CAR_Public/110704.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Monday, July 4, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 130

                             Headlines

ADVENTURE PLAYSETS: Recalls 240,000 Wooden Swing Sets
BELL CANADA: Faces Class Action for Misleading Advertising
BCE INC: Siskinds & Bates Barristers File Class Action
BP EXPLORATION: 9th Circuit Dismisses Securities Class Action
CLUB CAR: Recalls 800 Golf Cars and Hospitality Vehicles

COMVERSE TECHNOLOGY: Accrued $146-Mil. Liability as of April 30
COMVERSE TECHNOLOGY: Continues to Defend Suits in Israel
CONAGRA FOODS: Sued Over Deceptive Advertising on Wesson Oils
IPEX INC: Gets More Leaky Pipe Claims Amid Settlement
LAWSON SOFTWARE: Signs MOU to Settle GGC Merger-Related Suits

LONGTOP FINANCIAL: Sued Over Alleged Accounting Fraud
LOOPNET INC: Signs MOU to Settle CoStar Merger-Related Suits
PALAU: Motion to Reconsider Deportation Stay Order Denied
SIOUX FALLS, SD: Settles Class Action Over Sewer System
STURM FOODS: Faces Class Action Over Coffee Cartridges




                             *********

ADVENTURE PLAYSETS: Recalls 240,000 Wooden Swing Sets
-----------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Adventure Playsets, of Pittsburg, Kansas, announced a voluntary
recall of approximately 240,000 Adventure Playsets Wooden Swing
Sets.  A number of these products were recalled in November 2009
for a similar hazard, which listed 275,000 playsets in the U.S.
and 6,800 in Canada.  Consumers should stop using recalled
products immediately unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal
to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The wood in the posts of the fort sections on the swing sets can
weaken due to rotting, posing a fall hazard.

Adventure Playsets has received more than 500 complaints reporting
concern over the weakened wood in the 2x4 plastic-coated uprights.
One report of a fall was received when the ladder failed resulting
in bruises and scratches.

The swing sets come with swings, slides and ladders.  Each set has
a fort structure that uses green or cranberry colored plastic
coated 2"x4" wood upright posts and a green nylon fabric covered
shade.  The sets were sold under these names: Bellevue, Bellevue
II, Belmont, Durango, Durango II, Sedona, Tacoma, Tacoma II,
Ventura, Venture II and Yukon.  The name is printed on the
manufacturer's instructions that came with the play set.  The
recalled swing set name, model number, name of the retailer and
year sold are:

   SwingSet Name     Model No.      Retailers        Years
   -------------     ---------      ---------        -----
   Tacoma or         1-AP017        Walmart          2005
   Tacoma II         1-AP017-06                      2006
                     1-AP051-07                      2007

   Bellevue or       1-AP012        Toys-R-Us        2005
   Bellevue II       1-AP012-06                      2006
                     1-AP048-07                      2007

   Durango or        1-AP016        Walmart          2005
   Durango II        1-AP018                         2006
                     1-AP016-06                      2007
                     1-AP018-06
                     1-AP016-07

   Yukon             1-AP052-07     Academy Sports   2007

   Sedona            1-AP002        Walmart          2004

   Belmont           1-AP003        Mills Stores     2004

   Ventura or        1-AP008        Mills Stores     2004
   Ventura II        1-AP011        and Menards

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11262.html

The recalled products were manufactured in the United States of
America and sold at Academy Sports (the Yukon); Mills and Menards
(the Ventura/II) all from 2005 to 2007; Mills (the Belmont) in
2004; Toys-R-Us (the Bellevue/II); and Walmart (the Tacoma/II,
Durango/II, and Sedona).  The units sold for $300-$600.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled swing sets
and contact Adventure Playsets to obtain a free repair kit.
Repair kits will include the appropriate angled or vertical
upright posts for each model with instructions for dissembling and
reassembling each set.  For additional information, contact
Adventure Playsets toll free at (877) 840-9068 between 8:00 a.m.
and 5:00 p.m. Central Time Monday through Friday, visit the firm's
Web site at http://www.recall.adventureplaysets.com/or e-mail the
firm at custservice@adventureplayets.com


BELL CANADA: Faces Class Action for Misleading Advertising
----------------------------------------------------------
Mrs. Monique Charland on June 29 filed a motion to institute a
class action against Bell Canada for false and misleading
advertising as to the price of its services.

This class action stems from the communique issued by the Canadian
Competition Bureau on June 28, 2011 regarding the finalization of
an agreement with Bell Canada imposing an administrative sanction
of 10 million dollars for false and misleading advertising, being
the maximum amount provided for by the Competition Act.

The class action alleges that Bell Canada engaged in false and
misleading representations concerning the price of services it
offers, notably by inserting clauses which provide for additional
costs tied to services offered, drafted in an manner difficult to
read and placed in such a position to be easily missed by the
Class Members.

The class action is open to all persons in Canada who during the
period of December 1, 2007, to June 29, 2011 were contractually
bound with Bell Canada.

All persons concerned by the present motion to authorize the
institution of this class action, may, if they wish, provide us
with their relevant information by completing the form obtained by
consulting the Web site of the petitioner's lawyers at
http://www.paquettegadler.com

For any additional information regarding the present press
release, you may contact Mtre Karine St-Louis or Mtre Guy Paquette
of the law firm Paquette Gadler Inc. at 514-849-0771 or you may
also consult the Web site of the firm at
http://www.paquettegadler.comunder the section Class action.


BCE INC: Siskinds & Bates Barristers File Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Siskinds LLP and Bates Barristers on June 29
disclosed that they have filed a proposed securities class
proceeding in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice against BCE
Inc. and others.

The proceeding relates to the attempted acquisition of BCE in 2008
by a consortium of private equity funds.  In June 2008, certain
"un-named executives" made statements to the media in regard to
the prospects for securing the financing necessary to complete the
acquisition of BCE.

The defendants include BCE, those unnamed executives, and 6796508
Canada Inc., the corporate vehicle through which the consortium
planned to acquire BCE.

The plaintiff, 1654776 Ontario Limited, seeks to represent all
persons and entities who sold BCE shares or call options during
the period June 30, 2008, to and including July 4, 2008.

If you are a member of the Proposed Class, you are encouraged to
contact Siskinds LLP for further information.

For further information:

Inquiries may be made by telephone at (800) 461-6166 (ext. 2380)
or by e-mail at nicole.young@siskinds.com


BP EXPLORATION: 9th Circuit Dismisses Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Hull at Courthouse News Service reports that the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on Wednesday dismissed a
securities-fraud complaint against BP Exploration related to the
oil company's 2007 conviction for negligently discharging oil into
Alaska's Prudhoe Bay.

This decision from the federal appeals court in Seattle
unanimously reverses a federal judge's finding that BP's
contractual filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission laid adequate foundation for securities fraud.

BP Exploration pleaded guilty in 2007 to violating the Clean Water
Act after some 200,000 gallons of oil befouled Prudhoe Bay on
Alaska's North Slope.  The company admitted that the spill
resulted from internal corrosion in its pipelines.  In its plea
agreement, BP said it knew about accumulated sediment had caused
the corrosion, but it had neglected to fix the problem.

Claude Reese led a federal class action, claiming that BP's
negligence amounted to securities fraud, as the spill had caused
the company to temporarily shut down its operations in the bay and
costing investors billions of dollars.

Despite knowledge of the corrosion, BP failed to take action or
notify investors, Mr. Reese argued.  He also claimed that the oil
company's executives had made misleading statements about the
operation, and that BP continued to mislead investors though its
SEC filings.

U.S. District Judge Marsha Pechman in Seattle tossed most of
Mr. Reese's claims for failure to meet the heightened standards of
the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.  But the
judge said Mr. Reese could move ahead with the claim that accused
BP of defrauding investors through SEC filings.

On appeal, a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit reversed,
finding that the filings were forward-looking contractual
promises, the breaking of which did not amount to fraud.

"The breach of a contractual promise of future performance
typically does not constitute a misrepresentation that will
support an action for fraud," Judge Ronald Gould wrote for the
panel.  "BPXA's contractual promise to act as a prudent operator
did not expressly or implicitly assert that BPXA was in full
compliance with its obligations thereunder, and we do not view the
public filing of the ORC Agreement as the sort of traditional
fraudulent misrepresentation of fact that could induce investors
mistakenly to buy securities.  We hold that, in this case, the
public filing of a contract containing a promise of future
compliance did not, upon the contract's breach at a time after
execution, provide an actionable misrepresentation for the
purposes of a private damages action for securities fraud."


CLUB CAR: Recalls 800 Golf Cars and Hospitality Vehicles
--------------------------------------------------------
About 800 units of golf cars and hospitality, utility and
transport vehicles were voluntarily recalled by Club Car LLC, of
Augusta, Georgia, in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product
Safety Commission.  In November 2010, 5,000 units were recalled
for break pedal welds.  Consumers should stop using the product
immediately unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell
or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The brake pedal mounting blocks can crack and separate, resulting
in a loss of braking ability.  This can result in a crash.

Club Car has received no reports of brake pedal mounting blocks
breaking in the field.  No injuries have been reported.

The recalled vehicles are model 2011 DS golf cars and hospitality,
utility and transport vehicles used for short-distance
transportation.  The Club Car has various models, colors and sizes
including 2 to 6 passenger seating vehicles.  The vehicles can be
identified by the serial number, which is above and to the right
of the accelerator pedal.  A list of models and serial numbers
included in the recall are:

A. Golf Cars and Hospitality Vehicles

   * DS Electric Golf Car
     IQ System / PowerDrive
     System 48
     AQ
     1137-227664 to 1139-232150;

   * DS Gas Golf Car
     AG
     1137-227689 to 1139-233275; and

   * Cafe Express
     AF
     1137-228254 to 1139-231797; and

B. Transportation and Utility Vehicles

   * Villager 4
     TG
     1137-228179 to 1137-228179;

   * Villager 6, Villager 6 Plus
     KG/QS
     1137-227397 to 1139-232629;

   * Villager 8
     MG/QE
     1137-228251 to 1139-232424;

   * Carryall 232
     XL/XM
     1137-227646 to 1138-2229710;

   * TransPorter 4
     JS/JT
     1137-228594 to 1139-231845;

   * TransPorter 6
     JQ
     1137-227511 to 1139-232011;

   * Carryall 1, Carryall Turf 1
     FD/FG/HD/HG
     1137-227446 to 1139-233202;

   * Carryall 2, Carryall 2 Plus,
     Turf 2, Turf 2 Plus
     EG/PG/QB/QT/RG
     1137-227426 to 1139-233129;

   * Carryall 6, Carryall Turf 6
     JR/JU/JV
     1137-227518 to 1139-232421;

   * XRT 800, 810, 850, 900
     AE/JM/JY/JZ/XF/XJ
     1137-227641 to 1139-232482; and

   * Carryall 252, Turf 252
     JK/JL/XG/ZG
     1137-227376 to 1139-232478

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11746.html

The recalled products were manufactured in the United States of
America and sold at authorized Club Car dealers nationwide between
April 2011, and May 2011, for between $6,000 and $11,000.

Consumers should stop using the recalled Club Cars and contact the
firm to receive free brake pedal replacement mounting blocks.
Club Car is contacting all known owners of the recalled vehicles.
For more information, contact Club Car at (800) 227-0739 ext. 3580
between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time Monday through Friday
or go to the firm's Web site at http://www.clubcar.com/


COMVERSE TECHNOLOGY: Accrued $146-Mil. Liability as of April 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
Comverse Technology, Inc., had an accrued liability of $146.1
million as of April 30, 2011, in connection with the $165 million
settlement of the lawsuits arising from the Company's Special
Committee investigation in 2006, according to the Company's
June 22, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 30, 2011.

On March 14, 2006, Comverse Technology, Inc., announced the
creation of a Special Committee of its Board of Directors (the
"Special Committee") composed of outside directors to review CTI's
historic stock option grant practices and related accounting
matters, including, but not limited to, the accuracy of the stated
dates of option grants and whether all proper corporate procedures
were followed.  In November 2006, the Special Committee's
investigation was expanded to other financial and accounting
matters, including the recognition of revenue related to certain
contracts, errors in the recording of certain deferred tax
accounts, the misclassification of certain expenses, the misuse of
accounting reserves and the misstatement of backlog.  The Special
Committee issued its report on January 28, 2008.  Following the
commencement of the Special Committee's investigation, CTI,
certain of its subsidiaries and some of CTI's former directors and
officers and a current director were named as defendants in
several class and derivative actions, and CTI commenced direct
actions against certain of its former officers and directors.

           Petition for Remission of Civil Forfeiture

In July 2006, the U.S. Attorney filed a forfeiture action against
certain accounts of Jacob "Kobi" Alexander, CTI's former Chairman
and Chief Executive Officer, that resulted in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District entering an order freezing
approximately $50.0 million of Mr. Alexander's assets.  In order
to ensure that CTI receives the assets in Mr. Alexander's frozen
accounts, in July 2007, CTI filed with the U.S. Attorney a
Petition for Remission of Civil Forfeiture requesting remission of
any funds forfeited by Mr. Alexander.  The United States District
Court entered an order on November 30, 2010 directing that the
assets in such accounts be liquidated and remitted to CTI.  The
process of liquidating such assets has been completed and the
proceeds from the assets in such accounts have been transferred to
a class action settlement fund in conjunction with the settlements
of certain direct actions, the consolidated shareholder class
action and shareholder derivative actions.  The agreement to
settle the shareholder class action was approved by the court in
which such action was pending on June 23, 2010.  The agreement to
settle the federal and state derivative actions was approved by
the courts in which such actions were pending on July 1, 2010, and
September 23, 2010, respectively.

                    Shareholder Class Action

Beginning on or about April 19, 2006, class action lawsuits were
filed by persons identifying themselves as CTI shareholders,
purportedly on behalf of a class of CTI's shareholders who
purchased its publicly traded securities.  Two actions were filed
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
New York, and three actions were filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York.  On
August 28, 2006, the actions pending in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York were transferred to
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New
York.  A consolidated amended complaint under the caption In re
Comverse Technology, Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 06-CV- 1825, was filed
by the court-appointed Lead Plaintiff, Menorah Group, on March 23,
2007.  The consolidated amended complaint was brought on behalf of
a purported class of CTI shareholders who purchased CTI's publicly
traded securities between April 30, 2001, and November 14, 2006.
The complaint named CTI and certain of its former officers and
directors as defendants and alleged, among other things,
violations of Sections 10(b) and 14(a) of the Exchange Act, Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act
in connection with prior statements made by CTI with respect to,
among other things, its accounting treatment of stock options.
The action sought compensatory damages in an unspecified amount.

The parties to this action entered into a settlement agreement on
December 16, 2009, which was amended on June 19, 2010, and
approved by the court in which such action was pending on
June 23, 2010.  The Company recorded a charge associated with the
settlement during the fiscal year ended January 31, 2007.

                      Settlement Agreements

On December 16, 2009, and December 17, 2009, CTI entered into
agreements to settle the consolidated shareholder class action and
consolidated shareholder derivative actions, respectively.  The
agreement to settle the consolidated shareholder class action was
amended on June 19, 2010.  Pursuant to the amendment, CTI agreed
to waive certain rights to terminate the settlement in exchange
for a deferral of the timing of scheduled payments of the
settlement consideration and the right to a credit (the "Opt-out
Credit") in respect of a portion of the settlement funds that
would have been payable to a class member that elected not to
participate in and be bound by the settlement.  In connection with
such settlements, CTI dismissed its Direct Actions against Jacob
"Kobi" Alexander, the Company's former Chairman and Chief
Executive Officer, David Kreinberg, its former Executive Vice
President and Chief Financial Officer, and William F. Sorin, its
former Senior General Counsel and director, who, in turn,
dismissed any counterclaims they filed against CTI.

As part of the settlement of the consolidated shareholder class
action, as amended, CTI agreed to make payments to a class action
settlement fund in the aggregate amount of up to $165.0 million
that were paid or remain payable:

   * $1.0 million that was paid following the signing of the
     settlement agreement in December 2009;

   * $17.9 million that was paid in July 2010 (representing an
     agreed $21.5 million payment less a holdback of $3.6 million
     in respect of the anticipated Opt-out Credit, which holdback
     is required to be paid by CTI if the Opt-out Credit is
     less);

   * $30.0 million that was paid in May 2011; and

   * $112.5 million (less the amount, if any, by which the
     Opt-out Credit exceeds the holdback) payable on or before
     November 15, 2011.

Of the $112.5 million due on or before November 15, 2011, $82.5
million is payable in cash or, at CTI's election, in shares of
CTI's common stock valued using the ten day average of the closing
prices of CTI's common stock prior to such election, provided that
CTI's common stock is listed on a national securities exchange on
or before the payment date, and that the shares delivered at any
one time have an aggregate value of at least $27.5 million.  In
addition, under the terms of the settlement agreement, CTI had the
right to make the $30.0 million payment made in May 2011 in shares
of CTI's common stock if, prior thereto, CTI had met such
conditions to using shares as payment consideration.  CTI,
however, did not meet such conditions and accordingly, made such
$30.0 million payment in cash.

If CTI receives net cash proceeds from the sale of certain auction
rate securities (ARS) held by it in an aggregate amount in excess
of $50.0 million, CTI is required to use $50.0 million of such
proceeds to prepay the settlement amounts and, if CTI receives net
cash proceeds from the sale of such ARS in an aggregate amount in
excess of $100.0 million, CTI is required to use an additional
$50.0 million of such proceeds to prepay the settlement amounts.
In addition, CTI granted a security interest for the benefit of
the plaintiff class in the account in which CTI holds its ARS
(other than the ARS that were held in an account with UBS) and the
proceeds from any sales thereof, restricting CTI's ability to use
the proceeds from sales of such ARS until the amounts payable
under the settlement agreement are paid in full.  As of April 30,
2011, and January 31, 2011, the Company had $34.0 million and
$33.4 million, respectively, of cash received from sales and
redemptions of ARS (including interest thereon) to which these
provisions of the settlement agreement apply which were classified
in "Restricted cash and bank time deposits."

In addition, as part of the settlements of the Direct Actions, the
consolidated shareholder class action and shareholder derivative
actions, Mr. Alexander agreed to pay $60.0 million to CTI to be
deposited into the derivative settlement fund and then transferred
into the class action settlement fund.  All amounts payable by Mr.
Alexander have been paid.  Also, as part of the settlement of the
shareholder derivative actions, Mr. Alexander transferred to CTI
shares of Starhome B.V. representing 2.5% of its outstanding share
capital.

Pursuant to the amendment, Mr. Alexander agreed to waive certain
rights to terminate the settlement and received the right to a
credit in respect of a portion of the settlement funds that would
have been payable to a class member that elected not to
participate in and be bound by the settlement.  CTI's settlement
of claims against it in the class action for aggregate
consideration of up to $165.0 million (less the Opt-out Credit) is
not contingent upon Mr. Alexander satisfying his payment
obligations.  Certain other defendants in the Direct Actions and
the shareholder derivative actions have paid or agreed to pay to
CTI an aggregate of $1.4 million and certain former directors
agreed to relinquish certain outstanding unexercised stock
options.  As part of the settlement of the shareholder derivative
actions, CTI paid, in October 2010, $9.4 million to cover the
legal fees and expenses of the plaintiffs.  In September 2010, CTI
received insurance proceeds of $16.5 million under its directors'
and officers' insurance policies in connection with the
settlements of the shareholder derivative actions and the
consolidated shareholder class action.

Under the terms of the settlements, Mr. Alexander and his wife
relinquished their claims to the assets in his frozen accounts
that were subject to the forfeiture action, and the United States
District Court entered an order on November 30, 2010 directing
that the assets in such accounts be liquidated and remitted to
CTI.  The process of liquidating such assets has been completed
and the proceeds from the assets in such accounts have been
transferred to the class action settlement fund.

The agreement to settle the consolidated shareholder class action,
as amended, was approved by the court in which such action was
pending on June 23, 2010.  The agreement to settle the federal and
state derivative actions was approved by the courts in which such
actions were pending on July 1, 2010, and Sept. 23, 2010,
respectively.

As of April 30, 2011, and January 31, 2011, the Company had an
accrued liability for this matter of $146.1 million.


COMVERSE TECHNOLOGY: Continues to Defend Suits in Israel
--------------------------------------------------------
Comverse Technology, Inc., continues to defend itself and its
subsidiaries from lawsuits currently pending in Israel, according
to the Company's June 22, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
April 30, 2011.

CTI and certain of its subsidiaries were named as defendants in
four potential class action litigations in the State of Israel
involving claims to recover damages incurred as a result of
purported negligence or breach of contract that allegedly
prevented certain current or former employees from exercising
certain stock options.  The Company says it intends to vigorously
defend these actions.

Two cases were filed in the Tel Aviv District Court against CTI on
March 26, 2009, by plaintiffs Katriel (a former Comverse Ltd.
employee) and Deutsch (a former Verint Systems Ltd. employee).
The Katriel case (Case Number 1334/09) and the Deutsch case (Case
Number 1335/09) both seek to approve class actions to recover
damages that are claimed to have been incurred as a result of
CTI's negligence in reporting and filing its financial statements,
which allegedly prevented the exercise of certain stock options by
certain employees and former employees.  By stipulation of the
parties, on September 30, 2009, the court ordered that these
cases, including all claims against CTI in Israel and the motion
to approve the class action, be stayed until resolution of the
actions pending in the United States regarding stock option
accounting, without prejudice to the parties' ability to
investigate and assert the unique facts, claims and defenses in
these cases.  To date, the stay has not yet been lifted.

Two cases were also filed in the Tel Aviv Labor Court by
plaintiffs Katriel and Deutsch, and both seek to approve class
actions to recover damages that are claimed to have been incurred
as a result of breached employment contracts, which allegedly
prevented the exercise by certain employees and former employees
of certain CTI and Verint Systems stock options, respectively.
The Katriel litigation (Case Number 3444/09) was filed on March
16, 2009, against Comverse Ltd., and the Deutsch litigation (Case
Number 4186/09) was filed on March 26, 2009, against Verint
Systems Ltd.  The Tel Aviv Labor Court has ruled that it lacks
jurisdiction, and both cases have been transferred to the Tel Aviv
District Court.  The Katriel case has been consolidated with the
Katriel case filed in the Tel Aviv District Court (Case Number
1334/09) and is also subject to stay.  The Deutsch case has been
scheduled for a preliminary hearing in the Tel Aviv District Court
in October 2011.

The Company says it did not accrue for these matters as the
potential loss is currently not probable or estimable.


CONAGRA FOODS: Sued Over Deceptive Advertising on Wesson Oils
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims
Conagra Foods deceptively markets its Wesson brand vegetable oils
as "100% natural," though they are made from genetically modified
plants and/or organisms.

A copy of the Complaint in Briseno v. Conagra Foods, Inc., Case
No. 11-cv-05379 (C.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/06/29/Conagra.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrei V. Rado, Esq.
          Jessica J. Sleater, Esq.
          MILBERG LLP
          One Pennsylvania Plaza
          New York, NY 10119
          E-mail: arado@milberg.com
                  jsleater@milberg.com

               - and -

          Jeff S. Westerman, Esq.
          MILBERG LLP
          One California Plaza
          300 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 3900
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 617-1200
          E-mail: jwesterman@milberg.com


IPEX INC: Gets More Leaky Pipe Claims Amid Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------
Karen Brady, writing for CBC News, reports that a family rocked by
a C$13,000 plumbing bill is warning people to beware of
potentially faulty plumbing lurking behind the walls of homes
built or renovated in the last two decades.

Frank and Annette Cappellino built their dream home in LaSalle,
near Windsor, Ont., about 10 years ago.  Last fall, the
Cappellinos came home to a flood in their basement.

"Water was just spewing out like a waterfall," said Frank
Cappellino.  "A pipe had totally burst."

Mr. Cappellino said after a home inspection by a plumbing
distributor and a representative of the Canadian manufacturer
IPEX, the rep told him the cause of the leak was defective pipes
branded under the name Kitec -- pipes that were running throughout
the house.

"He said he had to take a part of it back to his company to get it
tested but indicated that if it was his pipe, basically he would
have it replaced," Mr. Cappellino said.

The Cappellinos contacted the company to find out the testing
results, but said they were told they couldn't have a copy of the
report because a class action lawsuit was underway.  IPEX provided
the Cappellinos with the name of the Windsor law firm leading the
suit.  Mr. Cappellino said they joined the legal fight shortly
thereafter.

On June 28, lawyers for IPEX Inc. and IPEX USA LLC announced they
had reached an agreement in the lawsuit, and that a $125-million
US settlement fund has been proposed.

Product used extensively

Another family, whose home was built the same year as the
Cappellinos, also ended up replacing all the pipes in their home
at their own expense, after finding issues with their Kitec pipes,
manufactured by IPEX.

Plumbers in the region have been getting more and more calls about
the Kitec brand of pipe, also known as PEX.

According to Kyle Fowler, co-owner of Fowler Plumbing in Windsor,
if you built or remodelled your home in the last decade or so,
it's likely Kitec pipes were used.  He said he gets at least one
call a week that turns out to be Kitec-related, and he said the
plumbing system was used in most of the newer subdivisions.

"I even have some in my house," Mr. Fowler said.  "Because we
didn't know.  We thought it was good."

The Kitec plumbing system consists of blue and orange flexible
piping and brass fittings, used to carry cold and hot water
through a home.  Kitec products were also used in radiant heating
systems.

The pipes were made from polyethylene and a thin inner layer of
aluminum, and plumbers considered them to be an excellent product
because they were cheaper than copper and their flexible nature
made the product easy to install.

The class action lawsuits in Canada and the U.S. allege that the
product was negligently manufactured, which caused the pipes to
disintegrate prematurely.

The pipes were sold from 1995 to 2007, and potential claims have
been filed by residents of Alberta, B.C., Ontario, Quebec, and the
Maritimes, according to Dave Robins, the lawyer representing
Canadians in the class action lawsuit.

Kitec was sold under various brand names, including Kitec,
PlumbBetter, IPEX, AQUA, WARMRITE, Kitec XPA, AmbioComfort, XPA,
KERR Controls and Plomberie Amelioree.

Fittings recalled in 1990s

In 1995, IPEX recalled brass compression fittings from Canadian
and U.S. distributors.  The Canadian statement of claim alleged
the fittings were faulty causing pipes to disintegrate.  Plumbers
say the brass reacted with the chemical composition of the pipe,
causing it to corrode, or "dezincify," and fail.

Tim Tiegs, a faculty co-ordinator for the skilled trades programs
at St. Clair College in Windsor, said the only way for homeowners
to make sure the allegedly faulty pipes don't turn into costly
water damage claims is to have them replaced.

"Most of what I've read and heard is the fact that if you have it,
you need to replace it . . . that it's gone from whether or not it
will fail, to when it will fail," said Mr. Tiegs.

Mr. Fowler said replacing pipes usually means cutting open walls
-- a costly repair.

"It's the only way to absolutely guarantee that you're not going
to have any trouble, because you can fix leaks but that's just the
start.  It will go through the whole house eventually," he said.

Mr. Tiegs said at the very least, homeowners with Kitec plumbing
systems should have a trusted plumber check out the condition of
the pipes and fittings.

Property owners and those looking to buy a home should also be
aware of the possibility of problems insuring homes if the
plumbing is found to be faulty, he said.

Settlement agreement reached

Nicholas Rosati of Windsor and Anthony Bellissimo of Toronto
initiated the Canadian class action lawsuit, which was certified
in February.  There are two suits in Canada -- one for Quebec and
one covering the rest of the country.  A multi-district class
action suit was initiated against IPEX in the U.S. as well.

A settlement agreement was reached on June 28.

A statement issued jointly by the lawyers of the Canadian and
American plaintiffs said:

"IPEX denies these allegations and asserts that the Kitec system
is not defective and that the vast majority of the systems will
last throughout the warranty period [30 years].  The parties have
agreed to the settlement to avoid the expense, inconvenience and
distraction of further protracted litigation and to fully resolve
this matter."

IPEX Inc., which has offices in Toronto and Verdun, Que., refused
to comment on the allegations about the company's products or the
lawsuit when contacted by CBC News.

Canadian lawyer, Mr. Robins, said the settlement fund will be open
to claims for eight years "because the prospect of the product
failing could materialize over some time."

The settlement agreement still has to be approved in court, he
said.  None of the allegations against IPEX have been proven in
court.

Settlement hearing dates

    Windsor, Ont. - Nov. 29
    Quebec City, Que. - Dec. 1
    Dallas, Texas - Nov. 17

Advertisements ran in newspapers across Canada on June 29
notifying the public about the settlement, and providing
information on how people could determine if they qualify to
submit a claim.

Court hearings, meant to determine if the settlement is fair, are
scheduled for November and December.


LAWSON SOFTWARE: Signs MOU to Settle GGC Merger-Related Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lawson Software, Inc., entered into a memorandum of understanding
to settle consolidated class action lawsuits arising from its
proposed merger with GGC Software Holdings, Inc., and Atlantis
Merger Sub, Inc., according to the Company's June 22, 2011, Form
8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Lawson Software, Inc., entered into an Agreement and Plan of
Merger, dated as of April 26, 2011, with GGC Software Holdings,
Inc. ("Parent"), and Atlantis Merger Sub, Inc., a wholly owned
subsidiary of Parent, providing for the merger of Merger Sub with
and into the Company.

Eight purported class action lawsuits were brought against Lawson,
the members of the Board, Parent, Merger Sub, Infor, and Golden
Gate Capital, on behalf of the public stockholders of Lawson.  Two
of these purported class action lawsuits, which were both filed in
the Delaware Court of Chancery, were consolidated and certified as
a class action.  On June 14, 2011, the Company entered into a
memorandum of understanding with the plaintiffs in the Delaware
action.

In addition, five purported class action lawsuits were filed in
connection with the merger in the Second Judicial District Court
of Ramsey County, Minnesota, and one purported class action
lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Minnesota.

The Company believes that no further disclosure is required to
supplement the definitive proxy statement or the proxy statement
supplement under applicable laws; however, to avoid the risk that
the Minnesota actions may delay or otherwise adversely affect the
consummation of the merger and to minimize the expense of
defending such actions, the Company has agreed, pursuant to the
terms of the proposed settlement, to make certain supplemental
disclosures related to the proposed merger.  All terms, conditions
and releases of the Delaware Memorandum of Understanding are
expressly incorporated by reference and made part of the Minnesota
Memorandum of Understanding.  Plaintiffs in the Minnesota actions
have agreed to dismiss the Minnesota actions with prejudice within
two business days of final approval of the settlement of the
Delaware action.


LONGTOP FINANCIAL: Sued Over Alleged Accounting Fraud
-----------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Wohl & Fruchter LLP on June 29 disclosed that it
has been retained by an institutional investor to commence class
action litigation on behalf of shareholders of Longtop Financial
Technologies Limited.

On May 17, 2011, trading in Longtop American Depository Shares was
halted after analyst reports questioned Longtop's financial
condition and alleged potential accounting fraud.

On May 23, 2011, Longtop announced the resignation of both its
Chief Financial Officer and its auditor, Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu
CPA Ltd.  In its resignation letter, DTT stated that it was
resigning as the result of recently-discovered falsity in the
Company's financial records, deliberate interference by Longtop
management in DTT's audit process, and the unlawful detention of
its audit files.  DTT further stated that it was no longer able to
rely on management's representations regarding previously-issued
financial reports, and that continued reliance should no longer be
placed on DTT's audit reports.

To date, trading in Longtop American Depository Shares has not
resumed.

If you wish to join in the litigation or discuss potential claims
related to Longtop, please contact:

        Ethan Wohl, Esq.
        WOHL & FRUCHTER LLP
        Telephone: (212) 758-4000
        Toll Free: 866-582-8140
        570 Lexington Avenue
        New York, NY 10022
        E-mail: ewohl@wohlfruchter.com

Additional information is available at:

     http://www.wohlfruchter.com/cases/lft

                      About Wohl & Fruchter

Wohl & Fruchter LLP -- http://www.wohlfruchter.com-- represents
plaintiffs in litigation arising from fraud and other fiduciary
breaches by corporate managers, as well as other complex
litigation matters.


LOOPNET INC: Signs MOU to Settle CoStar Merger-Related Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
LoopNet, Inc., entered into a memorandum of understanding to
settle class action lawsuits arising from its proposed merger with
CoStar Group, Inc., according to the Company's June 22, 2011, Form
8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company, its Board of Directors and CoStar Group, Inc., have
been named as defendants in three putative class action lawsuits
brought by alleged stockholders challenging the Company's proposed
merger with Lonestar Acquisition Sub, Inc., a wholly owned
subsidiary of CoStar.  Two of the actions, Raymond E. Williams Jr.
v. LoopNet, Inc., et al., and Ronald T. West v. Richard Boyle, et
al., were filed on May 3, 2011, and Ronald T. West v. Richard
Boyle, et al. was amended on May 20, 2011.  The third action,
Karin Cahill v. LoopNet, Inc., et al., was filed on June 3, 2011.
All three actions were filed in the Superior Court of California,
County of San Francisco.

The complaints generally allege, among other things, that each
member of the Board breached his fiduciary duties to LoopNet's
stockholders by authorizing the sale of LoopNet to CoStar for
consideration that does not maximize value to the shareholders and
engineering the transaction to benefit themselves without regard
to LoopNet's shareholders.  The complaints also generally allege
that LoopNet (and, in the case of the Ronald T. West action,
CoStar) aided and abetted the breaches of fiduciary duty allegedly
committed by the members of the Board and made incomplete or
materially misleading disclosures about the proposed transaction.
The shareholder actions seek equitable relief, including an
injunction against consummating the merger.

On June 21, 2011, counsel for the parties in the lawsuits entered
into a memorandum of understanding in which they agreed on the
terms of a settlement of all litigation, which would include the
dismissal with prejudice of all claims against all of the
defendants.  The proposed settlement is conditional upon, among
other things, the execution of an appropriate stipulation of
settlement, consummation of the merger and final approval of the
proposed settlement by the court.  In addition, in connection with
the settlement and as provided in the memorandum of understanding,
the parties contemplate that plaintiff's counsel will seek an
award of attorneys' fees and expenses as part of the settlement.
There can be no assurance that the merger will be consummated,
that the parties ultimately will enter into a stipulation of
settlement or that the court will approve the settlement even if
the parties enter into such stipulation.  In such event, the
proposed settlement as contemplated by the memorandum of
understanding may be terminated.  The settlement will not affect
the amount of the merger consideration that LoopNet stockholders
are entitled to receive in the merger.

The defendants deny all liability with respect to the facts and
claims alleged in the lawsuits and specifically deny that any
further supplemental disclosure was required under any applicable
rule, statute, regulation or law.  However, to avoid the risk of
delaying or adversely affecting the merger and the related
transactions, to minimize the expense of defending the lawsuits,
and to provide additional information to the Company's
stockholders at a time and in a manner that would not cause any
delay of the special meeting or the merger, the defendants have
agreed to the terms of the proposed settlement.  The parties
further considered it desirable that the actions be settled to
avoid the expense, risk, inconvenience and distraction of
continued litigation and to fully and finally resolve the settled
claims.

As contemplated by the proposed settlement, CoStar and LoopNet are
providing certain additional disclosures that are supplemental to
those contained in the proxy statement/prospectus previously
mailed to stockholders.


PALAU: Motion to Reconsider Deportation Stay Order Denied
---------------------------------------------------------
GMA News reports that Palau's Supreme Chief Justice Arthur
Ngiraklsong denied the Palau government's motion to reconsider the
court's earlier decision to stay the deportation and allow the
re-entry to Palau of Filipina journalist Bernadette Carreon.

In a five-page order issued on June 17, the Palau Supreme Court
disagrees that the Palau government's deportation order is not
related to the lawsuit Ms. Carreon filed in 2010.

Ms. Carreon was the class representative of an action suit against
the Palau government in 2010.

In a statement, Ms. Carreon said she filed a lawsuit against a
regulation requiring all foreign workers to register and pay a fee
that has been overruled by the court February of this year.

In February, the court ruled that the regulation violates the
fundamental right to equal protection of 6,000 non-resident
workers.

The Palau government is currently appealing the case.

Overstaying

According to Ms. Carreon, on May 16 this year, she received a
letter from Immigration Director Jenkins Mariur requiring her to
leave Palau by May 20 citing that she violated Immigration rules
by overstaying.

Mariur's letter reportedly said the "Bureau of Immigration does
not see her continued stay as "the best interest of the Office and
the Republic of Palau."

Ms. Carreon's lawyer David Shipper, filed an emergency motion to
stay deportation and permit re-entry.

The emergency motion filed by Mr. Shipper said "class
representative Ms. Carreon undertakes a fiduciary duty to
represent adequately and forcefully the interests of the thousands
of individual seeking relief from injustice.  It is a solemn
obligation that Ms. Carreon is determined to see to the end, even
in the face of intimidation and fear of retribution."

The motion stated that Ms. Carreon must be allowed to remain in
Palau for her to remain the class action suit representative.

"Once Ms. Carreon has left Palau without a right of return, it can
be argued that she ceases to share the same threatened injury as
the rest of the class. . . . therefore "the defendants can assert
that she no longer represents the interest of the class as a
whole, and can make motion to the court to decertify the class or
require the substitution of parties," the motion said.

"Defendants should not be allowed to undermine the case of
thousands by getting rid of them," the motion added.

Court order

On May 19, a day before Ms. Carreon was required to leave Palau,
the court issued an order saying the "defendants are enjoined from
taking any action to deport or block the re-entry of Ms. Carreon
until further order of this court."

In June, the Palau's Attorney General's Office filed a motion for
the court to reconsider its decision.  However, the motion was
denied.

The order states that the court is persuaded that Ms. Carreon's
presence in Palau is necessary for the appeal and any potential
remand to the Trial Division.


SIOUX FALLS, SD: Settles Class Action Over Sewer System
-------------------------------------------------------
Jamie Stubbe, writing for KSFY, reports that the law firms of
Johnson Heidepriem & Abdallah LLP and Hughes Law Office announced
a settlement in Arneson v. City of Sioux Falls.

In 2007, the Circuit Court in Minnehaha County certified a class
action comprised of property owners in Sioux Falls who suffered
damage to their homes and businesses in 2004 as a result of the
City's inadequate storm sewer system.  Following a notification
procedure, 159 class member residents who suffered such damages
completed the necessary forms to request inclusion in the class,
executed affidavits, and provided documentation detailing their
damages suffered in these devastating events.

The attorneys say an agreement has been reached with the City and
its insurers to settle the certified claims brought against the
City.

The settlement creates a fund of $1.95 million dollars that will
provide substantial reimbursement to the 159 class members that
executed inclusion affidavits during the notification process on a
pro rata basis.

"In 2004, a group of committed citizens came to me following this
disaster," said Attorney John Hughes.  "They wanted accountability
and they wanted justice.  This settlement represents the fruits of
all of their effort and hard work."

These claims are covered by the City's insurance policies
purchased for this type of event and no taxpayer dollars are
involved in the settlement.

The settlement, which must be approved by the Court, will be
overseen by a consulting firm that specializes in class
administration.  Should the court approve the final settlement,
class members that have previously executed affidavits should
expect to receive partial compensation some time this fall.

"This settlement represents a fair compromise, given the
complexities involved in the case," said Attorney Steve Johnson.
"We are pleased that these innocent property owners will finally
receive reimbursement for the damages they incurred."


STURM FOODS: Faces Class Action Over Coffee Cartridges
------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Holleran, writing for The Madison St. Clair Record, reports
that a St. Clair County woman claims the manufacturer of K-cups
for her Keurig coffee maker misled her into believing the
cartridges contained coffee that could be fresh brewed.  In
actuality, the cups contained instant coffee, the woman alleges in
her recently filed putative class action complaint.

Linda Suchanek is the named plaintiff in a suit filed June 28 in
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois against
Sturm Foods and Treehouse Foods.

Ms. Suchanek is the mother-in-law of Edwardsville attorney
Randy Gori, who filed the lawsuit on her behalf.

In the complaint, Ms. Suchanek claims she purchased Grove Square
coffee cartridges manufactured by Sturm for use in Keurig coffee
machines.

The Grove Square products can be found at major retail stores,
such as Walmart and Big Lots, and promise to provide the consumer
with a "fresh, hot, and delicious" cup of coffee.  Its packaging
states that its product is made from "the world's highest quality
Arabica beans, roasted and ground to ensure peak flavor, then
packaged to lock in optimum freshness," according to the
complaint.

However, Ms. Suchanek claims Grove Square cartridges actually
contain instant coffee -- not freshly brewed coffee as advertised.

"Instant coffee is not freshly brewed coffee but rather dehydrated
soluble powder that can be mixed with water to yield a coffee-like
beverage," the suit states.

Had Ms. Suchanek known that the coffee was instant instead of
freshly brewed, she would not have purchased the product, the
complaint says.

In a phone interview on June 29, Ms. Suchanek said the products
were "absolutely horrible" and tasted like hot water.

"If you shake the cup, they have hardly any coffee in them," she
said.

She said she was telling her daughter and son-in-law about them,
and that he said that it wasn't right and offered to file the
lawsuit for her.

In addition to Sturm Foods, Ms. Suchanek names Treehouse as a
defendant because Sturm Foods is a subsidiary to Treehouse.

In her complaint, Ms. Suchanek alleges the defendants violated the
Illinois Unfair Practices Act and consumer protection statutes by
misrepresenting the fact that they were selling instant coffee.
In addition, she alleges unjust enrichment against the companies.

"By passing of its instant coffee as fresh brewed coffee,
Defendant Strum has been able to charge a higher price for its
product than it otherwise would have been able to charge for
instant coffee," the suit states.

In her complaint, Ms. Suchanek wants the court to classify the
complaint as a class action suit and seeks statutory and actual
damages, plus attorney's fees and other relief the court deems
just.  She also seeks an order that the defendants refrain from
making false statements in the future.

U.S. District Court case number: 3:11-cv-565.


                             *********

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  * * *