, inclusive, you could get a payment from funds recovered
in Securities and Exchange Commission v. Ryan Ashley Brant, Case
No. 07-cv-01075 (S.D.N.Y.).  To obtain any payment from the class
action settlement or funds recovered by the SEC, you must complete
a Proof of Claim and Release form and postmark it by September 21,
2010.  Claim forms are available at:

    http://www.take-twosecuritiessettlement.com/

which is hosted by A.B. Data, Ltd., the Claims Administrator
retained by and working under the supervision of Lead Counsel in
this litigation.

The Proposed Settlement will provide $20,115,000 in cash (plus
interest) to pay investors' claims, and the SEC will distribute an
additional $6.5 million it recovered for the benefit of Take-Two
investors.  A fairness hearing to review the proposed settlement
will be held in Oct. 12, 2010.  Lead Counsel for the investors
intends to apply for an award of attorneys' fees not to exceed 12%
of the Gross Settlement Fund.  In addition, Lead Counsel intends
to apply for reimbursement of expenses paid and incurred by Lead
Counsel in connection with the prosecution and resolution of the
Class Action, in an amount not to exceed $450,000.

Lead Counsel to the Plaintiffs is:

         Jonathan M. Plasse, Esq.
         LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
         140 Broadway
         New York, NY 10005

Take-Two Interactive is represented by:

         John B. Missing, Esq.
         DEBEVOISE & PLIMPTON LLP
         555 13th Street, NW, Suite 1100E
         Washington, DC 20004


TISHMAN SPEYER: Court Dismisses A-1 Unitholders' Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chief District Judge Wiley Y. Daniel of the United States District
Court for the District of Colorado granted a motion to dismiss an
amended class action complaint filed by defendants In re Katz v.
Gerardi, Civil Action No. 09-cv-01340-WYD-CBS (D. Colo. August 3,
2010).

Defendants Ernest A. Gerardi, Jr.; Ruth Ann M. Gillis; Ned S.
Holmes; Robert P. Kogod; James H. Polk Iii; John C. Schweitzer; R.
Scot Sellers; Robert H. Smith; Stephen R. Demeritt; Charles
Mueller, Jr.; Caroline Brower; Mark Schumacher; Alfred G. Neely;
Archstone-Smith Operating Trust; Archstone-Smith Trust; and
Tishman Speyer Development Corporation sought dismissal of all
claims under Rules 12(b)(6) and 9(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.

Plaintiffs Jack P. Katz; Steven A. Stender; and Infinity Clark
Street Operating, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, represent a class of persons who held A-1 Units in the
Archstone Smith Real Estate Investment Trust -- Archstone REIT.
This real estate investment trust was publicly traded, with the
Archstone Smith Operating Trust -- Archstone UPREIT -- owning 89%
of the common stock.  The A-1 Units had a number of unique
features that made them particularly valuable, such as liquidity
rights, dividend rights, and most importantly tax indemnification.
In the Spring of 2007, Archstone REIT began discussions with a
partnership between Tishman-Speyer and Lehman Brothers to purchase
Archstone REIT and create a private entity.  The merger was
ultimately approved, although the holders of the A-1 Units had no
voting rights and thus were unable to vote on the deal.  The
merger closed on October 5, 2007.

Under the terms of the deal, the holders of the A-1 Units were
given a choice: they could sell their Units at the price the
holders of common shares would receive, $60.75, or they could swap
their A-1 Units for new Series O Preferred Units in the new
private company owned by the Tishman-Lehman Partnership.  Some of
the Plaintiffs opted to sell their shares -- the "cash-out
subclass" -- and a smaller number opted to receive Series O
Preferred Units -- the "Series O subclass".  Neither option was
particularly appealing to holders of the A-1 Units, as the cash-
out price did not reflect the significant extra features of the
A-1 Units and the Series O Preferred Units did not have the same
advantages. The new entity was named the Tishman Speyer Archstone-
Smith Multifamily Series I Trust -- Tishman Speyer Trust. Soon
after the merger, the real estate market suffered a significant
decline and the Tishman Speyer Trust began to experience trouble,
primarily from its level of indebtedness. As a result, the value
of the Tishman Speyer Trust and the Series O Units has declined
significantly.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Prospectus and other documents
associated with the merger contained false and misleading
statements or omissions that have caused them economic damages.

The Plaintiffs bring with them a long procedural history. Although
represented by the same counsel, the Plaintiffs originally filed
separate complaints in different courts.

Plaintiff Katz filed a complaint in the state court of Cook
County, Illinois on May 28, 2008 alleging violations of securities
laws in connection with the merger.  Following a remand to the
Federal District Court, the parties agreed to transfer the case to
Colorado District Court.

Plaintiffs Stender and Infinity have a different history. They
were not originally parties to the present litigation, but filed
their own complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Colorado in November 2007 alleging breach of contract and breach
of fiduciary duty arising out of the merger.

Plaintiffs Stender and Infinity joined the Katz litigation and are
now parties to the case.  Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss
Amended Class Action Complaint on September 21, 2009. The
Plaintiffs filed a response on October 16, 2009. The Defendants
filed their reply on November 2, 2009. The Plaintiffs then filed a
Motion for Leave to File Sur-Reply on November 13, 2009
accompanied by their proposed Sur-Reply.  Judge Daniel heard oral
arguments regarding the Defendant's motion on March 22, 2010.

A copy of the decision is available for free at:

     http://www.leagle.com/unsecure/page.htm?shortname=infdco20100803b20


UTAH: Agrees to Settle Medicaid Class Action for $5.5 Million
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that Utah officials are agreeing to
end 15 years of legal wrangling by settling a multimillion-dollar
class-action lawsuit involving about 2,000 Medicaid claims.

The agreement reportedly would have the state pay $5.5 million to
a class of personal-injury victims who claimed they were
shortchanged on medical expenses covered by the state's Medicaid
program.

Plaintiffs' attorney Robert Sykes, Esq., says the case should have
been settled years ago.

The settlement comes after the Utah Supreme Court considered the
case four times. It still needs approval by the Utah Legislature
and governor.

The Legislature appropriated $2.3 million earlier this year to a
fund for the plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs' lawyer is  represented by:

     Robert B. Sykes, Esq.
     ROBERT B. SYKES & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
     311 S. State Street, Suite 240
     Salt Lake, UT 84111
     Telephone: (801) 533-0222
     Facsimile: (801) 533-8081


WARRANTECH CORP: Accused of Violating Ill. Service Contract Act
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Harris at Courthouse News Service reports that Warrantech
refuses to give customers refunds on canceled car warranties,
according to a class action in Madison County Circuit Court.

Lead plaintiff Dean Ochotnicki says Warrantech's practices violate
the Illinois Service Contract Act.  He claims he canceled his
five-year or 125,000-mile warranty on his 2005 Chevy Monte Carlo
on Nov. 27, 2009, but never received his $1,097 refund.

The class consists of all Illinois residents who bought vehicle
warranties from Warrantech since July 24, 2000 who did not receive
the proper refund when they canceled the contract.  The class
seeks damages for violations of the Illinois Service Contract Act
and is represented by Mark Goldenberg of Goldenberg Heller
Antognoli.

Defendants include Warrantech Automotive, Butler Financial
Solutions, Vemeco and Capital Assurance Risk Retention Group,
Warrantech's insurer.

A copy of the Complaint in Ochotnicki v. Warrantech Corporation,
et al., Case No. 10L774 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Madison Cty.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/08/03/Warrantech.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark C. Goldenberg, Esq.
          Thomas P. Rosenfeld, Esq.
          Ryan J. Mahoney, Esq.
          GOLDENBERG HELLER ANTOGNOLI & ROWLAND, P.C.
          2227 S. State Route 157
          P.O. Box 959
          Edwardsville, IL 62025
          Telephone: 618-656-5150

               - and -

          Matthew C. Casey, Esq.
          CASEY & DEVOTI, P.C.
          10 South Broadway, Suite 825
          St. Louis, MO 63102
          Telephone: 314-421-0763


WILLIAMS-SONOMA: Recalls 405 Pottery Barn Kids Bunk Beds
--------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Pottery Barn Kids, a division of Williams-Sonoma, Inc., of San
Francisco, Calif., announced a voluntary recall of about 405 Bunk
beds.  Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately
unless otherwise instructed.

The end structure of the bunk bed can pose an entrapment hazard to
young children, a violation of the Safety Standard for Entrapment
Hazards in Bunk Beds, 16 C.F.R. Part 1513.  Children can get their
necks caught in the opening between the post and the decorative
molding.

No injuries or incidents have been reported.

This recall involves Madeline bunk beds.  The bed is white and is
made of wood and medium-density fiberboard.  It has guardrails on
either side of the top bunk and a ladder that attaches to the side
of the beds.  Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10312.html

The recalled products were manufactured in Vietnam and sold
through Pottery Barn Kids stores, catalog and
http://www.potterybarnkids.com/from July 2009 to March 2010 for
$1,400.

Consumers should immediately stop using the bed and contact
Pottery Barn Kids to schedule installation of a free repair kit.
For additional information, contact Pottery Barn Kids toll-free at
(888) 779-8692 between 7:00 a.m. and midnight, Pacific Time seven
days a week or visit the company's Web site at
http://www.potterybarnkids.com/

                           *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills,
Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland
USA.  Gracele D. Canilao, Leah Felisilda, Rousel Elaine Fernandez,
Joy A. Agravante, Ronald Sy, Christopher Patalinghug, Frauline
Abangan 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  * * *