CAR_Public/110630.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Thursday, June 30, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 128

                             Headlines

ARCA BIOPHARMA: Court Approves Securities Suit Settlement
AUSTRALIA: Supreme Court Set to Decide on Tar Pond Class Action
AUSTRALIA: May Face Class Action Over RAAF Base Aircraft Noise
BIDRACK INC: "Free" Penny Auction Web site Not Free, Suit Claims
CENTRO PROPERTIES: Ruling v. Directors to Boost Class Action

COMMAND SECURITY: Defends Security Guards' Suit in California
ELI LILLY: Court Rejects Appeal to Revive Zyprexa Class Action
FOREST LABORATORIES: Expects to Resolve Merger-Related Suits Soon
HEART TRONICS: Awaits Approval of Consolidated Suit Settlement
INTEGRATED HEALTHCARE: Discovery in Consolidated Suit Ongoing

KAYLA ENTERPRISES: Accused of Violating Illinois Wage Laws
MEDQUIST HOLDINGS: Court Approves Shareholder Suit Settlement
METROACCESS: Riders File Class Action Over Tuberculosis Exposure
NYSE EURONEXT: Signs MOU to Settle Combination-Related Suits
ORECK CORP: Sued Over False Claims on Halo Vacuum Cleaner

PHILIP MORRIS: Sup. Court Rejects Bid to Question $270MM Award
SEARS ROEBUCK: Clothes Dryer Class Action Back to 7th Circuit
TOYOTA MOTOR: Appeal From Bondholder Suit Dismissal Still Pending
TOYOTA MOTOR: Awaits Court OK of Antitrust Proceedings Settlement
TOYOTA MOTOR: Continues to Defend Antilock Braking Systems Suits

TOYOTA MOTOR: Continues to Defend Unintended Acceleration Suits
TOYOTA MOTOR: Consolidated Calif. Shareholder Suit Still Pending
TRIUMPH FOODS: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Wages
WALDHEIM CEMETERY: Sued Over Contracts for Burial Plot Care




                             *********

ARCA BIOPHARMA: Court Approves Securities Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California issued on June 20, 2011, a final judgment and order
approving the settlement of, and dismissing with prejudice, the
purported securities class action lawsuit known as In re Nuvelo
Securities Litigation, pending against ARCA biopharma, Inc., and
the other defendants, according to the Company's June 24, 2011,
Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Order will become effective on July 25, 2011, unless an appeal
or motion to alter or amend the judgment is timely filed.  The
Order approves the settlement agreement entered into on
February 25, 2011, between ARCA, the other defendants, and the
plaintiffs, which was previously disclosed on ARCA's form 8-K
filed March 3, 2011.

The Order and settlement agreement relate to the lawsuit brought
on February 9, 2007, in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, and naming as defendants ARCA's
predecessor Nuvelo, Inc., and certain of Nuvelo's former and then
current officers and directors.  The lawsuit alleged violations of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 related to the clinical trial
results of the developmental drug alfimeprase, and sought damages
and injunctive relief on behalf of the purchasers of Nuvelo's
common stock during the class period.  Three additional lawsuits
were filed in the Southern District of New York, and all four
lawsuits were later transferred to the Northern District of
California and consolidated.

ARCA's insurance carriers have agreed to fund the settlement,
subject to a reservation of rights by one carrier.  No member of
the class has opted out of the settlement, making the Order, once
it becomes effective, binding on all members of the class.


AUSTRALIA: Supreme Court Set to Decide on Tar Pond Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Cape Breton Post reports that a Nova Scotia Supreme Court
justice will decide July 6 whether he will redefine the proposed
boundaries for a class-action lawsuit related to contamination
associated with the operation of the Sydney steel plant and coke
ovens.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs as well as the provincial and federal
Crowns have made written submissions to Nova Scotia Supreme Court
Justice John Murphy on the matter.

In December, Justice Murphy heard a full day of arguments by
lawyers representing the plaintiffs and the provincial and federal
auditor generals.

He had been asked by the representative plaintiffs to redefine the
class from being based on distance from an epicenter in Whitney
Pier to being based on medium to high contamination of lead.  The
residential class would have had to live in Sydney for at least
seven years.

Justice Murphy said he had some difficulty in going from
boundaries based on radius to one based on lead contamination.

The plaintiffs in the case believe it's within Justice Murphy's
authority to set the boundaries, according to their lawyer,
Ray Wagner.

Alternatively, the judge could indicate the type of boundaries he
would find acceptable and they could go back and draw them,
Mr. Wagner said in an interview with the Cape Breton Post earlier
this year.

The Crown has indicated the plaintiffs should have to continue to
present boundaries until they are deemed acceptable, he said at
the time.

The lawsuit against the federal and provincial governments was
filed six years ago.

No defenses have been filed and discovery hasn't taken place.  The
representative plaintiffs are seeking financial compensation and a
medical monitoring fund.

Justice Murphy will deliver his decision orally in Supreme Court
in Halifax.

The proceedings will be broadcast live on the Courts of Nova
Scotia Web site -- http://www.courts.ns.ca


AUSTRALIA: May Face Class Action Over RAAF Base Aircraft Noise
--------------------------------------------------------------
Neil Keene, writing for The Daily Telegraph, reports that angry
residents under the flight path of the RAAF's next frontline
fighter jet are preparing a multi-million dollar class action over
aircraft noise.

Revised noise mapping for the future F-35 Joint Strike Fighter
means more than 3000 people living around RAAF Base Williamtown
north of Newcastle are now deemed within a noise-affected zone.

The F-35 won't replace the F/A-18 Hornet until 2018 but the Save
Our Castle action group on June 26 said the new mapping was
already in effect and taking its toll on property prices.

Spokeswoman Andrea Pitt said development restrictions on
properties within the zone meant house and land prices had
plummeted.

Meanwhile, the cost of home renovations had risen dramatically
because they now required expensive soundproofing measures such as
double-glazing and structural insulation.

"Depending on the size of the house, that might cost anywhere
between AU$30,000 and AU$70,000," Ms. Pitt said.

"We want to sell our house and now we just can't.  We haven't had
a single person come to have a look at the house and it's the same
for everyone else."

Canberra-based lawyers Goodman Law met with dozens of residents
earlier this month and started collecting evidence for a class
action claim against the Commonwealth.

"Goodman Law believes that strong grounds exist for land owners to
seek compensation for the diminution of value of their land, loss
of ability to enjoy their land and/or inability to develop their
land," principal director Steven Gavagna wrote to residents.

The Department of Defence has previously said it would not
consider compensating residents around the Williamtown base.

Ms. Pitt said a video posted last week on YouTube showed what
residents have to look forward to when the JSF entered service.
Shot from a backyard beneath the current F/A-18 flight path, the
home movie shows Hornets screaming overhead as they perform tight
turns.  A sound meter shows readings of 103 decibels -- well above
the level that causes hearing loss after prolonged exposure.


BIDRACK INC: "Free" Penny Auction Web site Not Free, Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Verna Parino, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. BidRack Inc. and John Doe Defendant, Case No. 4:11-cv-
03149 (N.D. Calif., June 24, 2011), is based upon the Defendants'
alleged practice of deceptively marketing to, and billing
consumers for, unauthorized charges relating to BidRack's
Internet-based "penny auction" Web site.

The federal class action claims that Bidrack cheats visitors to
its "free" penny auction Web site by charging them $60 to $99 for
"registration," which it advertises as "completely FREE!"

The Plaintiff alleges that John Doe, through the use of deceptive
and fraudulent sponsored links, online pages, and other
advertisements, partners with BidRack to drive consumers to the
landing pages of BidRack.com, and profits from each Bidrack.com
registration conversion.  The Plaintiff believes that John Doe may
include Coleadium Inc. (Ads4Dough), CPA Staxx, Inc., Prominent
Leads LLC, and EWA Network Inc.

Ms. Parino is a resident of California.

BidRack is a Delaware corporation and the owner and operator of an
online "penny auction" located at http://www.bidrack.com John Doe
Defendant is an online advertising network that directly
participates in the acts and practices alleged in the complaint.

A copy of the Complaint in Parino v. BidRack Inc., Case No. 11-cv-
03149 (N.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/06/27/Bidrack.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Sean Reis, Esq.
          EDELSON MCGUIRE LLC
          30021 Tomas Street, Suite 300
          Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688
          Telephone: (949) 459-2124
          Facsimile: (949) 459-2123
          E-mail: sreis@edelson.com

               - and -

          Jay Edelson, Esq.
          Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
          Christopher L. Dore, Esq.
          EDELSON MCGUIRE LLC
          350 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1300
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 589-6370
          Facsimile: (312) 589-6378
          E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com
                  rbalabanian@edelson.com
                  cdore@edelson.com


CENTRO PROPERTIES: Ruling v. Directors to Boost Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
The Australian Associated Press reports that a multi-million
dollar class action against shopping center owner Centro will be
boosted by a Federal Court decision against the company's
directors, the claimants say.

Publicly listed litigation funder IMF and law firm Maurice
Blackburn are leading the action on behalf of hundreds of
investors seeking an estimated $200 million in damages due to
alleged deceptive conduct and breaches of continuous disclosure
obligations.

The allegations are leveled against Centro Properties Group,
Centro Retail Group, and their auditors, PricewaterhouseCoopers,
and relate to conduct from August 2007 to February 2008.

On June 27, the Federal Court found eight Centro directors
breached the Corporations Act by failing to properly disclose the
terms of billions of dollars worth of short-term debt in 2006/07
annual reports.

That decision provides further support for those involved in the
class action against Centro Properties, Centro Retail and
PricewaterhouseCoopers, IMF said on June 28.

Maurice Blackburn also welcomed the Federal Court ruling.

"The Federal Court decision reinforces the class action case,"
senior associate Martin Hyde said.

Hearings in the class action are due to begin in the Federal Court
in Melbourne in March next year.


COMMAND SECURITY: Defends Security Guards' Suit in California
-------------------------------------------------------------
Command Security Corporation is defending itself against a class
action lawsuit commenced by security guards, according to the
Company's June 24, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the year ended March 31, 2011.

On May 3, 2011, a purported class action complaint was filed in
Orange County, California, Superior Court against the Company
seeking to represent a class of past and present employees of the
Company employed as security guards in the State of California
since May 2, 2007.  The complaint alleges meal and rest period and
paycheck information violations, but does not raise any overtime
claims.  The Company says it intends to conduct a vigorous defense
of this case.


ELI LILLY: Court Rejects Appeal to Revive Zyprexa Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Brent Kendall, Dow Jones Newswires, reports that the U.S. Supreme
Court on June 27 rejected an appeal that sought to revive class-
action claims against Eli Lilly & Co. involving its antipsychotic
drug Zyprexa.

Insurers and other benefits providers alleged they overpaid for
Zyprexa as a result of misrepresentations by Lilly about the
safety and efficacy of the drug, and because Lilly aggressively
promoted the drug for uses not approved by the Food and Drug
Administration.

The plaintiffs were seeking to revive their case after the New
York-based 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last year that
a trial judge was wrong to allow the class action to proceed.  The
appeals court ruled the plaintiffs' claims were too attenuated
because there wasn't a direct link between the prices they paid
for the blockbuster drug and Lilly's alleged marketing
misrepresentations.

The Supreme Court, without comment, refused to disturb the 2nd
Circuit ruling in favor of Lilly.

In 2009, Lilly agreed to pay $1.42 billion and pleaded guilty to a
criminal charge in a settlement with federal prosecutors who
accused the company of illegally marketing Zyprexa.

The case is Sergeants Benevolent Association Health and Welfare
Fund v. Eli Lilly, 10-1173.


FOREST LABORATORIES: Expects to Resolve Merger-Related Suits Soon
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Forest Laboratories, Inc., is anticipating a signing of a formal
stipulation to settle a consolidated lawsuit in Delaware arising
from its proposed merger with Clinical Data Inc., according to the
Company's June 24, 2011, Form 8-K/A filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

Clinical Data Inc. entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger
dated February 22, 2011, as amended, with Forest Laboratories,
Inc., a Delaware corporation, FL Holding CV, an entity organized
under the laws of the Netherlands and a wholly owned subsidiary of
Forest ("Parent"), and Magnolia Acquisition Corp., a Delaware
corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of the Parent
("Purchaser"), which was completed on April 13, 2011.

Between February 25, 2011, and March 25, 2011, eight putative
class action lawsuits were filed against Clinical Data, members of
its board of directors, Forest, the Purchaser and the Parent
arising out of the Merger.  The M&A Actions generally allege that
the members of the board of directors of Clinical Data breached
their fiduciary duties of loyalty, care, independence, good faith
and fair dealing to its stockholders by entering into the Merger
Agreement because they, among other things, used a process that
was unfair and inadequate and tailored to better their own
interests at the expense of Clinical Data's public stockholders
and failed to provide Clinical Data's stockholders with material
information regarding the merger.  The M&A Actions also allege
that Forest, Purchaser and Clinical Data aided and abetted the
board of directors of Clinical Data in breaching their fiduciary
duties.  Plaintiffs seek monetary damages in an unspecified amount
to be determined at trial.  One lawsuit was filed in the Superior
Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, County of Middlesex,
another two lawsuits were filed in the United States District
Court of Massachusetts, and the other five Lawsuits were filed in
the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware.  The first four
Delaware Lawsuits were consolidated on March 11, 2011, and that
same day, plaintiffs to this consolidated action filed a
consolidated complaint.  The fifth Delaware Lawsuit was filed on
March 14, 2011, and was consolidated with the Delaware
Consolidated Action on March 25, 2011.

On March 25, 2011, the plaintiffs in the Delaware Consolidated
Action entered into a Memorandum of Understanding providing for
the settlement of the Delaware Consolidated Action.  The MOU
resolves the allegations by the plaintiffs against the defendants
in connection with the Merger Agreement and, pending confirmatory
discovery and approval of the court, provides for a general
release by the class of Clinical Data shareholders of all claims
against defendants and their affiliates in connection with the
transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement.  In the MOU,
the parties agreed to negotiate in good faith an appropriate
Settlement Agreement, which will provide that upon approval of the
settlement, the Delaware Consolidated Action will be dismissed
with prejudice.  In addition, the MOU required that Clinical Data
provide additional supplemental disclosures to the Schedule 14D-9
previously filed by Clinical Data, which were filed with the SEC
on March 28, 2011, in an amended Schedule 14D-9.

Clinical Data believes that the supplemental disclosures were not
required to be disclosed under federal securities laws or under
state law and are not material as a matter of law or in the
context of a security holder's decision to tender Securities in
the tender offer commenced pursuant to the Merger Agreement.  The
parties to the Delaware Consolidated Action are engaged in
confirmatory discovery, after which they anticipate signing a
formal Stipulation of Settlement and submitting the proposed
settlement to the Delaware Chancery Court for approval.  In the
event that the settlement in Delaware is not approved, Clinical
Data says it intends to defend against the allegations set forth
in the Delaware Consolidated Action.  Regarding the three actions
in Massachusetts, all three have been dismissed.  Clinical Data
believes the allegations in the lawsuits are entirely without
merit and, as a result, have defended and intend to continue to
defend against them.  At this time, Clinical Data believes an
unfavorable outcome is less than probable and is unable to
estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of possible loss,
but does not believe losses, if any, would have a material effect
on the results of operations or financial position taken as a
whole.


HEART TRONICS: Awaits Approval of Consolidated Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Heart Tronics, Inc., is awaiting court approval of its settlement
of a consolidated complaint titled In re Signalife, Inc.
Securities Litigation, Case No. 6:08-cv-02995-RBH (D.S.C.),
according to the Company's June 24, 2011, Form 8-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

On August 28 and September 16, 2008, two putative class action
complaints were filed in the United States District Court for the
District of South Carolina, Greenville Division, against the
Company and certain of its current and former officers, directors,
and employees by certain stockholders on behalf of themselves and
other stockholders who purchased the Company's common stock
between January 29, 2004, and April 14, 2008.  The complaints
assert claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.  The complaints allege that the defendants violated
the federal securities laws during the period by issuing false and
misleading statements and/or concealing material facts concerning
the Company's current and prospective business and financial
results.  The complaints also allege that, as a result of these
actions, the Company's stock price was artificially inflated
during the class period.  On November 20, 2008, the Court
consolidated these complaints as In re Signalife, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 6:08-cv-02995-RBH (D.S.C.).  Recently, the
Company entered into a settlement with the plaintiffs pursuant to
which the Company's insurance carrier would deposit the sum of
$4 million into a trust account held by an administrator for the
sole purpose of paying attorneys' fees and costs, with the balance
to be paid to the members of the class.  The Insurance Carrier has
since made the deposit and the Court has on calendar a hearing
date to approve the settlement.  The administrator is currently
processing claims.


INTEGRATED HEALTHCARE: Discovery in Consolidated Suit Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Integrated Healthcare Holdings, Inc., is currently exchanging
discovery with other parties in a consolidated class action
lawsuit pending in California, according to the Company's June 24,
2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended March 31, 2011.

On June 5, 2009, a potential class action lawsuit was filed
against the Company by Alexandra Avery.  Ms. Avery purports to
represent all 12-hourly employees and the complaint alleges causes
of action for restitution of unpaid wages as a result of unfair
business practices, injunctive relief for unfair business
practices, failure to pay overtime wages, and penalties associated
therewith.  On December 23, 2009, the Company filed an answer to
the complaint, generally denying all of the plaintiff's
allegations.  On January 25, 2010, a potential class action
lawsuit was filed against the Company by Julie Ross.  Ms. Ross
purports to represent all similarly-situated employees and the
complaint alleges causes of action for violation of the California
Labor Code and unfair competition law.  On Sept. 3, 2010, the
plaintiffs in both the Avery and Ross actions filed a consolidated
complaint that alleges the causes of action found in the initial
Ross complaint.  On October 12, 2010, the Company filed an answer
to the Consolidated Complaint, which generally denied all
allegations.

The Company says it intends to vigorously defend itself in
connection with the claims in the Consolidated Complaint.  The
parties are currently exchanging discovery in the action.  At this
early stage in the proceedings, the Company is unable to determine
the cost of defending this lawsuit or the impact, if any, this
action may have on its results of operations.


KAYLA ENTERPRISES: Accused of Violating Illinois Wage Laws
----------------------------------------------------------
Ernestine Johnson, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated v. Kayla Enterprises, Inc. and Keith M. Allen, Case No.
2011-CH-22699 (Ill. Cir. Ct., June 24, 2011), arises from the
Defendants' policy of requiring their cashier employees to count
their cash register drawers before clocking in at the beginning of
their shifts and after clocking off at the end of their shifts, in
violation of the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, the Illinois Wage
Payment and Collection Act and the contracts Kayla entered into
with its cashier employees.  The Plaintiff demands trial by jury.

Pursuant to a uniform policy that Kayla applies at each of its
McDonalds locations in Illinois, Kayla required or requires her
and each class member to count his or her cash register after
entering his or her employee number into the electronic
timekeeping system at the end of each shift, Ms. Johnson alleges.
As a result of this policy, she contends, she and each class
member received or receives no compensation for time spent
counting the cash register drawer, and therefore, receives less
than the minimum wage required under Illinois law.

Ms. Johnson worked as a cashier for Kayla from February 2009 to
January 2011.  She was an hourly employee earning minimum wage.

Kayla, which is authorized to do business in Illinois, does
business under the name McDonalds and is a franchisee of non-party
McDonalds Corporation.  Mr. Allen is the owner, president, and
secretary of Kayla.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kenneth J. Brennan, Esq.
          KENBRENNAN LAW, P.C.
          502 West Main Street, Suite 300
          Collinsville, IL 62234
          Telephone: (618) 343-4222
          Facsimile: (866) 314-6780
          E-mail: kbrennan@kbrennanlaw.com

               - and -

          Timothy E. Hoerman, Esq.
          CUMER SPINA
          180 North LaSalle Street, Suite 3300
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 980-3035
          Facsimile: (312) 726-3818
          E-mail: thoerman@cremerspina.com


MEDQUIST HOLDINGS: Court Approves Shareholder Suit Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
A New Jersey state court approved a settlement in the shareholder
class action lawsuit against MedQuist Holdings Inc., according to
the Company's June 24, 2011, Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

On February 8, 2011, and February 10, 2011, two of MedQuist Inc.'s
minority shareholders filed class action complaints in the
Superior Court of New Jersey, Burlington County, Chancery
Division, against MedQuist Inc., the individual members on
MedQuist Inc.'s board of directors and the Company.  Plaintiffs
alleged that the defendants breached certain fiduciary duties they
owed to minority shareholders of MedQuist Inc. in connection with
the structuring and disclosure of the Company's public exchange
offer under which the Company acquired additional shares of
MedQuist Inc.'s common stock resulting in the Company owning
approximately 97% of MedQuist Inc.'s issued and outstanding
shares.

On March 4, 2011, the parties to the Shareholder Litigation
entered into a memorandum of understanding that outlined the
material terms of a proposed settlement of the Shareholder
Litigation.  Under the terms of the MOU, the Company agreed to
extend the expiration of the Public Exchange Offer and further
agreed that if, as a result of the Public Exchange Offer, the
Company obtained ownership of at least 90% of the outstanding
common stock of MedQuist Inc., the Company would conduct a short-
form merger under applicable law to acquire the remaining shares
of MedQuist Inc. common stock that the Company does not currently
own at the same exchange ratio applicable under the Public
Exchange Offer.  MedQuist Inc. agreed to make certain supplemental
disclosures concerning the Public Exchange Offer, which were
contained in an amendment to Schedule 14D-9 that MedQuist Inc.
filed with the SEC on March 7, 2011.  The Company also agreed to
use its best efforts to finalize a stipulation of settlement and
present it to the Court for preliminary approval within thirty
days of the date of the MOU.

On April 1, 2011, the parties executed the Stipulation of
Settlement that memorialized the terms of the settlement outlined
in the MOU.  On this same date, plaintiffs' counsel filed with the
Clerk of the Court a Motion for Preliminary Approval of the
Proposed Stipulation of Settlement.  The Motion asked the Court
to, among other things, (a) hold a hearing to address preliminary
approval of the Stipulation of Settlement, (b) certify a class,
for purposes of effectuating the Stipulation of Settlement only,
of all MedQuist Inc.'s shareholders (except the named defendants
and their families and affiliates) as of and including the date of
the closing of the short-form merger contemplated under the
Stipulation of Settlement, and (c) schedule a final hearing within
60 days to determine whether the Stipulation of Settlement is
reasonable and fair and should receive final approval.

The Court held a preliminary approval hearing on April 19, 2011,
and entered an Order preliminarily approving the settlement and
setting a final approval hearing for June 17, 2011.  The
Preliminary Approval Order also required MedQuist Inc. to provide
mail and publication notice of the proposed settlement to all
shareholders of recorded and established deadlines for objections
to the settlement and for filing briefs in support and in
opposition to the settlement.

On June 17, 2011, following mail and publication notice to
MedQuist Inc.'s shareholders, the Court held a fairness hearing on
the settlement.  On this date, the Court entered an Order and
Final Judgment that, among other things, (a) certified the
settlement class consisting of all MedQuist Inc.'s shareholders
(except the named defendants and their families and affiliates) as
of and including the date of the closing of the short-form merger
contemplated under the Stipulation of Settlement, (b) found the
terms set forth in the Stipulation of Settlement to be fair and
reasonable and in the best interests of the Settlement Class, and
(c) approved the application for attorney's fees and costs and
awarded plaintiffs' counsel $400,000.


METROACCESS: Riders File Class Action Over Tuberculosis Exposure
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kytja Weir, writing for Washington Examiner, reports that a group
of MetroAccess riders has filed a class-action lawsuit against
Metro and a contractor, charging the transit service exposed them
to potentially fatal tuberculosis.

A driver on the service for people with disabilities had the
contagious airborne disease and drove around riders for several
months in 2008.  Rider Ronnie Andrews filed the case on June 16 in
D.C. Superior Court on behalf of other unnamed riders who may have
been exposed.

Mr. Andrews did not get tuberculosis, the complaint said.  But his
attorney David Wasser said at least three of the approximately 90
riders who have signed onto the case have tested positive.

They have a latent form of the disease, he said, which does not
show symptoms yet requires months of treatment and subsequent
monitoring to prevent it from becoming active.

In December 2008, Metro had said it sent a letter to 762
MetroAccess customers the month before who had contact with the
infected driver between April and mid-October 2008.  The agency
and its contractor, MV Transportation, said they had provided the
riders' information to the District's TB Control Program.

Mr. Wasser praised D.C. health officials for how they have dealt
with the situation.  But he said the exposure has caused hassles
and stress to an already vulnerable group.

"This segment of the population are people who are dealing with
more than their share of life's problems," Mr. Wasser said.

Some have medical conditions, such as HIV, that make them more at
risk for catching tuberculosis, while others have psychological
problems that add to the burden, he said.  Some have physical
conditions that make getting to treatment difficult.

He said one woman had to delay a kidney transplant for months.
One family found out their foster child was on the list,
potentially exposing their family of foster kids.  "They were
really upset," Mr. Wasser said.

Others were scared to tell anyone and quarantined themselves from
families and loved ones, he said.

And an untold number didn't get the notices, he said.  A blind
rider didn't know until reached by the attorneys, Mr. Wasser said,
because he couldn't read his mail.  Some had moved from their
addresses.  He said the most vulnerable riders are likely the ones
who didn't receive the notification and may be homeless today.

Metro filed a motion to dismiss the case in U.S. District Court
for the District of Columbia on June 24.  It acknowledges that one
of its drivers was diagnosed with TB but has denied the other
allegations in the court filings.  Spokesman Steven Taubenkibel
declined to comment further on the case, saying the agency does
not comment on active litigation.


NYSE EURONEXT: Signs MOU to Settle Combination-Related Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
NYSE Euronext entered into a memorandum of understanding to settle
lawsuits over its proposed business combination with Deutsche
Borse AG, et al., according to the Company's June 24, 2011, Form
8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

On February 15, 2011, NYSE Euronext, a Delaware corporation,
Deutsche Borse AG, a company organized under the laws of the
Federal Republic of Germany, Alpha Beta Netherlands Holding N.V.,
a public limited liability company incorporated under the laws of
the Netherlands, and Pomme Merger Corporation, a Delaware
corporation and wholly owned subsidiary of Holdco, entered into a
business combination agreement (as amended, the "Business
Combination Agreement") pursuant to which NYSE Euronext and
Deutsche Borse agreed to combine their respective businesses and
become subsidiaries of Holdco.

As previously disclosed in the Definitive Proxy Statement on
Schedule 14A filed with the SEC by NYSE Euronext on May 12, 2011,
following the announcement of the combination on February 15,
2011, several complaints were filed in the Delaware Court of
Chancery; the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of
New York; and the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York, each challenging the proposed combination.  The Delaware
cases were subsequently consolidated under the caption In re NYSE
Euronext Shareholders Litigation, Consol. C.A. No. 6220-VCS.  The
New York Court cases were coordinated, and a Master File was
created, under the caption In re NYSE Euronext Shareholders
Litigation, Index No. 773000/11.  The actions were brought as
putative class actions on behalf of shareholders of NYSE Euronext
and variously name as defendants NYSE Euronext, its directors at
the time of the announcement of the combination, Deutsche Borse,
Merger Sub and Holdco, and allege that the individual defendants
breached their fiduciary duties in connection with their
consideration and approval of the combination and that the entity
defendants aided and abetted those breaches.  On May 26, 2011,
plaintiffs in the actions filed a motion in the Delaware Court
seeking a preliminary injunction enjoining the scheduled July 7,
2011 NYSE Euronext shareholder vote on the combination.

On June 16, 2011, the plaintiffs in the actions, the NYSE Euronext
defendants, Deutsche Borse and Holdco entered into a memorandum of
understanding setting forth their agreement in principal regarding
a proposed settlement of all claims asserted in the actions.  As
part of the settlement, the NYSE Euronext defendants acknowledged
that the pendency and prosecution of the actions were a factor in
the NYSE Euronext board of directors' decision to support
management's recommendation that Holdco declare a special dividend
and consequently provide appraisal rights.  Additionally, in the
MOU, Holdco acknowledged its intent to recommend to the Holdco
board of directors that following the completion of the
combination Holdco act upon the recommendations of the boards of
directors of NYSE Euronext and Deutsche Borse that Holdco issue
the special dividend subject to the approval of the Holdco board
of directors, consistent with its fiduciary duties.  As part of
the settlement, the parties agreed to seek to remove or withdraw
any pending requests for interim relief, specifically including
plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction in the Delaware
action.

The settlement is contingent upon, among other items, the
execution of a formal stipulation of settlement, Delaware Court
approval following notice to the class, final dismissal of the
actions with prejudice, and the completion of the combination.  If
Holdco were to fail to pay the special dividend, for any reason,
the parties would have the option to terminate the settlement.  If
the settlement is consummated, it would release all claims that
the plaintiffs and all members of the class may have arising out
of or relating in any manner to the combination, as described in
the MOU, including the  federal action pending in SDNY.


ORECK CORP: Sued Over False Claims on Halo Vacuum Cleaner
---------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims
Oreck Corp. pushes its Halo vacuum cleaner with false claims about
"scientifically proven technology to eliminate common viruses,
germs and allergens."

A copy of the Complaint in Chenier, et al. v. Oreck Corporation,
Case No. 11-cv-05321 (C.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/06/27/Vacuum.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Daniel R. Tamez, Esq.
          GNAU & TAMEZ LAW GROUP
          1010 Second Avenue, Suite 1750
          San Diego, CA 92101
          E-mail: danieltamcz@sdinjuryattorney.com

               - and -

          Maje Nachawati, Esq.
          4925 Greenville Ave., Suite 715
          Dallas, TX 75206

               - and -

          Jeremy R. Wilson, Esq.
          302 N. Market St., Suite 510
          Dallas, TX 75202


PHILIP MORRIS: Sup. Court Rejects Bid to Question $270MM Award
--------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Stohr, writing for Bloomberg News, reports that the U.S.
Supreme Court refused to question an order that requires the
nation's tobacco companies to spend more than $270 million on a
Louisiana smoking cessation program.

Cigarette makers including Altria Group Inc.'s Philip Morris USA
and Reynolds American Inc.'s R.J. Reynolds contended that state
courts violated the Constitution by letting the case go forward as
a class action on behalf of all Louisiana smokers who want to
participate in a cessation program.  The companies said an
individual smoker should have been required to show he or she was
entitled to damages.

The question was whether state courts can "impose massive
liability in a class action without a truly representative trial
of individual claims," the companies argued in their appeal.

Last week, the court threw out a nationwide gender-bias suit
against Wal-Mart Stores Inc.  That ruling centered on the rules
governing group suits in federal courts and in theory could be
overridden by Congress.

The lead Louisiana plaintiff, Deania M. Jackson, urged the Supreme
Court not to hear the case, contending she was suing under a state
law that doesn't require individualized proof.  Ms. Jackson argued
that no individual plaintiff would file a suit seeking smoking-
cessation services valued at $153 a year.

"That Louisiana makes such a cause of action available as a class
action without requiring proof of individualized reliance on
misrepresentations does not implicate the due process clause,"
Ms. Jackson argued.

In September, Justice Antonin Scalia issued a stay blocking the
order until the nation's highest court decided whether to get
involved.  In that order, Justice Scalia questioned the Louisiana
state court decision that ordered the payments.

"The apparent consequence of the court of appeal's holding is that
individual plaintiffs who could not recover had they sued
separately can recover only because their claims were aggregated
with others' through the procedural device of the class action,"
Justice Scalia wrote.

The Louisiana smokers claimed the cigarette makers hid the health
risks of smoking and committed fraud.  A 2004 jury verdict in the
case was the first to require cigarette makers to pay to help
smokers quit.  The original award, $591 million, was reduced on
appeal.

The current judgment requires the companies to pay $242 million,
plus $37 million in interest.

Philip Morris said in a statement that it is responsible for a
quarter of the judgment and that it has set aside about $30
million.

"Philip Morris USA is disappointed that the court declined to hear
our arguments because we believe the decision in this case rests
on a series of constitutional violations and is fundamentally
unfair," Murray Garnick, Altria Client Services senior vice
president and associate general counsel, said in a statement.

The case is Philip Morris v. Jackson, 10-735.


SEARS ROEBUCK: Clothes Dryer Class Action Back to 7th Circuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Merrion, writing for Crain's Chicago Business, reports that
the Supreme Court, in a case brought by purchasers of clothes
dryers sold by Sears Roebuck & Co., took another step on June 27
to clear up confusion in determining when class-action lawsuits
are appropriate.

The appeal pits Richard Posner, the cerebral and outspoken 7th
Circuit Court of Appeals justice, who wrote a sharply worded
opinion calling the case "near-frivolous," and Chicago class-
action attorney Clinton Krislov, a former candidate for U.S.
Senate and Illinois attorney general.

While the legal issues are complex and technical, the case boils
down to the question of whether a lawsuit that fails to be
certified as a class action in one state can be refiled in
another, as long as the allegations are somewhat different.

Mr. Krislov tried to sue Sears in Illinois on behalf of his client
and a half-million other buyers of a Sears dryer that was
advertised as having an "all stainless-steel" tub to prevent
clothes from getting rust stains.  The allegation was that the tub
actually contains a small piece of ceramic-coated, non-stainless
steel that potentially could rust.

When the case was not allowed to proceed as a class action, he
filed suit in California on behalf of another client, with
slightly different allegations.  Sears then asked the federal
district court in Chicago to block the California suit.  That plea
was rejected, but the Seventh Circuit overturned the district
court decision and blocked the case from proceeding.  "For lawyer
Krislov is nothing if not determined, indeed pugnacious,"
Judge Posner wrote.

But the Supreme Court on June 27 vacated that ruling and sent it
back to the 7th Circuit for reconsideration in light of its recent
decision in a similar case.  In early June, the high court ruled
that a federal judge can't block a state judge from certifying a
class action under similar circumstances but left open the
question of whether a federal judge can be blocked by another
federal judge.

Mr. Krislov on June 27 said it was "a good day for the average
person's right of access to the courts."  He characterized
Judge Posner's position as "heads I win, tails -- if that guy
loses, you do, too."

Mr. Krislov "has a better argument now," said Archis Parasharami,
a partner in the Washington office of Chicago law firm Mayer Brown
LLP, who co-chairs the firm's consumer litigation and class-action
group.  He also co-authored a friend of the court brief in support
of Sears for the Product Liability Advisory Council, a business
group, but he emphasized that he was speaking for himself.  "The
7th Circuit took a broad view of how class-action suits could be
precluded.  "The Supreme Court took a narrow view of it."

A spokesman for Sears declined to comment while the case is still
in litigation.


TOYOTA MOTOR: Appeal From Bondholder Suit Dismissal Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the dismissal of a putative bondholder class action
lawsuit against Toyota Motor Corporation remains pending,
according to the Company's June 24, 2011, Form 20-F filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
March 31, 2011.

On July 22, 2010, Toyota was sued in the Superior Court of the
State of California, County of Los Angeles, in a putative
bondholder class action filed on behalf of purchasers of Toyota
and Toyota Motor Credit Corporation bonds traded on foreign
securities exchanges.  The complaint alleges violations of
California securities law, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and
other state law claims.  On September 15, 2010, Toyota removed the
putative bondholder class action to the United States District
Court for the Central District of California.  On January 10,
2011, the District Court issued an order dismissing the case with
prejudice, and entered judgment in favor of defendants.  Plaintiff
has filed a notice of appeal to the United States Circuit Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Toyota believes that it has meritorious defenses to the case and
will vigorously defend itself.


TOYOTA MOTOR: Awaits Court OK of Antitrust Proceedings Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Toyota Motor Corporation is awaiting court approval of its
agreement to resolve antitrust proceedings filed against it and
other car manufacturers, according to the Company's June 24, 2011,
Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended March 31, 2011.

In February 2003, Toyota, General Motors, Ford, DaimlerChrysler,
Honda, Nissan, BMW and their sales subsidiaries in the Unites
States of America and Canada, as well as the National Automobile
Dealers Association and the Canadian Automobile Dealers
Association were named as defendants in approximately 85 purported
federal and state class action lawsuits on behalf of all
purchasers of new motor vehicles, who purchased their vehicles in
the United States on or after January 1, 2001.  As of April 1,
2005, the federal lawsuits were consolidated in the State of
Maine, and lawsuits in the State of California and the State of
New Jersey were also consolidated within the respective states.
Lawsuits in the state courts have been stayed until the federal
lawsuits proceed.

The complaints allege that the defendants violated the Sherman
Antitrust Act or state antitrust law by conspiring among
themselves and with their dealers to prevent the sale to United
States citizens of vehicles produced for the Canadian market,
resulting in higher prices to United States consumers.  Toyota
believes that its actions have been lawful.  In the interest of
resolving these legal actions, however, Toyota entered into a
settlement agreement with the plaintiffs in February 2006.  The
settlement agreement remains subject to court approval.  In the
meantime, the federal court granted summary judgment in favor of
the remaining defendants and the time to appeal has lapsed.
Current activity is centered in the California state courts,
although that action is stayed against Toyota pending a ruling on
the pending Toyota settlement.  In February 2011, the federal
court held a hearing with respect to approval of Toyota's
settlement agreement.  If final approval is granted, that approval
should resolve this matter for Toyota.

Toyota believes that it has meritorious defenses to the cases and
will vigorously defend against them.


TOYOTA MOTOR: Continues to Defend Antilock Braking Systems Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Toyota Motor Corporation continues to defend itself against two
consolidated class action lawsuits arising from alleged defects in
hybrid vehicles' antilock braking systems, according to the
Company's June 24, 2011, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the year ended March 31, 2011.

Beginning in February 2010, Toyota has also been sued in
approximately 20 putative class actions alleging defects in the
antilock braking systems in various hybrid vehicles that cause the
vehicles to fail to stop in a timely manner when driving in
certain road conditions.  The plaintiffs seek an order requiring
Toyota to repair the vehicles and claim that all owners and
lessees of vehicles, including those for which recalls have been
implemented, should be compensated for the defects related to the
antilock braking systems.  These cases have been consolidated into
two actions, one in federal court in the United States District
Court for the Central District of California and one in state
court in the Los Angeles County Superior Court.

Toyota believes that it has meritorious defenses to the cases and
will vigorously defend against them.


TOYOTA MOTOR: Continues to Defend Unintended Acceleration Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Toyota Motor Corporation continues to defend itself against
lawsuits alleging defects in its vehicles that lead to unintended
acceleration, according to the Company's June 24, 2011, Form 20-F
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended March 31, 2011.

There are approximately 200 putative class actions that have been
filed since November 2009 alleging that certain Toyota, Lexus and
Scion vehicles contain defects that lead to unintended
acceleration.  Many of the putative class actions allege that
malfunctions involving the floor mats and accelerator pedals do
not cover the full scope of possible defects related to unintended
acceleration.  Rather, they allege that Electronic Throttle
Control System-intelligent (ETCS-i) is the true cause and that
Toyota has failed to inform consumers despite its awareness of the
problem.  In general, these cases seek recovery for the alleged
diminution in value of the vehicles, injunctive and other relief.
In April 2010, the approximately 190 federal cases were
consolidated for pretrial proceedings into a single multi-district
litigation in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California.  In addition, of the approximately 325
individual product liability personal injury cases relating to
unintended acceleration pending against Toyota, the federal cases
have been or are likely to be consolidated into the multi-district
litigation.  The remaining individual product liability personal
injury cases relating to unintended acceleration remain pending in
various state courts in the United States.  This consolidated
federal action lawsuit is in its early stages and has included
document production, depositions and various motions.

Additionally, there are approximately ten putative class actions
in various state courts, including California.  The claims are
similar to the class actions in federal court.  One of the
putative California class actions was filed by the Orange County
District Attorney and, among other things, seeks statutory
penalties alleging that Toyota sold and marketed defective
vehicles and that consumers have been harmed as a result of
diminution in value of their vehicles.

Toyota believes that it has meritorious defenses to the cases and
will vigorously defend against them.


TOYOTA MOTOR: Consolidated Calif. Shareholder Suit Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
A consolidated shareholder class action lawsuit against Toyota
Motor Corporation remains pending in California, according to the
Company's June 24, 2011, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the year ended March 31, 2011.

From February through April 2010, Toyota was sued in six putative
shareholder class actions on behalf of investors in Toyota
American Depository Shares and common stock.  The cases have been
consolidated into a single action in the United States District
Court for the Central District of California, and a lead plaintiff
has been appointed.  The consolidated complaint, filed October 4,
2010, alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Japan's Financial Instruments and Exchange Act on the basis
that defendants made statements that were false or misleading in
that they failed to disclose problems with, or the causes of,
unintended acceleration in a number of vehicle models.  Plaintiffs
seek monetary damages in an amount to be proven at trial, interest
and attorneys' fees and costs.

Toyota believes that it has meritorious defenses to the case and
will vigorously defend itself.


TRIUMPH FOODS: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------------
Ray Scherer, writing for St. Joseph News-Press, reports that
Triumph Foods is facing two lawsuits that deal with allegations
involving various labor issues.

One of the petitions was filed on a class-action basis, with three
employees named as plaintiffs.  A jury trial is sought in St.
Joseph.

Through their attorneys, Roberto Garcia, Luis Comendador and Pedro
Carrion allege that Triumph violated provisions of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and Missouri Minimum Wage Law for unpaid wages,
related penalties and damages.

The suit, filed in U.S. Western District Court, stated that
Triumph failed to properly pay straight time and overtime to the
men and other hourly meat-processing production workers.
Attorneys Michael Brady and Mark Kistler of Overland Park, Kan.,
said the action is intended to recover off-the-clock wages.

"These cases typically take quite awhile," Mr. Kistler said.
"There are so many records to review."

"There's a period of slack time," Mr. Brady added when asked of
any pending activity.

The case file said the employees were not fully paid for
completing all their duties.

"Plaintiffs and other hourly meat processing employees of
defendant have spent time for defendant's benefit on various
tasks, including donning and doffing protective gear, walking to
and from production lines, waiting in line for equipment, cleaning
equipment, and waiting at or near their assigned production line
when the production line was not running," the document said.

Triumph, it said, allegedly relied on a "gang time" pay policy for
the employees -- in which meat processors were typically paid only
for the time that production lines were in operation -- along with
five minutes daily for "dress time."

The suit seeks damages for the three men and similar employees for
all unpaid straight time, with overtime compensation at 1 1/2
times the regular pay rate beyond a 40-hour work week.  The
petition seeks to pay all meat processing employees within three
years dated from the court filing.

The amount sought, related to the state minimum wage claim,
exceeds $5 million.

"Conservatively estimating the average number of class members
during the class period at 2,000 hourly meat processing employees,
the class claim would amount to $27 million," the suit stated.

In the other recent case involving Triumph, an attorney
representing plaintiff Keith Rankins alleged the hog processor
discriminated, harassed, retaliated against and wrongfully
terminated his client, who is black.  A jury trial is being sought
in state court and John De La Cruz, Mr. Rankins' supervisor, is
named as a co-defendant.

Attorney Paul Bullman of Kansas City declined comment.  Triumph is
seeking to have the case moved out of Buchanan County and into the
Western District Court in Kansas City.

Triumph Chief Administrative Officer Patt Lilly had no comment on
either of the court actions.

"These are cases that have recently come before us," Mr. Lilly
said.  "We're not in a position to comment and simply are
evaluating" the cases, he added.


WALDHEIM CEMETERY: Sued Over Contracts for Burial Plot Care
-----------------------------------------------------------
Linda S. Kagan, on behalf of plaintiff and a class v. Waldheim
Cemetery Co., Zion Gardens, Inc., and Rosemont Park, Inc., Case
No. 2011-CH-22722 (Ill. Cir. Ct., June 24, 2011) is brought to
secure redress for trust fund violations in connection with the
operation of the cemetery formerly known as Rosemont Park and now
known as Zion Gardens, located at 3600 N. Narragansett Avenue, in
Chicago, Illinois.  Rosemont Park sold the Cemetery to Waldheim
Cemetery in April 2011.

The Plaintiff says that Rosemont Park's officers admitted to
Illinois officials that they had used the principal of the
Cemetery's care funds to pay for the operation of the Cemetery.
She adds that Zion Gardens and Waldheim Cemetery sent her a letter
stating that her previous care contracts or arrangements with
Rosemont Park are no longer valid.  Ms. Kagan further asserted
that Rosemont Park committed a breach of fiduciary duty by
misapplying care funds held in trust, and that Zion Gardens and
Waldheim Cemetery engaged in unfair practices by refusing to honor
their statutory liability and representing that class members had
to pay additional sums for care of burial plots at the Cemetery.

Ms. Kagan entered into a perpetual care contract covering the care
of a family burial plot at the Cemetery in 2005.

Rosemont Park was the owner and operator of the Cemetery in 2005
and until 2011.  Waldheim Cemetery purchased the Cemetery in April
2011.  Zion Gardens is involved in the ownership or operation of
the Cemetery after April 2011.  All the Defendants are Illinois
corporations.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
          Cathleen M. Combs, Esq.
          James O. Latturner, Esq.
          Tiffany N. Hardy, Esq.
          EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC
          120 S. LaSalle Street, Suite 1800
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 739-4200
          Facsimile: (312) 419-0379
          E-mail: courtecl@edcombs.com
                  ccombs@edcombs.com
                  jlatturner@edcombs.com



                             *********

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

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland USA.  Leah
Felisilda, Noemi Irene A. Adala, Joy A. Agravante, Julie Anne
Lopez, Christopher Patalinghug, Frauline Abangan and Peter A.
Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2011.  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  * * *