CAR_Public/101004.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Monday, October 4, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 195

                             Headlines

ADVANCE AMERICA: Lawyers Seek Fees Under Class Suit Settlement
AMERICAN COMMERCIAL: Suit Over Mile Marker 97 Collision Stayed
APOLLO GROUP: Sued Over "Manipulative Recruiting Tactics"
ARENA PHARMA: Girard Gibbs Files Securities Class Action Suit
BANKATLANTIC BANCORP: CEO Not Expert, Class Action Lawyers Say

BAYSIDE FURNISHINGS: Recalls 2,000 Twin Trundle Beds
BIMINI CAPITAL: Awaits Approval of "Kornfeld" Settlement Pact
BUCKEYE GP: Faces Suit by Broadbased Equities in Texas
BUCKEYE GP: Faces Suit in Texas Over Planned Merger Agreement
BUCKEYE GP: Faces Suit by James Steward in Texas

CF INDUSTRIES: Maryland Court Dismisses Suit Against Terra
CF INDUSTRIES: Terra Files Motion to Dismiss Suit in Iowa
CIGNA GROUP: Sued for Denying Insurance Benefits to Customers
CROPLIFE INT'L: Judge Grants Motion to Dismiss Mancozeb Suit
HARRAH'S ENTERTAINMENT: Loses Suit Over Misleading Advertising

HERTZ GLOBAL: New Jersey Suit vs. Hertz Equipment in Discovery
HERTZ GLOBAL: Unit Agrees to Settle "Lydia Lee" Suit
HERTZ GLOBAL: TCPA-Related Suit vs. Hertz Equipment Still Stayed
HERTZ GLOBAL: Dismissal of Antitrust Claim Against CTTC Affirmed
HERTZ GLOBAL: Plaintiffs' Appeal on Dismissed Suit Still Pending

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Class Action Lawsuit Filed Over Motrin Recall
KRAFT FOODS: Judge Grants Class Action Status to Pollution Lawsuit
MIDWEST-CBK: Recalls 4,450 "S T U F F" and Paw Wall Hooks
NEWS CORP: No Trial Date Yet in California Consolidated Suit
NIGHTHAWK RADIOLOGY: Defends Amended Securities Suit in Idaho

ORMAT TECHNOLOGIES: Wants Consolidated Amended Suit Dismissed
PALM BEACH TAN: Accused in Texas Suit of Not Paying Overtime
SENSA PRODUCTS: Accused of Selling Bogus Weight Loss Products
SILVER SPRING: Suit Complains About Defective Electricity Meters
SPIRAL FOODS: Faces Class Action Suit in Australia Over Bonsoy

STUDENT LOAN: Being Sold to Discover for Too Little, Suit Claims
TIM GOLDBURT: Sued for Breach of Contract, Theft and Fraud
TOBACCO COMPANIES: Judge Scalia Stays $270MM Tobacco Suit Ruling
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Class Suit Over Sludge Tentatively Settled
WASHINGTON: Sanctioned by Federal Judge Over Child-Welfare Suit


                             *********

ADVANCE AMERICA: Lawyers Seek Fees Under Class Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
David Ranii, writing for The Charlotte Observer, reports the N.C.
Justice Center and a Raleigh law firm are among several nonprofit
groups and private-practice lawyers seeking $6.25 million in
attorneys' fees in a class action lawsuit that produced an $18.75
million settlement with a payday lender.

The fees, which must be approved by the court, average $1 million
for each of the three nonprofits and three law firms that
represented consumers in the case.  The amount sought by each
attorney will be based on the amount of time each put into the
case.

Consumers across the state are expected to receive an average of
$83 each, although some will receive hundreds of dollars.

At the same time, the settlement is expected to benefit a lot of
people: 144,000 North Carolina consumers would share $12 million
after attorneys' fees and other expenses are deducted, including
the costs of administering the settlement announced earlier this
month.  The settlement also must be approved by a New Hanover
County Superior Court judge.

A fee that amounts to one-third of the total payout is "very
common" and is "fully defensible" given the massive amount of work
involved during six years of hard-fought litigation, said Carlene
McNulty, an attorney with the N.C. Justice Center, an anti-poverty
group in Raleigh.

Any fees awarded to the nonprofit attorneys who worked on the case
would go to their organizations, which would enable them to pursue
other public-interest cases, Ms. McNulty said.

"It sounds like a lot of money -- and it is -- but we are very
glad to have it because it means we can keep our shop open," she
said.

In addition to Ms. McNulty, the other nonprofit attorneys seeking
fees are Mallam Maynard of the Financial Protection Law Center in
Wilmington and Paul Bland of Public Justice in Washington, D.C.
The private attorneys are Jerome Hartzell of Hartzell & Whiteman
in Raleigh; Mona Lisa Wallace and John Hughes of Wallace & Graham
in Salisbury; and Richard Fisher of Richard Fisher Law Office in
Cleveland, Tenn.

The lawsuit accused Advance America, the nation's largest payday
lender, of charging illegally high interest rates -- sometimes
exceeding 450% a year -- to consumers who received short-term cash
advances.  State law caps the interest rate on short-term loans at
36%.

Advance America, which no longer operates in North Carolina,
agreed to the multimillion-dollar settlement earlier this month
without admitting any violations of law.

A study of fees awarded in class action suits from 1993-2008
conducted by professors at the Cornell and New York University law
schools found that in "high-risk" consumer cases, the average fee
amounted to 31.3% of the total award.  In "low/medium risk"
consumer cases, the average fee amounted to 24.7% of the total
award.

The study also found that fee requests were granted in full by the
courts in more than 70% of cases.

Consumers will have an opportunity to object to the fee request,
Ms. McNulty said.

Attorneys who represented consumers say the lawsuit was risky,
noting that it was initially dismissed by the trial court but they
successfully appealed to overturn that ruling.

Mr. Bland and Ms. McNulty said that the case necessitated multiple
appeals in state and federal courts, as well as the filing of
friend-of-the-court briefs in two other cases that dealt with
related issues.

The lawyers involved also hired more than 20 experts and spent
$100,000 pursuing the case, Ms. McNulty said

The private lawyers, she added, faced the prospect of receiving
nothing for their efforts if the litigation wasn't successful.


AMERICAN COMMERCIAL: Suit Over Mile Marker 97 Collision Stayed
--------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit against American Commercial Lines Inc., in connection
with a collision incident at Mile Marker 97 of the Mississippi
River, remains stayed.

The company and or American Commercial Lines LLC, an indirect
wholly owned subsidiary of the company, have been named as
defendants in these putative class action lawsuits, filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana:

     1. Austin Sicard et al on behalf of themselves and others
        similarly situated vs. Laurin Maritime (America) Inc.,
        Whitefin Shipping Co. Limited, D.R.D. Towing Company,
        LLC, American Commercial Lines, Inc. and the New
        Orleans-Baton Rouge Steamship Pilots Association, Case
        No. 08-4012,  filed on July 24, 2008;

     2. Stephen Marshall Gabarick and Bernard Attridge, on
        behalf of themselves and others similarly situated vs.
        Laurin Maritime (America) Inc., Whitefin Shipping Co.
        Limited, D.R.D. Towing Company, LLC, American Commercial
        Lines, Inc. and the New Orleans-Baton Rouge Steamship
        Pilots Association, Case No. 08-4007, filed on July 24,
        2008; and

     3. Alvin McBride, on behalf of himself and all others
        similarly situated v. Laurin Maritime (America) Inc.;
        Whitefin Shipping Co. Ltd.; D.R.D. Towing Co. LLC;
        American Commercial Lines Inc.; The New Orleans-Baton
        Rouge Steamship Pilots Association, Case No.
        09-cv-04494 B, filed on July 24, 2009.

The McBride v. Laurin Maritime, et al. action has been dismissed
with prejudice because it was not filed prior to the deadline set
by the Court.

The claims in the Class Action Lawsuits stem from the incident on
July 23, 2008, involving one of American Commercial LLC's tank
barges that was being towed by DRD Towing Company L.L.C., an
independent towing contractor.  The tank barge was involved in a
collision with the motor vessel Tintomara, operated by Laurin
Maritime, at Mile Marker 97 of the Mississippi River in the New
Orleans area.

The tank barge was carrying approximately 9,900 barrels of #6 oil,
of which approximately two-thirds was released.  The tank barge
was damaged in the collision and partially sunk.  There was no
damage to the towboat.  The Tintomara incurred minor damage.

The Class Action Lawsuits include various allegations of adverse
health and psychological damages, disruption of business
operations, destruction and loss of use of natural resources, and
seek unspecified economic, compensatory and punitive damages for
claims of negligence, trespass and nuisance.

The Class Action Lawsuits are stayed pending the outcome of the
Limitation Actions.

Claims under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 were dismissed without
prejudice.  There is a separate administrative process for making
a claim under OPA 90 that must be followed prior to litigation.
The company is processing OPA 90 claims properly presented,
documented and recoverable.  The company has also received
numerous claims for personal injury, property damage and various
economic damages, including notification by the National Pollution
Funds Center of claims it has received. Additional lawsuits may be
filed and claims submitted.  The company is in early discussions
with the Natural Resource Damage Assessment Group, consisting of
various State and Federal agencies, regarding the scope of
environmental damage that may have been caused by the incident,
according to the company's Aug. 6, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2010.

Headquartered in Jeffersonville, Indiana, American Commercial
Lines Inc. -- http://www.aclines.com/-- is an integrated marine
transportation and service company operating in the United States
Jones Act trades, with approximately $850 million in revenues and
approximately 2,570 employees as of Dec. 31, 2009.


APOLLO GROUP: Sued Over "Manipulative Recruiting Tactics"
---------------------------------------------------------
Jamie Ross at Courthouse News Service reports that The Apollo
Group, which owns the for-profit University of Phoenix, used
"manipulative recruiting tactics" to inflate its reported growth,
shareholders claim in a federal class action.  Apollo is one of
more than a dozen chains of colleges being scrutinized by
Congress.  The class claims the Apollo Group sold $46 million in
stock based on its false and misleading reports.

Lead plaintiff John Fitch claims the Apollo Group falsely reported
"strong financial performance and forecasted stable and
predictable revenue growth," and attributed this to "competent
management," though the "defendants had propped up the company's
results by fraudulently inducing students to enroll in Apollo's
scholastic and educational programs."

The class claims Apollo's misrepresentations and omissions
included failing to report that it had participated in "illicit
and improper recruiting activities."

The Apollo Group also falsely claimed that it had "adequate
systems of internal operational or financial controls . . . [and]
that Apollo's reported operational statements and foreseeable
growth prospects were true, accurate or reliable," according to
the 50-page complaint.

But on Aug. 3 the class learned that Apollo "could no longer
foreseeably maintain its growth expectations or meet guidance,"
after the U.S. General Accountability Office reported "for-profit
educational institutions like Apollo had engaged in an illegal and
fraudulent course of action designed to deceptively recruit
students and overcharge the federal government for the cost of
such education," according to the complaint.

GAO investigators posed as students and applied for admission, and
reported that staff members at 15 for-profit colleges encouraged
them to falsify financial aid information, gave them inaccurate
information about tuition costs and accreditation.

Shares in Apollo declined by almost 10% between Aug. 3 and Aug. 5,
"eradicating over $684.53 million of the company's market
capitalization in only four trading days," according to the
complaint.  Apollo shares are traded on NASDAQ.

The Obama administration is drafting a proposal to regulate for-
profit colleges.  The colleges have responded with furious, full-
page ads in The New York Times, claiming that the administration
is trying to limit opportunities for students at so-called career
colleges.

The Apollo Group operates campuses in 39 states, Washington, D.C.,
and Puerto Rico.  It purports to offer associates, bachelor's,
master's, and doctoral degrees in business, criminal justice, and
psychology, among other fields.

The class claims it was deceived about the company's business
operations and the actual value of its stock, and that the Apollo
Group inflated its share price through misrepresentations.  It
seeks compensatory damages, costs and expenses.

Six officers and executives are also named as defendants: John
Sperling, founder and executive chairman; Gregory Cappelli, co-
CEO; Charles Edelstein, co-CEO; Joseph D'Amico, president and COO;
Brian Swartz, CFO and senior vice president; and Gregory Iverson,
chief accounting officer, controller and vice president.

A copy of the Complaint in Fitch v. Apollo Group, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 10-cv-02044 (D. Ariz.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/09/28/Apollo.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Salcido, Esq.
          MOLEVER CONELLY PLLC
          Indian Bend Corporate Centre
          8161 E. Indian Bend Rd., Suite 103
          Scottsdale, AZ 85250
          Telephone: 480-268-2659
          E-mail: ms@arizonalegal.com

               - and -

          U. Seth Ottensoser, Esq.
          Joseph R. Seidman, Jr., Esq.
          BERNSTEIN LIEBHARD LLP
          10 East 40th St., 22nd Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: 212-779-1414
          E-mail: ottensoser@bernlieb.com
                  seidman@bernlieb.com


ARENA PHARMA: Girard Gibbs Files Securities Class Action Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Girard Gibbs LLP has filed a class action lawsuit
on behalf of investors of Arena Pharmaceuticals, Inc. who
purchased Arena common stock between December 8, 2008, and
September 16, 2010.  The complaint charges Arena Pharmaceuticals
with violations of federal securities laws for issuing false and
misleading statements regarding its principal drug in development,
Lorcaserin (lorcaserin hydrochloride), an experimental weight loss
drug.

The lawsuit, captioned Velasquez v. Arena Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et
al., 10-cv-2026, is pending in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California.  The defendants are Arena
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and certain of its officers and directors.

The complaint alleges that Defendants violated the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing a series of misrepresentations and
omissions that actively concealed and failed to disclose certain
health risks associated with Lorcaserin.  Throughout the class
period, Defendants promoted Lorcaserin as an effective and safe
weight loss treatment option, without disclosing certain health
risks associated with the drug.  As a result of Defendants' false
statements, Arena's stock traded at artificially inflated prices
during the Class Period, reaching a high of $7.95 per share on
July 30, 2010.

On September 14, 2010, the Food and Drug Administration issued a
briefing document in advance of its advisory panel meeting in
which the agency questioned both the safety and efficacy of
Lorcaserin.  The market price of Arena common stock fell $2.72 per
share on this news to close at $4.13 per share on September 14,
2010 -- a one-day decline of 40% on high volume. Then, on
September 16, 2010, the FDA advisory panel voted 9 to 5 to reject
Lorcaserin, in large part because of the results of rat
carcinogenicity studies which revealed, among other things, that
Lorcaserin caused cancer in rats in certain preclinical studies
and that the drug provided modest therapeutic benefits.  On this
news, Arena's stock fell another $1.75 per share to close at $1.99
per share on September 17, 2010 -- a one-day decline of over 46%
and a 75% decline from the stock's Class Period high.  That same
day, in a conference call with analysts, Defendants admitted that
they were aware of the test results, but chose not to disclose
them to the investing public.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of the Class and is
represented by Girard Gibbs LLP.  If you wish to discuss this
action or have any questions concerning your rights as an investor
in Arena Pharmaceuticals, please contact Girard Gibbs LLP
(www.girardgibbs.com/arena.asp) or call toll-free at (866) 981-
4800.  Any member of the putative class may move the Court to
serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of his or her choice, or
may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member.  If
you would like to serve as lead plaintiff in this action, you must
move the Court no later than November 19, 2010.  A copy of the
complaint is available from the Court, or can be viewed on Girard
Gibbs LLP's Web site at http://www.girardgibbs.com/

Girard Gibbs LLP is one of the nation's leading firms representing
individual and institutional investors in securities fraud class
actions and litigation to correct abusive corporate governance
practices, breaches of fiduciary duty and proxy violations.  For
more information, please access the firm's Web site,
http://www.girardgibbs.com/


BANKATLANTIC BANCORP: CEO Not Expert, Class Action Lawyers Say
--------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Bandell, writing for the South Florida Business Journal,
reports that BankAtlantic Bancorp Chairman and CEO Alan Levan can
testify in defense of his company, but he shouldn't be considered
an expert, argue the plaintiff attorneys in the shareholder class
action lawsuit against the bank.

After getting a look at what Mr. Levan planned to say to fend off
the lawsuit in the trial starting on Oct. 6, the plaintiff
attorneys filed a motion on Sept. 22 to exclude his expert
opinion.  They asked the judge to do the same for two other high-
level employees at the Fort Lauderdale-based banking company
(NYSE: BBX).

The lawsuit was filed against BankAtlantic Bancorp, Mr. Levan and
other company executives in 2007.  It accuses them of misleading
investors about the bank's loan problems until it suffered big
loan-related losses.  The bank disputes the allegations and filed
a motion for sanctions against the plaintiff attorneys for using
false witness testimony in their complaint.

However, the judge determined that four statements about the
bank's loan portfolio made by Mr. Levan during a July 2007
investor conference call were false.  The plaintiffs must still
prove that caused damage to shareholders.

In an interview with the Business Journal, Mr. Levan called the
motion to exclude his expert testimony "utterly ridiculous."

"Obviously the plaintiffs are afraid of what I'm going to say,"
Mr. Levan said.  "We are confident about the outcome and clearly
that is why they don't want me testifying in our defense."

Most shareholder class action lawsuits are settled with the
plaintiff attorneys collecting their fees, but Mr. Levan said he
made it a point from the beginning not to settle this case because
he didn't want to pay attorneys for their "bad behavior."

"We are going to force them to prove their case in a court of law,
which we believe they will not be able to do," Mr. Levan said.

I wrote a story on Friday that discussed how much BankAtlantic
could have at stake in the trial.

When the trial comes around, expert testimony carries extra weight
and credibility in court.  U.S. District Court Judge Ursula Ungaro
previously barred the expert testimony of Jack DeWitt, a banking
expert that BankAtlantic wanted to use.

BankAtlantic had planned for DeWitt to counter the testimony of
plaintiff's expert Charles D. Umberger, the president of Old Towne
Bank of Waynesboro, N.C., and previous president of Coconut Grove
Bank.

However, the judge has previously ruled that Umberger also will
not be permitted to provide expert testimony.

The plaintiff attorneys' motion stated that Mr. Levan's planned
testimony was an impermissible legal argument that shows "extreme
bias" in favor of his bank.

There were seven opinions that Mr. Levan proposed to make at trial
as expert testimony:

    * "BankAtlantic Bancorp's public disclosures during the [class
action] period between October 2006 and October 2007 gave to
investors the information that I believe an investor would have
considered important in making an investment decision."

    * "The cause of the decline in Bancorp's stock price was a
materialization of the fully disclosed risk that a decline in the
Florida real estate market would cause Bancorp loan losses."

    * "The October 25, 2007 earnings release contained multiple
elements of bad news, none of which involved materialization of
any fraud or concealment."

    * "Candace Preston [expert on damages for plaintiff attorneys]
failed to disaggregate from the stock price decline following the
October 2007 earnings release the bad news elements unrelated to
any claim of fraud or omission."

    * "Candace Preston's use of a national banking index to draw
conclusions regarding company specific price declines fails to
remove from the stock price decline the impact of the collapse of
the Florida economy which fell sooner and harder than the rest of
the banks making up virtually all of her index."

    * "BankAtlantic's exposure to the Florida real estate market
caused it to suffer financially earlier than other banks with
little or no Florida real estate market exposure because Florida
entered the recession before the rest of the country and because
the recession was more severe and lasted longer in Florida than
the rest of the country."

    * "Bancorp's competitors suffered the same or similar losses
driven by the same adverse conditions but deferred loss
recognition."

The plaintiff attorneys said Mr. Levan shouldn't be allow to make
these statements as an expert because he didn't use any analysis
or methodology to come up with these conclusions.  Whether
BankAtlantic suffered earlier or later than other Florida banks
has nothing to do with whether bank officials lied about the state
of its land loan portfolio to investors, the plaintiff attorneys
argued.

"The proposed testimony is rank speculation that should not be
permitted into evidence at all, let alone as an 'expert' opinion,"
New York-based law firm Labaton Sucharow stated in its motion.

It also moved to exclude the expert testimony of BankAtlantic
Chief Credit Officer Jeffrey Mindling and Controller David
Friedman.

On another topic, Mr. Levan chimed in on the filing BankAtlantic
Bancorp made to raise up to $125 million in a new stock offering.
He said there is no timeline for the offering because it's still
in the Securities and Exchange Commission review process.


BAYSIDE FURNISHINGS: Recalls 2,000 Twin Trundle Beds
----------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Black & Decker (U.S.) Inc., of Towson, Md., announced a voluntary
recall of about 160,000 Black & Decker and Craftsman brand
cordless electric lawnmowers (these lawnmowers were previously
recalled in September 2002 for a fire hazard, and that recall was
expanded in August 2006).  Consumers should stop using recalled
products immediately unless otherwise instructed.

The lawnmower's motor and blade can unexpectedly turn on after the
mower's safety key is removed, posing a laceration hazard to
consumers.  Removing the safety key is designed to keep this from
occurring.

Black & Decker has received 34 reports of the motor operating
after removal of the safety key, including two incidents that
resulted in finger lacerations, one requiring stitches.

This recall involves cordless electric mowers were sold under both
the Black & Decker and Craftsman brand names.  The recalled Black
& Decker mowers have model number CMM1000 or CMM1000R.  All date
codes and types are included.  The date code and type information
are both located on a silver and black label affixed to the rear
door of the mower. The Black & Decker mowers have either an orange
or green deck with a black motor cover.  The Craftsman-brand
mowers have model number 900.370520 and include all date codes and
types. The model number is located on the silver and black label
affixed to the rear door of the mower.  The Craftsman-brand mowers
have a dark green deck with a black motor cover.  Pictures of the
recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10356.html

The recalled products were manufactured in the United States,
Canada and Mexico and sold through home center, hardware and
discount stores and authorized Black & Decker dealers nationwide
from September 1995 through December 2006 for about $450.
Craftsman-brand mowers were sold at Sears and Orchard Supply
Hardware stores nationwide from January 1998 through December 2000
for about $450.

Consumers should stop using the recalled lawnmowers immediately
and call Black & Decker or Sears for a free inspection and repair,
or a credit towards a new cordless lawnmower.  Consumers who had
their mowers repaired as a result of the previous recalls should
also have their mowers inspected and repaired as part of this
recall.  For additional information, consumers with Black & Decker
mowers should contact Black & Decker toll-free at (866) 229-5570
between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through
Friday or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.blackanddecker.com/ Consumers with Craftsman-brand
mowers should call Sears toll-free at (888) 281-5314 between 7:00
a.m. and 9:00 p.m., Central Time, Monday through Saturday or visit
the firm's Web site at http://www.sears.com/


BIMINI CAPITAL: Awaits Approval of "Kornfeld" Settlement Pact
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bimini Capital Management, Inc., continues to await approval of a
settlement agreement resolving a suit filed by William Kornfeld in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

On Sept. 17, 2007, a complaint was filed against Bimini Capital,
certain of its current and former officers and directors,
Flagstone Securities, LLC and BB&T Capital Markets alleging
various violations of the federal securities laws and seeking
class action certification.

At a mediation held on Feb. 12, 2010, the parties reached a
tentative settlement of this matter for $2.35 million.

As of Dec. 31, 2009, the company had accrued approximately
$500,000 related to the settlement.  This amount represented the
remainder of the $1.0 million retention that the company was
required to pay under the terms of its Directors and Officers
insurance policy.

As of Aug. 5, 2010, approximately $400,000 of the accrual remains.
The remainder of the settlement and legal fees and costs
associated with finalizing the settlement will be paid by the
insurance carrier.

The settlement is contingent upon the parties' executing a written
stipulation of settlement, presenting the settlement to the Court
for preliminary approval, providing notice to the Class and an
opportunity to opt out of the settlement,  and receiving final
approval from the Court at a final fairness hearing.  The company
says it expects this process to be completed during the current
year.  Bimini Capital made no admission of liability in connection
with the settlement, according to the company's Aug. 6, 2010, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

Bimini Capital Management, Inc. -- http://www.biminicapital.com/
-- is a REIT that invests primarily in, but is not limited to,
residential mortgage-related securities issued by the Federal
National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae), the Federal Home Loan
Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac) and the Government National
Mortgage Association (Ginnie Mae).  Its objective is to earn
returns on the spread between the yield on its assets and its
costs, including the interest expense on the funds it borrows.


BUCKEYE GP: Faces Suit by Broadbased Equities in Texas
------------------------------------------------------
Buckeye GP Holdings L.P., faces a putative class action captioned
Broadbased Equities v. Forrest E. Wylie, et al., filed in the
District Court of Harris County, Texas.

On July 30, 2010, a putative class action was filed by a
unitholder against BGH, MainLine Management LLC, BGH GP Holdings,
LLC, and each of MainLine Management's directors.

In the Petition, the plaintiff alleges that MainLine Management
and its directors breached their fiduciary duties to BGH's public
unitholders by, among other things, acting to facilitate the sale
of BGH to Buckeye Partners, L.P., in order to facilitate the
gradual sale by BGH GP of its interest in BGH and failing to
disclose all material facts in order that the BGH unitholders can
cast an informed vote on the Merger Agreement.

Among other things, the Petition seeks an order certifying a class
consisting of all BGH unitholders, a determination that the action
is a proper derivative action, damages in an unspecified amount,
and an award of attorneys' fees and costs.  The defendants have
not yet answered or otherwise responded to the Petition, according
to the company's Aug. 6, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2010.

Buckeye GP Holdings L.P. -- http://www.buckeyegp.com/-- is a
limited partnership that owns Buckeye GP LLC, the general partner
of Buckeye Partners, L.P. -- http://www.buckeye.com/-- which owns
100% of the incentive distribution rights in Buckeye Partners,
L.P.  Buckeye GP Holdings L.P. also indirectly owns the general
partner interests in certain operating subsidiaries of Buckeye
Partners, L.P.


BUCKEYE GP: Faces Suit in Texas Over Planned Merger Agreement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Buckeye GP Holdings L.P., faces a putative class action captioned
Henry James Steward v. Forrest E. Wylie, et al., filed in the
District Court of Harris County, Texas.

On Aug. 2, 2010, a putative class action was filed by a unitholder
against BGH, MainLine Management LLC, Grand Ohio, LLC, Buckeye
Partners, L.P., Buckeye GP Holdings L.P., and each of MainLine
Management's directors.

In the Petition, the plaintiff alleges that MainLine Management
and its directors breached their fiduciary duties to BGH's public
unitholders by, among other things, failing to disclose all
material facts in order that the BGH unitholders can cast an
informed vote on the Merger Agreement.  The Petition also alleges
that Buckeye, Buckeye GP and Grand Ohio, LLC aided and abetted the
breaches of fiduciary duty.

Among other things, the Petition seeks an order certifying a
plaintiff class consisting of all of BGH unitholders, an order
enjoining the Merger, rescission of the Merger, damages in an
unspecified amount, and an award of attorneys' fees and costs.
Neither the company nor the other defendants have yet answered or
otherwise responded to the Petition, according to the company's
Aug. 6, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

Buckeye GP Holdings L.P. -- http://www.buckeyegp.com/-- is a
limited partnership that owns Buckeye GP LLC, the general partner
of Buckeye Partners, L.P. -- http://www.buckeye.com/-- which owns
100% of the incentive distribution rights in Buckeye Partners,
L.P.  Buckeye GP Holdings L.P. also indirectly owns the general
partner interests in certain operating subsidiaries of Buckeye
Partners, L.P.


BUCKEYE GP: Faces Suit by James Steward in Texas
------------------------------------------------
Buckeye GP Holdings L.P., faces a putative class action captioned
Henry James Steward v. Forrest E. Wylie, et al., filed in the
District Court of Harris County, Texas.

On Aug. 2, 2010, a putative class action was filed by a unitholder
against BGH, MainLine Management LLC, BGH GP Holdings, LLC,
ArcLight Capital Partners, LLC, Kelso & Company, Buckeye Partners,
L.P., Buckeye GP Holdings L.P. and each of MainLine Management's
directors.

In the Petition, the plaintiff alleges that MainLine Management
and its directors breached their fiduciary duties to BGH's public
unitholders by, among other things, accepting insufficient
consideration, failing to condition the Merger on a majority vote
of public unitholders of BGH, and failing to disclose all material
facts in order that the BGH unitholders can cast an informed vote
on the Merger Agreement.

The Petition also alleges that Buckeye, Buckeye GP, BGH GP,
ArcLight and Kelso aided and abetted the breaches of fiduciary
duty.

Among other things, the Petition seeks an order certifying a class
consisting of all of BGH's unitholders, an order enjoining the
Merger, damages in an unspecified amount, and an award of
attorneys' fees and costs.  Neither the company nor the other
defendants have yet answered or otherwise responded to the
Petition, according to the company's Aug. 6, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2010.

Buckeye GP Holdings L.P. -- http://www.buckeyegp.com/-- is a
limited partnership that owns Buckeye GP LLC, the general partner
of Buckeye Partners, L.P. -- http://www.buckeye.com/-- which owns
100% of the incentive distribution rights in Buckeye Partners,
L.P.  Buckeye GP Holdings L.P. also indirectly owns the general
partner interests in certain operating subsidiaries of Buckeye
Partners, L.P.


CF INDUSTRIES: Maryland Court Dismisses Suit Against Terra
----------------------------------------------------------
The Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland, has dismissed a
consolidated complaint against Terra Industries Inc.

On April 5, 2010, CF Industries Holdings, Inc., acquired a
controlling interest in Terra Industries.  On April 15, 2010,
pursuant to the March 12, 2010 Agreement and Plan of Merger,
Composite Merger Corporation, an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary
of the company, merged with and into Terra, with Terra continuing
as the surviving corporation and becoming an indirect wholly-owned
subsidiary of the company.  Accordingly, the results of Terra are
included in CF Industries Holdings' consolidated financial
statements since April 5, 2010.

Purported shareholders of Terra commenced putative class actions
against Terra and its directors in the Circuit Court for Baltimore
City, Maryland.  The Maryland court consolidated these into a
single action, In re Terra Industries, Inc. Shareholder
Litigation.

On March 30, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated putative
class action complaint, as well as a motion for partial summary
judgment as to liability.  The consolidated complaint generally
alleges that the director defendants breached their fiduciary
duties by, among other things, approving the merger agreement with
Yara International ASA without engaging in an adequate process to
determine that such agreement was the best available transaction.

The complaint seeks monetary damages based on the $123 million
termination fee that CF Industries paid to Yara, on Terra's
behalf, in connection with the termination by Terra of the Yara
merger agreement.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss or, in the alternative,
for summary judgment, as well as an opposition to the plaintiffs'
motion for partial summary judgment.

On July 14, 2010, the Maryland Court denied the plaintiffs' motion
for partial summary judgment and granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss.  The case remains open to allow counsel for the
plaintiffs to file an application for attorneys' fees, and to
allow the plaintiffs to file an appeal, according to the company's
Aug. 6, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2010.

Headquartered in Deerfield, Illinois, CF Industries Holdings, Inc.
-- http://www.cfindustries.com/-- is the holding company for the
operations of CF Industries, Inc.  CF Industries is a global
leader in nitrogen and phosphate fertilizer manufacturing and
distribution, serving both agricultural and industrial customers.
CF Industries operates world-class nitrogen fertilizer
manufacturing complexes in the central U.S. region and Canada;
conducts phosphate mining and manufacturing operations in Central
Florida; and distributes fertilizer products through a system of
terminals, warehouses, and associated transportation equipment
located primarily in the Midwestern United States.  The company
also owns a 50% interest in KEYTRADE AG, a global fertilizer
trading organization headquartered near Zurich, Switzerland.  In
addition, the company's majority-owned subsidiary, Terra
Industries, owns a 50% stake in GrowHow UK Limited, a fertilizer
manufacturer in the United Kingdom as well as a 50% interest in an
ammonia facility in The Republic of Trinidad and Tobago.


CF INDUSTRIES: Terra Files Motion to Dismiss Suit in Iowa
---------------------------------------------------------
Terra Industries Inc. has filed a motion to dismiss the matter In
re Terra Industries, Inc. Shareholder Litigation, pending in the
Iowa District Court for Woodbury County.

On April 5, 2010, CF Industries Holdings, Inc., acquired a
controlling interest in Terra Industries.  On April 15, 2010,
pursuant to the March 12, 2010 Agreement and Plan of Merger,
Composite Merger Corporation, an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary
of the company, merged with and into Terra, with Terra continuing
as the surviving corporation and becoming an indirect wholly-owned
subsidiary of the company.  Accordingly, the results of Terra are
included in CF Industries Holdings' consolidated financial
statements since April 5, 2010.

Purported Terra shareholders filed a putative shareholder class
action, captioned In re Terra Industries, Inc. Shareholder
Litigation, in the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County.

The plaintiffs filed a consolidated putative class action
complaint against Terra and its directors on April 14, 2010.

Like the putative action in Maryland, the consolidated complaint
in Iowa generally alleges that the director defendants breached
their fiduciary duties by, among other things, approving the Yara
International ASA merger agreement without engaging in an adequate
process to determine that such agreement was the best available
transaction.

The complaint seeks monetary damages based on the $123 million
termination fee that CF Industries paid to Yara, on Terra's
behalf, in connection with the termination by Terra of the Yara
merger agreement.

On July 23, 2010, the defendants moved to dismiss in light of the
decision by the Circuit Court for Baltimore, Maryland, dismissing
the virtually identical action in Maryland, according to the
company's Aug. 6, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

Headquartered in Deerfield, Illinois, CF Industries Holdings, Inc.
-- http://www.cfindustries.com/-- is the holding company for the
operations of CF Industries, Inc.  CF Industries is a global
leader in nitrogen and phosphate fertilizer manufacturing and
distribution, serving both agricultural and industrial customers.
CF Industries operates world-class nitrogen fertilizer
manufacturing complexes in the central U.S. region and Canada;
conducts phosphate mining and manufacturing operations in Central
Florida; and distributes fertilizer products through a system of
terminals, warehouses, and associated transportation equipment
located primarily in the Midwestern United States.  The company
also owns a 50% interest in KEYTRADE AG, a global fertilizer
trading organization headquartered near Zurich, Switzerland.  In
addition, the company's majority-owned subsidiary, Terra
Industries, owns a 50% stake in GrowHow UK Limited, a fertilizer
manufacturer in the United Kingdom as well as a 50% interest in an
ammonia facility in The Republic of Trinidad and Tobago.


CIGNA GROUP: Sued for Denying Insurance Benefits to Customers
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Cigna and Connecticut General
Life Insurance deny benefits to customers who should be covered, a
class action claims in Miami Federal Court.


CROPLIFE INT'L: Judge Grants Motion to Dismiss Mancozeb Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Celentino at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal
judge in the nation's capital said he lacked jurisdiction over a
class action accusing a multinational banana producer of
concealing a fungicide's dangerous health effects on Ecuadorian
workers.

Workers exposed to Mancozeb, an agrochemical used to prevent the
"black banana" fungus, sued CropLife's international, Ecuadorian
and U.S. branches.

CropLife specializes in crop protection and plant biotechnology.

Class members included pilots who sprayed the banana plants,
ground crew members, plantation workers, nearby residents, and the
Ecuadorian municipality of Pueblo Viejo.

They said CropLife "failed to warn [banana plantation] workers and
other exposed persons of [Mancozeb's] hazardous nature" and hid
information about the fungicide's toxicity.

Class members argued that the District of Columbia's long-arm
statute gave the district court in Washington, D.C., jurisdiction
over their claims, even though the alleged misconduct took place
in Ecuador.

However, U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton pointed out that the
long-arm statute is for cases with a significant connection
between the claims and the District of Columbia, something he
found lacking in the CropLife case.

Because Judge Walton has already dismissed the claims against Crop
Life America and CropLife International, the alleged hub of the
Mancozeb conspiracy in Ecuador, the judge said he lacked
jurisdiction over CropLife Ecuador.

He also denied a request for further discovery, saying even firm
evidence of communication would not confer jurisdiction.

The plaintiffs' claims against Dole Food Company, which sold
Mancozeb-sprayed bananas, were dismissed in 2009.

A copy of the Memorandum Opinion in Orellana, et al. v. Croplife
International, et al., Case No. 08-cv-01790 (D.D.C.), is available
at http://is.gd/fyNOB


HARRAH'S ENTERTAINMENT: Loses Suit Over Misleading Advertising
--------------------------------------------------------------
Casino City Times, citing My Fox Philly, reports Harrah's has lost
a class action lawsuit over misleading advertising.

Total Rewards members took the lawsuit in response to misleading
advertising, My Fox Philly said.

The promo was "birthday cash" but the ads did not state that the
$15 vouchers could not be used until 8am, My Fox Philly said.

My Fox Philly noted that 80,000 customers should receive $100
damages according to the ruling, however Harrah's will appeal the
ruling.


HERTZ GLOBAL: New Jersey Suit vs. Hertz Equipment in Discovery
--------------------------------------------------------------
A suit against Hertz Equipment Rental Corporation pending in the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey is in the
discovery stage.

Hertz Equipment is a wholly owned equipment rental subsidiary of
Hertz Global Holdings, Inc.

On Aug. 15, 2006, Davis Landscape, Ltd., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a complaint against
Hertz Equipment Rental Corporation.

In November 2006, the complaint was amended to add another
plaintiff, Miguel V. Pro, and more claims.  The Davis Landscape
matter purports to be a nationwide class action on behalf of all
persons and business entities who rented equipment from HERC and
who paid a Loss Damage Waiver, or an Environmental Recovery Fee.

The plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment and injunction
prohibiting HERC from engaging in acts with respect to the LDW and
ERF charges that violate the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act and
claim that the charges violate the Uniform Commercial Code.

The plaintiffs also seek an unspecified amount of compensatory
damages with the return of all LDW and ERF charges paid,
attorneys' fees and costs as well as other damages.  The court has
granted class certification and denied the company's motion for
summary judgment.  The case is in the discovery stage, according
to the company's Aug. 6, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2010.

Hertz Global Holdings, Inc. is the world's largest general use car
rental brand, operating from approximately 8,300 locations in 146
countries worldwide.  Hertz is the number one airport car rental
brand in the U.S. and at 81 major airports in Europe, operating
both corporate and licensee locations in cities and airports in
North America, Europe, Latin America, Asia, Australia and New
Zealand.


HERTZ GLOBAL: Unit Agrees to Settle "Lydia Lee" Suit
----------------------------------------------------
The Hertz Corporation has agreed to settle the matter Janet Sobel,
Daniel Dugan, PhD. and Lydia Lee, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. The Hertz Corporation and
Enterprise Rent-A-Car Company.

Hertz Corporation, is Hertz Global Holdings, Inc.'s primary
operating company.

The suit was filed on Oct. 13, 2006, in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Nevada.

The plaintiffs have agreed to not pursue claims against Enterprise
for the time being and the case has thus far only proceeded
against Hertz.  The Sobel case purports to be a nationwide class
action on behalf of all persons who rented cars from Hertz at
airports in Nevada and were separately charged airport concession
recovery fees by Hertz as part of their rental charges.

The plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of compensatory damages,
restitution of any charges found to be improper and an injunction
prohibiting Hertz from quoting or charging those airport fees that
are alleged not to be allowed by Nevada law.

The complaint also seeks attorneys' fees and costs. Relevant
documents were produced and depositions were taken.  The parties
have each filed motions for summary judgment, and the motions are
now before the court awaiting a decision.

In June 2010, the Lydia Lee case was refiled separately against
Enterprise.

Thereafter, Hertz and Enterprise jointly engaged in a mediation
with the plaintiffs.  That mediation has now resulted in a
proposed settlement for an immaterial amount that will need to be
incorporated into a Settlement Agreement.  Once executed by the
parties, the Settlement Agreement will be presented to the court
for its approval, according to the company's Aug. 6, 2010, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

Hertz Global Holdings, Inc. is the world's largest general use car
rental brand, operating from approximately 8,300 locations in 146
countries worldwide.  Hertz is the number one airport car rental
brand in the U.S. and at 81 major airports in Europe, operating
both corporate and licensee locations in cities and airports in
North America, Europe, Latin America, Asia, Australia and New
Zealand.


HERTZ GLOBAL: TCPA-Related Suit vs. Hertz Equipment Still Stayed
----------------------------------------------------------------
A suit against Hertz Equipment Rental Corporation relating to the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act remains stayed.  Hertz Equipment
is a wholly-owned equipment rental subsidiary of Hertz Global
Holdings, Inc.

On May 3, 2007, Fun Services of Kansas City, Inc., individually
and as the representative of a class of similarly-situated
persons, v. Hertz Equipment Rental Corporation was commenced in
the District Court of Wyandotte County, Kansas.  The case was
subsequently transferred to the District Court of Johnson County,
Kansas.

The Fun Services matter purports to be a class action on behalf of
all persons in Kansas and throughout the United States who on or
after four years prior to the filing of the action were sent
facsimile messages of advertising materials relating to the
availability of property, goods or services by HERC and who did
not provide express permission for sending such faxes.

The plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of compensatory damages,
attorney's fees and costs.

In August 2009, the court issued an order that stayed all activity
in this litigation pending a decision by the Kansas Supreme Court
in Critchfield Physical Therapy, Inc. v. Taranto Group, Inc.,
another Telephone Consumer Protection Act case.

The Kansas Supreme Court heard oral argument in the Critchfield
case in January of 2010.  The company believes that the stay in
the Fun Services litigation will remain in effect until
approximately mid-2010, according to the company's Aug. 6, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

Hertz Global Holdings, Inc. is the world's largest general use car
rental brand, operating from approximately 8,300 locations in 146
countries worldwide.  Hertz is the number one airport car rental
brand in the U.S. and at 81 major airports in Europe, operating
both corporate and licensee locations in cities and airports in
North America, Europe, Latin America, Asia, Australia and New
Zealand.


HERTZ GLOBAL: Dismissal of Antitrust Claim Against CTTC Affirmed
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has affirmed the
dismissal of antitrust claim against the California Travel and
Tourism Commission.

The company is currently a defendant in a proceeding that purports
to be a class action brought by Michael Shames and Gary Gramkow
against The Hertz Corporation, Dollar Thrifty Automotive Group,
Inc., Avis Budget Group, Inc., Vanguard Car Rental USA, Inc.,
Enterprise Rent-A-Car Company, Fox Rent A Car, Inc., Coast Leasing
Corp., The California Travel and Tourism Commission, and Caroline
Beteta.

Hertz Corporation, one of the defendants, is Hertz Global
Holdings, Inc.'s primary operating company.

Originally filed in November of 2007, the action is pending in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, and
plaintiffs claim to represent a class of individuals or entities
that purchased rental car services from a defendant at airports
located in California after Jan. 1, 2007.

The complaint alleges that the defendants agreed to charge
consumers a 2.5% tourism assessment and not to compete with
respect to this assessment, while misrepresenting that this
assessment is owed by consumers, rather than the rental car
defendants, to the CTTC.  The complaint also alleges that
defendants agreed to pass through to consumers a fee known as the
Airport Concession Fee, which fee had previously been required to
be included in the rental car defendants' individual base rates,
without reducing their base rates.

Based on these allegations, the complaint seeks treble damages,
disgorgement, injunctive relief, interest, attorneys' fees and
costs.  The court has dismissed all claims against the CTTC, and
plaintiffs dropped their claims against Caroline Beteta.  The
court also dismissed all claims against the rental car defendants
except for the federal antitrust claim.

The plaintiffs' have appealed the dismissal of their claims
against the CTTC to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit.  The remaining claim against the company, the federal
antitrust claim, is in the discovery stage.

In June 2010, a three judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiffs'
antitrust claim against the CTTC as a state agency immune from an
antitrust complaint because the California legislature foresaw the
alleged price-fixing conspiracy that was the subject of the
plaintiffs' complaint.  The plaintiffs subsequently filed a
petition with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
seeking to have all of the judges on the Ninth Circuit review the
decision of the three judge panel, according to the company's Aug.
6, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

Hertz Global Holdings, Inc. is the world's largest general use car
rental brand, operating from approximately 8,300 locations in 146
countries worldwide.  Hertz is the number one airport car rental
brand in the U.S. and at 81 major airports in Europe, operating
both corporate and licensee locations in cities and airports in
North America, Europe, Latin America, Asia, Australia and New
Zealand.


HERTZ GLOBAL: Plaintiffs' Appeal on Dismissed Suit Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
The appeal of the plaintiffs on the dismissal of a consolidated
action against Hertz Global Holdings, Inc., remains pending in the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The company is currently a defendant in a consolidated action
captioned In re Tourism Assessment Fee Litigation pending in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.

Originally filed as two separate actions in December of 2007, the
consolidated action purports to be a class action brought on
behalf of all persons and entities that have paid an assessment
since the inception of the Passenger Car Rental Industry Tourism
Assessment Program in California on Jan. 1, 2007.

The other defendants include various of the company's competitors,
including Avis Budget Group, Inc., Vanguard Car Rental USA, Inc.,
Dollar Thrifty Automotive Group, Inc., Advantage Rent-A-Car, Inc.,
Avalon Global Group, Enterprise Rent-A-Car Company, Fox Rent A
Car, Inc., Beverly Hills Rent-A-Car, Inc., Rent4Less, Inc.,
Autorent Car Rental, Inc., Pacific Rent-A-Car, Inc., ABC Rent-A-
Car, Inc., as well as The California Travel and Tourism
Commission, and Dale E. Bonner.

The complaint sought injunctive and declaratory relief, that all
assessments collected and to be collected be held in trust,
unspecified monetary damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs.
The district court has dismissed all of plaintiffs' claims against
all defendants.  Plaintiffs have appealed to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, according to the company's Aug. 6,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

Hertz Global Holdings, Inc. is the world's largest general use car
rental brand, operating from approximately 8,300 locations in 146
countries worldwide.  Hertz is the number one airport car rental
brand in the U.S. and at 81 major airports in Europe, operating
both corporate and licensee locations in cities and airports in
North America, Europe, Latin America, Asia, Australia and New
Zealand.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Class Action Lawsuit Filed Over Motrin Recall
----------------------------------------------------------------
AboutLawsuits.com reports an investor class action lawsuit has
been filed against Johnson & Johnson, alleging that the company
tried to hide a Motrin recall by having consultants repurchase it
off store shelves and made misleading statements before recalling
more than 40 children medications earlier this year.

The Johnson & Johnson class action lawsuit was filed by investor
Ronald Monk on September 21 in U.S. District Court in Newark, New
Jersey.  The complaint comes as the drug maker is under criminal
investigation surrounding the "phantom" recall of Motrin, which
some say appears to have been an illegal attempt by the company to
avoid an official recall notice.

The lawsuit also accuses the company of making misleading
statements before revealing that there were contamination problems
at its plants in Pennsylvania and Puerto Rico, and points to the
massive children's medicine recall issued by McNeil Consumer
Healthcare earlier this year.  The complaint seeks class action
status for all investors who purchased Johnson & Johnson shares
between October 2008 and July 2010.

On April 30, a recall was announced for nearly 40 liquid
children's medications by Johnson & Johnson subsidiary, McNeil
Consumer Healthcare, including infant Tylenol, Benadryl, and
Motrin.  The products were recalled due to particulate
contamination and irregularities in potency and resulted in a
warning letter from FDA regarding quality control issues at a
Johnson & Johnson manufacturing plant in Ft. Washington,
Pennsylvania.

The recall affected 136 million bottles of children's medications,
and resulted in the shutdown of the company's Ft. Washington,
Pennsylvania, plant, and the suspension of the production of all
of McNeil's children medications.

Congressional inquiries into the recall discovered documents that
suggested that the company had tried to hide an earlier Motrin
recall by sending consultants to stores to buy the product off
shelves instead of having it pulled.  Johnson & Johnson officials
deny the allegations and say that the FDA was fully aware of the
Motrin recall.


KRAFT FOODS: Judge Grants Class Action Status to Pollution Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Justin L. Mack, writing for jconline.com, reports when Rod Andres
purchased his Taylor Street home in July 2007, he was unaware that
property contamination came at no extra charge.

"I learned about the chemicals about two years after I got the
house, and no one made any mention of it to me when I bought it.
Not the Realtors, not the company, no one," he said.  "I don't
know what drives people to do something like that.  Is it greed?
Is it profit? All I know is I was a little bit bummed.

"I wouldn't have paid 70 grand for the house if I knew
contamination might knock the value down to 10."

That's why Mr. Andres and 129 other Attica families are gearing up
for a Feb. 28 court date to hold a company linked to the
contamination responsible.

In March 2009, lawyers for a northeast Attica neighborhood filed a
class action lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Indianapolis
against Kraft Foods Global Inc.

Homeowners allege that the water and air pollution coming from an
inactive factory Kraft acquired through mergers is lowering
property values and putting their health at risk.

The suspect chemicals -- tetrachloroethene, or PCE, and
trichloroethene, or TCE -- were used as cleaners and degreasers at
the now-defunct Radio Materials Corp. factory located off East
Summit Street.

On Tuesday, residents and their attorneys held a press conference
to announce that a judge has granted class action status to the
130 families affected by the pollution.

They also announced the court's decision to reject Kraft's attempt
to have the case dismissed on the basis that the company has been
working to clean up the pollutants.

"(The court) didn't say that we were right.  They said we can have
our day in court to prove our case . . . we knew that if we didn't
go in together, we didn't have a case," said Naperville, Ill.-
based attorney Shawn Collins, whose law firm is representing the
families.

"To go one-on-one and toe-to-toe with Kraft alone would be too
much for one family to bear.  This is the day in court these
people deserve, and we're proud to give it to them."


MIDWEST-CBK: Recalls 4,450 "S T U F F" and Paw Wall Hooks
---------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Midwest-CBK, Inc., of Union City, Tenn., announced a voluntary
recall of about 4,450 "S T U F F" and Paw Wall Hooks.  Consumers
should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise
instructed.

Paint on the metal hooks and on the blue paw hook contains
excessive levels of lead, violating the federal lead paint
standard.

No injuries or incidents have been reported.

This recall involves the wall hook sets were sold in three models:
model numbers 74641 and 74642, constructed of five separate wooden
letters spelling out the word "S T U F F" and model number 65262
consisting of four separate, different colored wooden paws.  Model
number 74641 has a Purple S, a Red T, an Orange U, a Green F and a
Pink F. Model number 74642 has an Olive S, a Blue T, a Yellow U, a
White-striped F, and a Blue F.  Attached to each letter is a
painted metal coat hook with a painted wooden ball at the end.
Each letter is approximately 4 inches long, 3/4 inches wide and
9-3/4 inches tall.  Model number 65262 has four separate paw-
shaped wooden pieces of different colors -- red, blue, green and
pink. Attached to each paw is a wooden peg with a wooden ball at
the end.  The "S T U F F" wall hook sets have a label on the back
of the letter "S" that includes the models 74641 or 74642.  The
Paw wall hook sets have the model number 65262 on the outside of
the box.  Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10357.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold through
gift stores, drug stores, furniture stores, decor outlets and
variety stores nationwide from December 2008 through August 2010
for between $10 and $30.

The wall hook set should be returned to Midwest-CBK for a full
refund.  Contact Midwest-CBK at the number provided below to
receive a prepaid shipping label and merchandise credit.  For
additional information, contact Midwest-CBK toll-free at (800)
422-5583 between 7:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Central Time, Monday
through Friday.


NEWS CORP: No Trial Date Yet in California Consolidated Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California has
yet to set a trial date in a consolidated class action lawsuit in
connection with a transaction whereby Intermix was to be acquired
by Fox Interactive Media, a subsidiary of News Corporation.

On June 14, 2006, a purported class action lawsuit, captioned Jim
Brown v. Brett C. Brewer, et al., was filed against certain former
Intermix directors and officers in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California.  The plaintiff asserted claims for
alleged violations of Section 14a of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule
14a-9, as well as control person liability under Section 20a of
the Exchange Act.

The plaintiff alleged that certain defendants disseminated false
and misleading definitive proxy statements on two occasions: one
on Dec. 30, 2003 in connection with the stockholder vote on
Jan. 29, 2004 on the election of directors and ratification of
financing transactions with certain entities of VantagePoint; and
another on August 25, 2005 in connection with the stockholder vote
on the FIM Transaction.

The complaint named as defendants certain VantagePoint related
entities, the former general counsel and the members of the
Intermix Board who were incumbent on the dates of the respective
proxy statements.  Intermix was not named as a defendant, but has
certain indemnity obligations to the former officer and director
defendants in connection with these claims and allegations.

On Aug. 25, 2006, plaintiff amended his complaint to add certain
investment banks as defendants.  Intermix has certain indemnity
obligations to the Investment Banks as well.  Plaintiff amended
his complaint again on Sept. 27, 2006, which defendants moved to
dismiss.

On Feb. 9, 2007, the case was transferred to Judge George H. King,
the judge assigned to the LeBoyer action, on the grounds that it
raises substantially related questions of law and fact as LeBoyer,
and would entail substantial duplication of labor if heard by
different judges.

On June 11, 2007, Judge King ordered the Brown case be
consolidated with the LeBoyer action, ordered plaintiffs' counsel
to file a consolidated first amended complaint, and further
ordered the parties to file a joint brief on defendants'
contemplated motion to dismiss the consolidated first amended
complaint.

On July 11, 2007, plaintiffs filed the consolidated first amended
complaint, which defendants moved to dismiss.  By order dated Jan.
17, 2008, Judge King granted defendants' motion to dismiss the
2003 proxy claims (concerning VantagePoint transactions) and the
2005 proxy claims (concerning the FIM Transaction), as well as a
claim against the VantagePoint entities alleging unjust
enrichment.  The FIM Transaction was the transaction whereby
Intermix was to be acquired by Fox Interactive Media, a subsidiary
of the company.

The court found it unnecessary to rule on dismissal of the
remaining claims, which are related to the 2005 FIM Transaction,
because the dismissal disposed of those claims.

On Feb. 8, 2008, plaintiffs filed a consolidated second amended
complaint, which defendants moved to dismiss on Feb. 28, 2008.  By
order dated July 15, 2008, the court granted in part and denied in
part defendants' motion to dismiss.

The 2003 claims and the claims against the Investment Banks were
dismissed with prejudice.  The Section 14a, Section 20a and the
breach of fiduciary duty claims related to the FIM Transaction
remain against the officer and director defendants and the
VantagePoint defendants.

On Nov. 14, 2008, plaintiff filed a motion for class certification
to which defendants filed their opposition on Jan. 14, 2009. On
June 22, 2009, the court granted plaintiff's motion for class
certification, certifying a class of all holders of Intermix
common stock from July 18, 2005 through consummation of the FIM
Transaction, who were allegedly harmed by defendants' improper
conduct as set forth in the complaint.

The parties have completed fact and expert discovery.

On June 17, 2010, the court granted in part and denied in part
defendants' summary judgment motion filed on Oct. 19, 2009.
Specifically, the court denied plaintiff's motion for summary
adjudication of a factual issue and denied defendants' motion to
exclude plaintiff's damages expert, which was filed on Nov. 30,
2009.

In the court's June 17 order, the court found that plaintiff could
not proceed on any fiduciary duty claim based upon alleged
violations of the duty of care, but found material issues of fact
prohibiting summary judgment on alleged violations of fiduciary
duty of loyalty.

On plaintiff's Section 14a claim, the court found material issues
of fact that prohibited summary judgment on the entire claim, but
granted defendants' motion as to certain purported omissions,
finding the allegedly omitted information immaterial.  Further,
the court granted defendants' motion as to two damage theories for
the Section 14a claim, finding benefit of the bargain damages not
viable and lost opportunity damages too speculative, and
permitting plaintiff to proceed only based upon a theory of out-
of-pocket damages.

No trial date has been set yet, according to the company's
Aug. 6, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2010.

News Corp. -- http://www.newscorp.com/-- is a diversified
entertainment company with operations in eight industry
segments, including Filmed Entertainment, Television, Cable
Network Programming, Direct Broadcast Satellite Television,
Magazines and Inserts, Newspapers and Information Services, Book
Publishing and Other.  The activities of News Corporation are
conducted principally in the United States, the United Kingdom,
Continental Europe, Australia, Asia and the Pacific Basin. Through
its subsidiaries, it is engaged in the operation of broadcast
television stations, and the development, production and
distribution of network and television programming.  The company
engages in the direct broadcast satellite business through its
subsidiary, SKY Italia.  It also owns interests in BSkyB and
Premiere, which are engaged in the direct broadcast satellite
business.


NIGHTHAWK RADIOLOGY: Defends Amended Securities Suit in Idaho
-------------------------------------------------------------
NightHawk Radiology Holdings, Inc., defends an amended complaint
captioned In re Nighthawk Radiology Holdings, Inc. Securities
Litigation pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Idaho.

On Dec. 17, 2009, a putative shareholder class action lawsuit was
filed against the company and certain of its former officers.  The
case is captioned City of Marysville General Employees Retirement
System v. NightHawk Radiology Holdings, Inc., et al., Case No. CIV
09-659-N-CWD.

On July 13, 2010, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint under the
new caption In re Nighthawk Radiology Holdings, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Master File No. 09-cv-00659 (EJL/CWD).  The complaint
purports to be brought on behalf of a class of persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired the company's stock during the
period May 2, 2007 to May 7, 2008, and asserts claims under
Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

Plaintiffs contend that the company and the individual defendants
violated the federal securities laws by issuing false and
misleading statements concerning the company's operations,
business, and prospects during the purported class period, and
thereby artificially increased the price of the company's stock.

Plaintiffs seek unspecified compensatory damages, interest, and
attorneys' fees and costs.

On April 29, 2010, the court issued an order appointing Plymouth
County Contributory Retirement System as lead plaintiff, and
approving Plymouth's selection of the law firms Scott + Scott LLP
and Holland & Hart LLP as co-lead counsel.  Pursuant to a
stipulated case management order, defendants had until Sept. 13,
2010 to move to dismiss the complaint, according to the company's
Aug. 6, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

NightHawk Radiology Holdings, Inc. --
http://http://www.nighthawkrad.net/-- headquartered in
Scottsdale, Arizona, is the nation's leading provider of
professional radiology solutions.  NightHawk is leading the
transformation of the professional practice of radiology by
providing high-quality, cost-effective radiology services to
radiology groups and hospitals throughout the United States.
NightHawk's suite of solutions, including its advanced,
proprietary workflow technology, is reshaping the way radiology
groups practice by increasing efficiencies and improving the
quality of patient care.  With its team of U.S. board certified,
state-licensed and hospital-privileged physicians, NightHawk
services medical groups twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week
at approximately 1,600 hospitals in the U.S. from centralized
facilities located in the United States, Australia and
Switzerland.


ORMAT TECHNOLOGIES: Wants Consolidated Amended Suit Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ormat Technologies, Inc., seeks to dismiss the consolidated
amended class action complaint pending in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Nevada.

Following the company's public announcement that it would restate
certain of its financial results due to a change in the company's
accounting treatment for certain exploration and development
costs, three securities class action lawsuits were filed in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada on March 9, 2010,
March 18, 2010 and April 7, 2010.

These complaints assert claims against the company and certain
officers and directors for alleged violation of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  One complaint also
asserts claims for alleged violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and
15 of the Securities Act.  All three complaints allege claims on
behalf of a putative class of purchasers of company stock between
May 6, 2008 or May 7, 2008 and Feb. 23, 2010 or Feb. 24, 2010.

These three lawsuits were consolidated by the Court in an order
issued on June 3, 2010 and the Court appointed three of the
company's stockholders to serve as lead plaintiffs.

Lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended class action
complaint on July 9, 2010 that asserts claims under Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of a
putative class of purchasers of Company stock between May 7, 2008
and February 24, 2010.

The consolidated amended class action complaint alleges that
certain of the company's public statements were false and
misleading for failing to account properly for the company's
exploration and development costs based on the company's
announcement on Feb. 24, 2010 that it was going to restate its
financial results to change its method of accounting for
exploration and development costs in certain respects.

The consolidated amended class action complaint also alleges that
certain of the company's statements concerning the North Brawley
project were false and misleading and seeks compensatory damages,
expenses, and such further relief as the Court may deem proper,
according to the company's Aug. 6, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June
30, 2010.

Ormat Technologies, Inc. -- http://www.ormat.com/-- is the only
vertically-integrated company primarily engaged in the geothermal
and recovered energy power business.  The company designs,
develops, owns and operates geothermal and recovered energy-based
power plants around the world.  Additionally, the company designs,
manufactures and sells geothermal and recovered energy power units
and other power-generating equipment, and provides related
services.  The company has more than four decades of experience in
the development of environmentally-sound power, primarily in
geothermal and recovered-energy generation.  Ormat products and
systems are covered by 75 U.S. patents.  Ormat has engineered and
built power plants, that it currently owns or has supplied to
utilities and developers worldwide, totaling approximately 1300 MW
of gross capacity.  Ormat's current generating portfolio includes
the following geothermal and recovered energy-based power plants:
in the United States -- Brady, Brawley, Heber, Mammoth, Ormesa,
Puna, Steamboat, OREG 1, OREG 2 and Peetz; in Guatemala -- Zunil
and Amatitlan; in Kenya -- Olkaria III; and, in Nicaragua --
Momotombo.



PALM BEACH TAN: Accused in Texas Suit of Not Paying Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Michelle Massey, writing for The Southeast Texas Record, reports a
federal class action has been filed against a chain of tanning
salons for allegedly not paying its employees overtime wages.

Claiming violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, Kristin
Bennington filed a lawsuit against Palm Beach Tan Inc. on Sept. 20
in the Eastern District of Texas, Sherman Division.

Ms. Bennington, who was employed as an assistant store manager and
a manager, accuses the defendant of paying non-exempt employees a
salary to avoid paying overtime wages.

She claims her job duties only constituted a small percentage of
managerial duties.  As an assistant manager and manager, she spent
the majority of her time cleaning the tanning beds, operating the
cash register, assisting customer and stocking merchandise.

Therefore, Ms. Bennington argues, the positions are misclassified
as exempt from the overtime requirements of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

On behalf of the proposed class, Ms. Bennington is asking the
court for an award of overtime wages, liquidated damages,
attorney's fees and costs.

Ms. Bennington is represented by Timothy M. Dortch of Cooper &
Scully in Dallas.

U.S. District Judge Michael H. Schneider is assigned to the case.

Case No. 4:10cv00489


SENSA PRODUCTS: Accused of Selling Bogus Weight Loss Products
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Sensa Products LLC, of El
Segundo, and General Nutrition Centers sell bogus weight-loss
products that claim to use "tastants," a "scent-based weight-loss
product" that allegedly are "proven to help trigger the brain
mechanism that signals when you are full," a class action claims
in Los Angeles Superior Court.


SILVER SPRING: Suit Complains About Defective Electricity Meters
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Silver Spring Networks
installed defective "smart" electricity meters that made
homeowners' bills jump by as much as 729%, a class action claims
in San Mateo County Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Edwards, et al. v. Silver Spring
Networks, Inc., Case No. 498700 (Calif. Super. Ct., San Mateo
Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/09/28/SmartMeters.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Paul R. Kiesel, Esq.
          KIESEL BOUCHER & LARSON LLP
          8648 Wilshire Blvd.
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211-2910
          Telephone: 310-854-4444

               - and -

          Paul O. Paradis, Esq.
          Gina M. Tufaro, Esq.
          HORWITZ, HORWITZ & PARADIS
          405 Lexington Ave., 61st Floor
          New York, NY 10174
          Telephone: 212-986-4500

               - and -

          Brant C. Martin, Esq.
          WICK PHILLIPS GOULD & MARTIN LLP
          100 Throckmorton St., Suite 550
          Forth Worth, TX 76102
          Telephone: 817-332-7788


SPIRAL FOODS: Faces Class Action Suit in Australia Over Bonsoy
--------------------------------------------------------------
Melissa Singer, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reports
customers who claim to have fallen sick from contaminated batches
of soy milk are suing the manufacturers.

Bonsoy, made by Spiral Foods, was withdrawn from sale last year
after 10 people, including an infant, became sick with thyroid
problems.

The product tested positive for elevated iodine levels, thought to
result from a seaweed-derived ingredient called kombu.

Spiral Foods was given the all-clear in April after the iodine
levels returned to normal but a group of customers has joined a
class action for compensation for ongoing health problems and time
taken off work.

Maurice Blackburn, the law firm running the action, is also behind
the multimillion-dollar case over alleged illegal and unfair bank
fees charged by the major banks.

Last week it fired the first salvo by lodging a $50 million claim
against ANZ in the Federal Court in Victoria.

According to reports, more than 50 people who claim to have fallen
sick from drinking Bonsoy contacted Maurice Blackburn and another
firm, Slater & Gordon.

Symptoms of excessive iodine consumption can include anxiety, hot
flushes and erratic weight loss or gain.

Food Standards Australia New Zealand received 38 notifications of
thyroid illness believed to be linked to Bonsoy between December
and March.

One Sydney cafe was placed on the NSW Food Authority's name and
shame list after it was caught stocking Bonsoy after a national
recall was announced.

The owners deny serving the milk to customers but will have their
details recorded on the infamous list for 12 months.

ABC News reports the case will be heard in Victoria's Supreme
Court in the next few months.

Bonsoy's distributors have not returned the ABC's calls.


STUDENT LOAN: Being Sold to Discover for Too Little, Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Coughlin at Courthouse News Service reports that
shareholders say The Student Loan Corporation is selling itself
for less than half of its book value to Discover Financial
Services and Citigroup.  Citigroup already owns 80% of the shares
of Student Loan Corp., and the buyout will give it and Discover
the entire student loan business and $4 billion in outstanding
private loans, according to the class action in Superior Court.

Discover Financial Services announced the agreement to buy The
Student Loan Corp. for $600 million, or $30 a share -- less than
half of the company's book value of $65 per share, and 38% less
than its liquidation value of $48 per share, according to the
complaint.  Citigroup owned more than 16 million shares of SLC
before the buyout, according to the complaint.

Named plaintiff John A. Zengel says the deal will enrich the
defendants at the expense of SLC stockholders.

Under terms of the deal, which was announced Sept. 17, Student
Loan will sell $28 billion of its loans and assets to Sallie Mae,
and $8.7 billion of its loans and assets to Citigroup.

After the buyout was announced, Citigroup declared that it had
"entered into definitive agreements that will result in the
divestiture of its private student loan business and approximately
$32 billion of its $46 billion in assets to Discover," according
to the complaint.

Although this will result in a $500 million after-tax loss, Fitch
Ratings stated that "this loss is considered minimal in the
context of [Citigroup's] core earnings and capital," according to
the complaint.

Although Student Loan Corp. "had experienced a downturn due to the
economy, it has recently been steadily improving and was poised
for significant growth," the complaint states.

The class claims that the "buyout transaction is, in effect, a
change-of-control of SLC, with Citigroup, as the controlling
shareholder, engaging in both sides of the transaction;
particularly, the acquisition of SLC's key assets for itself."

The complaint adds: "had the company simply wound down its
business and sold its assets separately for cash, shareholders
would have obtained an almost 50% greater value for their holdings
than through the buyout transaction."

The class sued Student Loan Corp. and its officers and directors
for breach of fiduciary duty, and Citigroup and Discover Financial
Services for aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary duties.
They seek an injunction rescinding the buyout and damages and
interest if it is consummated.

The complaint reports mixed, but far from dismal financial results
for SLC: "On July 16, 2010, SLC reported a decrease in profit for
the second quarter 2010.  For the quarter, net income declined to
$20.82 million from $25.26 million last year.  On a per-share
basis, earnings fell to $1.04 from $1.26 for the comparable
quarter a year ago.  However, SLC's net interest income grew 33%
to $94.46 million from $70.88 million last year.  After provision
for loan losses, net interest income more than doubled to $53.06
million from $26.06 million a year ago.  Provisions for loan
losses were lower at $41.40 million compared to $44.83 million
last year."

A copy of the Complaint in Zengel v. The Student Loan Corporation,
et al., Case No. _____ (Conn. Super. Ct., Stamford Cty.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/09/28/StudentLoan.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey S. Nobel, Esq.
          Wayne T. Boulton, Esq.
          IZARD NOBEL LLP
          29 South Main St.
          West Hartford, CT 06107
          Telephone: 860-493-6293

               - and -

          David A.P. Brower, Esq.
          BROWER PIVEN
          488 Madison Ave., Eight Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: 212-501-9000


TIM GOLDBURT: Sued for Breach of Contract, Theft and Fraud
----------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Lehey, individually and as a member of FSJ, LLC, and on
behalf of himself and all other members of FSJ, LLC similarly
situated and in the right of FSJ, LLC v. Tim Goldburt, et al.,
Case No. 112623/2010 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty. September 24,
2010), brings claims against the defendants for breach of
contract, refusal to transfer the Patents for the "Message System"
and the "Medea Vodka" Trademark to the Company, Goldburt's refusal
to step down as co-manager of the Company despite members of the
Company voting to remove him as co-manager for misconduct relating
to the Company funds (he is alleged, among other things, to have
pledged the Company's $2,000,000 Citibank certificate of deposit
as collateral for General's line of credit obtained from Citibank
-- General defaulted and the CD was liquidated by Citibank),
fraud, refusal to allow Plaintiff to inspect and photocopy the
Company's financial and corporate records, and against defendants
Goldburt and Sandy alone, for misappropriating, looting, wasting,
embezzling and diverting Company funds for non-business purposes
for their own use and benefit, and for fraudulent conveyance
directly resulting from transfers -- made to defendants Goldburt,
Sandy, Rubin, FSJ Imports, Ram and General -- without fair
consideration.  Mr. Lehey also accuses defendants Rubin and
Mullins for substantially assisting defendants Goldburt and Sandy
in breaching their fiduciary duties to the Company.

Mr. Lehey asks the Court to order a full accounting of the
Company's affairs and finances and of his investment of $7,500,000
in the Company; to direct the Defendants to provide complete and
accurate copies of the Company's filed state and federal income
tax returns, and to make available for Plaintiff's inspection and
photocopying all of the Company's financial and business records.
Mr. Lehey also demands judgment, in the alternative, rescinding
his Subscription Agreement and the Operating Agreement and
directing defendants to pay over to Plaintiff the entire amount of
his $7,500,000 investment in the Company.

Under the Operating Agreement which plaintiff and the other
members of the Company executed on June 15, 2007, expenditures
exceeding $50,000 require plaintiff's written consent.   According
to Mr. Lehey, defendants Goldburt and Sandy caused the Company to
transfer funds to defendant FSJ Imports without his written
consent, in breach of the Operating Agreement.

Tim Goldburt's co-defendants are: Matt Sandy, David Perillo, FSJ
Imports, LLC, Ram Phosphorix, LLC, Company counsel Joseph Rubin,
Company accountant Kevin Mullins, AMJG, LLC, and Francis Massie.

Plaintiff Lehey owns 10% of the outstanding membership interests
of FSJ, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company which
manufactures and distributes a unique brand of distilled spirit
products under the trade name "Medea Vodka".  Medea Brand Products
are bottled in patented containers incorporating a wireless
electronic, illuminating message system capable of displaying and
transmitting personal messages, commercial advertising or other
commercial content on a screen on the exterior of the bottle
container.  Defendant Goldburt is the registered owner and
inventor of the patents or patent applications for the components
of the Message System and bottle container designs while defendant
Sandy is the registered owner of the "Medea Vodka" trademark.  The
Lehey Complaint alleges that the Patents and Trademarks are owned
by the Company and that Mr. Goldburt holds the Patents in
constructive trust for the Company and that Mr. Sandy holds any
interest in the Trademark, as registrant or otherwise, in
constructive trust for the Company.

Plaintiff relates that he has made demands upon defendants
Goldburt and Sandy to execute and deliver appropriate assignments
of the Patents and Trademarks to the Company but Goldburt and
Sandy have refused to do so.

Mr. Lehey and defendants Ram Phosphorix, Mr. Sandy, Mr. Perillo,
Mr. Massie, and AMJG own all of the membership interests in the
Company.  Defendant Joseph Rubin is the Company counsel and also
holds an economic interest in defendants Ram Phosphorix and
General Phosphorix.  Defendant Kevin Mullins, a CPA, is the
Company accountant.  Plaintiff asserts no claims against AMJG, a
necessary party joined as a defendant in order to afford complete
relief.

Plaintiff Lehey alleges that that defendants Ram Phosphorix and
General Phosphorix are the alter egos of defendants Goldburt and
Sandy.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jules A. Epstein, Esq.
          JULES A. EPSTEIN, P.C.
          600 Old Country Road, Suite 505
          Garden city, NY 11530
          Telephone: (516) 745-1325


TOBACCO COMPANIES: Judge Scalia Stays $270MM Tobacco Suit Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Hood, writing for ConsumerAffairs.Com, reports Supreme Court
Justice Antonin Scalia, in his role as circuit justice for the
Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, has stayed a $270 million tobacco
verdict for Louisiana smokers, ruling that the lower court likely
erred in failing to require that the plaintiffs show reliance on
the tobacco companies' advertisements.

A bit of context: each Supreme Court justice also serves as a
circuit justice for at least one appellate court, a role that
often presents the question of whether a stay should be granted so
that the full court can hear an appeal.

The case involves a suit that was brought as a class action on
behalf of all Louisiana smokers, accusing several tobacco
manufacturers of misleading the public about the addictive effects
of nicotine.  A Louisiana state court eventually gave the
plaintiffs a verdict for a whopping $241 million, plus around $30
million of "accumulated interest."  The money was to be paid into
an account set up to fund smoking cessation programs.

The defendant companies eventually petitioned for a stay pending a
writ of certiorari to federal court, which is apparently in the
works.  Judge Scalia, conceding that the companies bore a "heavy
burden" in showing that such a stay is necessary, nevertheless
found that the companies had met that burden.

In his opinion, Judge Scalia wrote that, while the tobacco
companies had potentially been subjected to "many violations of
due process," one especially stuck in his craw: in Louisiana,
Judge Scalia wrote, a fraud case requires the plaintiff to prove
"that the plaintiff detrimentally relied on the defendant's
misrepresentations."

But, according to Judge Scalia, the Louisiana court "held that
this element need not be proved . . . since the defendants are
guilty of "a distortion of the entire body of public knowledge"
regarding tobacco, which the "class on a whole" relied on.

Consequently, Judge Scalia continued, "the [Louisiana] court
eliminated any need for plaintiffs to prove, and denied any
opportunity for applicants to contest, that any particular
plaintiff who benefits from the judgment (much less all of them)
believed applicants' distortions and continued to smoke as a
result."

Judge Scalia's ruling is certainly a victory for the defendant
companies, which previously tried unsuccessfully to get the ruling
thrown out by a state court.  But his opinion is more noteworthy
for its sweeping language regarding class actions in general --
and what it could mean for their future.

"The extent to which class treatment may constitutionally reduce
the normative requirements of due process is an important
question," Judge Scalia wrote, adding that the issue is reflective
of what he says is "national concern of the abuse of the class
action device."

The alleged due process violations to which Judge Scalia refers
include the inability to cross-examine every member of the class
to ensure that they relied on the defendants' advertisements,
inaccurate estimations of the class's size, and "constant revision
of the plaintiffs' claim during the course of litigation."

These concerns, along with Judge Scalia's prediction that it is
"significantly possible" that the award will be reversed, suggests
that the Supreme Court is looking to make sweeping changes in
class action law.  And a decision making class actions harder to
bring would be in line with the court's recent corporate-friendly
trend.

That trend came to a head earlier this year, when, in Citizens
United v. Federal Election Commission, the court ruled that
corporations must be allowed to use general treasury funds to
support political candidates, a major shift likely to change the
nature of political advertising.  That case, which essentially
embraced the theory of "corporate personhood" -- that corporations
are subject to the same rights as individual people -- offers a
glimpse into class actions under the Roberts court.  It's not
likely to be pretty for consumers.


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Class Suit Over Sludge Tentatively Settled
------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Jensen, writing for The New York Times, reports The
Volkswagen Group of America has tentatively settled a class-action
suit claiming that the engines of nearly a half million VWs and
Audis were prone to damage from sludge, and that the automaker did
not provide enough help to owners.

Under the agreement, Volkswagen would pay at least 50% of the cost
of fixing the engines, according to documents filed in United
States District Court in Boston.  Judge Joseph L. Tauro is
scheduled to consider whether to give final approval to the
settlement in March.

The vehicles involved are the 1997-2004 Audi A4 (sedan, wagon and
convertible variants) and the 1998-2004 VW Passat with the 1.8-
liter 4-cylinder engine.  Combined, almost 480,000 vehicles are
covered.  Some owners complained they had to pay $4,000 to $8,000
for repairs.

Sludge is a thickening of the oil created as moisture and
contaminants build up and break down the oil, causing it to gel
and reducing the oil flow and lubrication.  The problem, according
to the suit, is that the VWs and Audis have "an undersized 3.7
quart oil supply, which provides an inadequate quantity of oil to
dissipate the heat" generated by the turbocharged engines.  The
suit also claims VW committed fraud by telling owners it was their
fault for not changing the oil often enough.

In agreeing to settle the case, Volkswagen Group of America, which
sells VWs and Audis, denied any wrongdoing.

In 2004, Volkswagen and Audi addressed the sludge problem by
extending the warranty to eight years and unlimited mileage, and
by promising to help consumers who could prove they changed the
oil according to the manufacturer's recommendations.  But some
consumers complained to the Center for Auto Safety that VW and
Audi rejected their claims if they missed only one oil change or
were a few miles late.  That left them facing expensive repairs.

In a 2005 interview with The Plain Dealer of Cleveland, Len Hunt,
who was then vice president of VW, said he thought the
requirements for consumers to get reimbursed were too strict.  "I
think we were a little Teutonic in our rules," he said.

"When you've got a reputation for not such stellar quality, you've
to treat the customer properly.  Sometimes your rules and
regulations and the culture of the company can be a little bit
harsh when it gets translated down to the customer level," he
said.  "We've got to have some latitude in there."

VW then eased the restrictions on sludge claims.

According to court documents, the new settlement appears to make
it even easier for consumers to be reimbursed.  These are the two
major provisions of the tentative settlement:

    * The automaker will compensate owners for 100% of the
      repair costs if they can prove "that the last two required
      oil changes prior to the sludge-related problem or engine
      failure were performed within the recommended time and
      mileage intervals, with a permissible variance of 20%
      of the time and mileage intervals."

    * The automaker will compensate owners for 50% of the
      repair cost "where the settlement class member cannot submit
      proof that the last two required oil changes prior to the
      sludge-related problem or engine failure were performed
      within the recommended time and mileage."

It is not yet clear how much the plaintiffs' lawyers will be paid.
They are to submit a bill later this fall for consideration by the
judge.  The lawyers for the plaintiffs were not available or
declined to discuss details of the case.  A spokeswoman for VW
said the company had no comment.


WASHINGTON: Sanctioned by Federal Judge Over Child-Welfare Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Washington Post reports the federal judge overseeing the long-
running class-action suit against the District's child welfare
system leveled a sanction against the city Tuesday for
disregarding court orders in the case.

Last year, Mayor Adrian M. Fenty (D) selected a new Child and
Family Services Agency director, Roque Gerald, without consulting
with the plaintiffs in the case as the judge, Thomas F. Hogan, had
ordered.

In April, Judge Hogan found the city in contempt for that and
other actions, and at a hearing last month, he said he could have
forced Mr. Gerald out as director.

But neither the judge nor the plaintiffs sought such a dramatic
penalty, which could have caused considerable disruption at the
agency.

The plaintiffs proposed that the mayor be required to meet with
them every six months.  In his order Tuesday, Judge Hogan stopped
short of that idea, instead requiring a single meeting between the
plaintiffs and the mayor or the mayor's designee.

In the April decision, the city was also found in contempt for
failing to submit an adequate annual plan on time, and in
particular for its failure to offer specific steps for improving
services for older foster children aging out of the system.

                             *********

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  * * *