---

            C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Tuesday, June 23, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 122

                           Headlines

ACCREDITED HOME: Ex-Employees File Class Suit for Termination
AMGEN INC: Calif. Judge Dismisses Complaint Over Epogen, Aranesp
BLUE CROSS: Reaches Settlement for Autism-Related Case in Mich.
BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Settles Lawsuit Over Faulty E46 Subframes
CANADIAN IMPERIAL: Justice Refuses to Certify CAD$600M Lawsuit

CORVEL CORP: Defends Lawsuit by Illinois Health Care Providers
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Appeal to "Ellis" Suit Certification Pending
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Calif. Overtime Suit Deal Gets Preliminary OK
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Oct. 16 Hearing Set for Membership Suit Deal
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Seeks U.S. Supreme Court Review of Salmon Case

COSTCO WHOLESALE: Settlement of "Hot Fuel" Suit Pending Approval
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Suits Over Organic Milk Sales Junked in June
DOLLAR FINANCIAL: Settlement of Ontario Suit Pending Final OK
GINN CO: Faces Fla. Litigation From Disgruntled Homebuyers
GT SOLAR: Amended Consolidated Braun Suit Still Pending in N.H.

GT SOLAR: N.H. State Court Endorses Joint Case Management Order
KENTUCKY FRIED: Faces Calif. "Bait & Switch" Suit Over Oprah Ad
LIBERTY HARBOR: Seeks Dismissal of Ga. Consumer Fraud Litigation
LOUIS VUITTON: Calif. Judge Denies Dismissal Motion in "Arthur"
MOTOROLA INC: Prevails in Ill. 401(k) Lawsuit Over Telsim Deal

OPPENHEIMER PENNSYLVANIA: New Developments in "Woods" Announced
SEALED AIR: Defends Suit on Asbestos-related Public Disclosures
SEALED AIR: Settlement of MPERS Suit Pending N.J. Court Approval
SEALED AIR: Suits Over W. R. Grace' Activities Pending in Canada
SNELLING STAFFING: Faces Suit Alleging Unfair Business Practices

SOUTHERN HEALTH: Faces Ky. Inmates' Suit Over Medical Treatment
TWEEN BRANDS: Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit Granted Last June 2
TYSON FOODS: Delivers Chickens to Central Illinois Foodbank
UTI WORLDWIDE: Still Faces Freight Forwarding Services Lawsuit


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

OPPENHEIMER PENNSYLVANIA: Brower Piven Announces Lawsuit Filing
RAYMOND JAMES: Howard G. Smith Announces Securities Suit Filing
SHEARSON FINANCIAL: Walden Law Firm Files Securities Fraud Suit


                           *********

ACCREDITED HOME: Ex-Employees File Class Suit for Termination
-------------------------------------------------------------
Patrick DeRosa and Chris Schaub have commenced a class action
suit before the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of
Delaware against Accredited Home Lenders Holding Company and its
former executives.

The lawsuit is brought under Title 34:21-let seq. Of New Jersey
Statutes Annotated alleging a violation of the statutory
provisions under New Jersey law which provides that an employer
terminating its employee workforce of more than 50 employees
must give advance notification to said employees at least 60
days prior to their separation.

According to the complaint, the defendants, who include James M.
Moran, chief executive of Accredited Home, have given neither 60
days advance notice to plaintiffs and their fellow employees,
nor have they provided one week of severance pay for each year
of service in lieu of said advance 60 days notice at its sole,
New Jersey location at 123 Tice Boulevard, Woodcliff Lake, New 1
Jersey, 07617.  Additionally, Defendants owe bonus and
investment fund monies to its employees which have not been
paid.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

  O'BRIEN, BELLAND & BUSHINSKY, LLC
  1526 Berlin Road
  Cherry Hill, NJ 08003
  (856) 795-2181

A copy of the Complaint is available for free at:

    http://bankrupt.com/misc/Accredited--OBrien_ClassSuit.pdf

                   About Accredited Home

Accredited Home Lenders Holding Co. --
http://www.accredhome.com/-- is a mortgage banker servicing
U.S. markets for conforming and non-prime residential mortgage
loans operating throughout the U.S. and in Canada.  Founded in
1990, the company is headquartered in San Diego.

The Company and its affiliates filed for Chapter 11 on May 1,
2009 (Bankr. D. Del. Lead Case No. 09-11516).  The Debtors
selected Hunton & Williams LLP as the Company's Chapter 11
counsel.  Pachulski Stang Ziehl & Jones LLP serves as co-counsel
of the Debtors.  Kurtzman Carson is the Debtors' claims agent.
The Debtors' assets range from $10 million to $50 million and
its debts from $100 million to $500 million.


AMGEN INC: Calif. Judge Dismisses Complaint Over Epogen, Aranesp
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Philip Gutierrez of the  District Court for the Central
District of California dismissed a complaint against the drug
company Amgen, Inc., which plaintiffs had accused of conspiring
to promote off-label uses of two drugs, violating the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act and California
consumer fraud laws, Ben Hallman of Am Law Litigation Daily
reports.

Reuters previously reported that the lawsuit was filed against
Amgen, Inc., and two kidney dialysis providers alleging illegal
promotion of the anemia drugs, Epogen and Aranesp (Class Action
Reporter, Dec. 26, 2008).

The proposed class-action lawsuit involved claims by seven small
health benefit plans that Amgen, DaVita, Inc., and Fresenius
Medical Care AG promoted the use of Epogen and Aranesp in
unapproved settings.

In 2008, Amgen, represented by Mark Cheffo of Skadden, Arps,
Slate, Meagher & Flom, argued that the case was an impermissible
attempt to bring a private cause of action under the Food, Drug,
and Cosmetics Act (FDCA), which can only be brought by the U.S.
Food and Drug Authority.  In dismissing the case, Philip
Gutierrez agreed, finding the suit "largely constitutes an
attempt to shoehorn allegations that defendants have engaged in
off-label promotion in violation of the FDCA and RICO and state
consumer fraud causes of action," Am Law Litigation Daily
reported.

The judge then gave the plaintiffs, represented by Edith Kallas,
Esq. of Whatley Drake & Kallas, an opportunity to refile their
case.

Recently, the plaintiffs argued that the recent preemption
decision in "Wyeth v. Levine" -- in which the U.S. Supreme Court
held that federal approval of drug warning labels does not bar
lawsuits under state law -- was reason for the judge to allow
the case to continue, according to Am Law Litigation Daily.

However, Am Law Litigation Daily reports that in his decision,
Judge Gutierrez said the plaintiffs "misunderstood the law and
the court's previous order."  The judge wrote, "The court never
held that plaintiffs' claims were preempted by the FDCA.
Rather, it found that plaintiffs could not predicate RICO and
state consumer fraud claims on what are, in essence, misbranding
claims, absent allegations that Amgen made false or deceptive
statements. This is because off-label promotion is not
inherently fraudulent; truthful off-label promotion of drugs
does not violate RICO or state consumer protection laws.
Rather, it violates the FDCA."  But only the federal government
can enforce the FDCA, he said.


BLUE CROSS: Reaches Settlement for Autism-Related Case in Mich.
---------------------------------------------------------------
     The family of an autistic child filed a motion in federal
court to confirm settlement of a class action against Blue Cross
Blue Shield of Michigan.  The family alleged in the suit that
the insurer wrongfully refused to cover behavioral therapy for
children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD), on the baseless
ground that the care was "experimental."

     Under the terms of the settlement reached at a court-
ordered conference on Wednesday, June 17, 2009, Blue Cross has
agreed to reimburse all families who paid for behavioral therapy
for their children after May 1, 2003, and who were covered under
a Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan insurance policy.  Blue
Cross had earlier filed a motion seeking dismissal of virtually
the entire case on legal grounds, but the Honorable Stephen J.
Murphy III permitted the case to go forward and scheduled the
matter for further proceedings, including a settlement
conference before Magistrate Michael Hluchaniuk.

     The settlement was reached in the case of "Christopher
Johns v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan, 08-cv-12272," filed
in Detroit.  In the suit, the plaintiff alleged that Blue Cross'
pattern and practice of characterizing the scientifically
established Applied Behavioral Therapy as "experimental," and
thus as excluded under its insurance policies, was arbitrary,
capricious, illegal and contradicted by many years of scientific
validation.

     Under the settlement, Blue Cross will pay for behavioral
therapy rendered to over 100 children in the last six years.
Plaintiff's counsel, Gerard Mantese and John J. Conway, were
pleased with the settlement.  Mr. Mantese and Mr. Conway issued
a joint statement emphasizing: "No insurer should ever take this
approach to needed care for children.  Applied Behavioral
Analysis therapy is supported by science and is not
'experimental.'  Delays by insurers in authorizing this
treatment, when it is covered by insurance policies, should not
be tolerated.  Research shows that children with autism spectrum
disorder need this therapy early on in life and delaying
treatment can irreversibly prevent them from achieving their
full potential."

     Mr. Mantese emphasized that the settlement includes even
families who never submitted a claim to Blue Cross, but who
obtained this care for their children and were covered by a Blue
Cross policy.  Mr. Conway believes that this is the first such
settlement addressing Applied Behavioral Analysis (ABA) in the
country.

     ABA therapy is administered under the supervision of
licensed psychologists and other professionals.  ABA applies one
hundred year old concepts of changing behavior through positive
and negative reinforcements.  The federal suit in which this
settlement was achieved centered upon the ABA treatment provided
by prestigious Beaumont Hospital and its HOPE Center, including
Dr. Ruth Anan and Dr. Lori Warner.

     The case settled shortly after Plaintiff's counsel obtained
a court order requiring Blue Cross to produce file documents
which validated the effectiveness of ABA therapy for treating
children with autism spectrum disorder.  Among the documents in
the Blue Cross files obtained by Plaintiff's counsel was a draft
of a Blue Cross Blue Shield Medical Policy for 2005, which
acknowledged the following: "Applied behavioral analysis (ABA)
is currently the most thoroughly researched treatment modality
for early intervention approaches to autism spectrum disorders
and is the standard of care recommended by the American Academy
of Pediatrics, National Academy of Sciences Committee and the
Association for Science in Autism Treatment, among others."

     Blue Cross' own documents further acknowledged that: "The
earlier the disorder is diagnosed, the sooner the child can be
helped through treatment interventions."

     Mr. Mantese stated, "After we compelled Blue Cross through
motion practice to produce all materials supporting its position
that this care was allegedly experimental, we received numerous
file documents which actually established that ABA therapy works
and is highly effective in increasing the functioning of these
children."

     Mr. Conway emphasized, "We are pleased that we were able to
obtain a result which will require Blue Cross to pay for this
important care and will alleviate some of the financial strain
imposed on over a hundred families by having to pay for this
care when it was covered under their insurance policies."

For more details, contact:

          Gerard Mantese, Esq.
          Mantese and Rossman, P.C.
          1361 E. Big Beaver Road
          Troy, Michigan 48083
          Phone: 248-457-9200
          Cell Phone: 248-515-6419

               - and -

          John J. Conway, Esq.
          John J. Conway, P.C.
          645 Griswold St, Ste 3600
          Detroit, MI 48226
          Phone: 313-961-6525
          Cell Phone: 313-574-2148


BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Settles Lawsuit Over Faulty E46 Subframes
---------------------------------------------------------------
BMW of North America, LLC settled a class-action lawsuit over
its fourth-generation 3 Series models that was entitled, "Eric
Bacca v. BMW of North America, LLC, Case No. 06-06753 DDP
(AJWx)," according to a posting at http://wot.motortrend.com.

The suit was filed on Oct. 24, 2006 in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California in connection to
potentially faulty subframes on its fourth-generation 3 Series
vehicles that are commonly known by its E46 development code.

It claimed that defects in E46 3 Series models cause fractures
in the rear-axle supports in the subframe.  Symptoms include
clunking from the rear and outright subframe failure.  These
vehicles saw production from 1999 to 2006.

As part of a class-action lawsuit settlement, the company will
begin an inspection-and-repair process for potentially faulty
subframes in fourth-generation 3 Series models.

According to a statement from BMW North America, "BMW has agreed
to a proposed settlement of a class action lawsuit concerning
the Sub-Frame structures on 3 Series ("E46") models produced
from 1999 through 2006.  Under rare conditions the attachment
points of the Sub-Frame may develop a fracture or crack.  BMW
has prepared an inspection, approved repair procedure, and
reimbursement policy in keeping with the terms of the proposed
class settlement.  This settlement will only pertain to US
residents and is not a recall of any kind.  Details will be
forthcoming, pending the court's final approval of the proposed
class settlement."

For more details, contact:

      Eric H. Gibbs, Esq. (ehg@girardgibbs.com)
      Girard Gibbs
      601 California Street
      14th Floor
      San Francisco, CA 94108
      Phone: 415-981-4800

      Melissa M. Harnett, Esq. (mharnett@wcclaw.com)
      Wasserman Comden and Casselman
      5567 Reseda Boulevard Suite 330
      P O Box 7033
      Tarzana, CA 91357-7033
      Phone: 818-705-6800

           - and -

      E-46 Sub-Frame Class Action Settlement
      c/o Gilardi & Co., LLC
      P.O. Box 808054,
      Petaluma, CA 94975-8054
      Web site: http://www.e46subframeclassactionsettlement.com/


CANADIAN IMPERIAL: Justice Refuses to Certify CAD$600M Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
An Ontario Superior Court Justice refused to certify a CAD$600-
million overtime class-action lawsuit against the Canadian
Imperial Bank of Commerce (CIBC), Jim Middlemiss of The
Financial Post reports.

Justice Joan Lax rejected the suit brought by CIBC employee Dara
Fresco on the basis that "this is not a proper case for
certification and that a class proceeding is not the preferable
procedure for resolving the claims of class members for unpaid
overtime," according to The Financial Post.

The judge wrote, "In my opinion, there is no asserted common
issue capable of being determined on a class-wide basis that
would sufficiently advance this litigation to justify
certification," reports The Financial Post.

It was earlier reported that a December 2008 hearing is slated
for the multi-million dollar national class action brought by
bank teller Dara Fresco against Canadian Imperial Bank of
Commerce (CIBC) for unpaid overtime (Class Action Reporter,
December 9, 2008).

At stake in the hearing is whether the lawsuit will be allowed
to proceed as a class action on behalf of thousands of current
and former tellers, personal bankers and other front line
workers in retail branches of the CIBC across Canada.

Class counsel had originally estimated that they would be
representing approximately 10,000 individuals, however the CIBC
has suggested that the class could include over 30,000 current
and former employees.

The Court will determine the threshold questions relating to
whether the proceeding is appropriate for a class action.

The motion will be heard before Justice Lax over the course of
five days.   During the five-day period, time will be fairly
evenly divided between class counsel and counsel for the
defendant.  As is the custom in cases of this size and
complexity, it is expected that the judge will reserve her
decision.

The law firms of Sack Goldblatt Mitchell LLP ("SGM") and Roy
Elliott O'Connor LLP ("REO") will be representing the class in
this action.

                         Case Background

Tobi Cohen of Canadian Press previously reported that a Toronto
bank teller sued the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce Tuesday
in Ontario Superior Court on behalf of 10,000 current and former
non-management employees across Canada (Class Action Rpeorter,
June 7, 2007).

Dara Fresco, 34, lead plaintiff in the class action, has a 10-
year banking career with CIBC.

Ms. Fresco, represented by Attorney Douglas Elliott, claims the
bank owes her about $50,000 for overtime work in the past 10
years.

The suit further alleges that CIBC assigns non-management
employees heavy tasks that are almost impossible to complete
within regular working hours and are discouraged to claim
overtime.

Louis Sokolov, one of the plaintiffs' lawyers, said in a press
release, "Banks are regulated by the Canada Labour Code which
specifically states that federally incorporated businesses may
not require or permit non-management employees to work beyond
eight hours per day or forty hours per week without paying
overtime."

The action, which is considered to be the "largest unpaid class
action ever launched in Canada," seeks approximately CAD$600
million in damages.

For more details, contact:

          Douglas Elliott, Esq.
          REKO LLP Barristers
          200 Front Street West, 23rd Floor
          P.O. Box #45
          Toronto, ON M5V 3K2
          Phone: 416 362 1989
          Fax: 416 362 6204
          E-mail: info@reko.ca

               -  and  -

          Steven Barrett, Esq.
          Louis Sokolov, Esq.
          Sack Goldblatt Mitchell LLP
          20 Dundas Street West, Suite 1100
          Toronto, Ontario M5G 2G8
          Phone: 416-977-6070
          Toll Free: 1-800-387-5422
          Fax: 416-591-7333


CORVEL CORP: Defends Lawsuit by Illinois Health Care Providers
--------------------------------------------------------------
CorVel Corp. intends to pursue all available legal remedies
including defending the putative class-action lawsuit filed by
Kathleen Roche, D.C., according to the company's June 12, 2009
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2009.

In February 2005, Kathleen Roche, D.C., as plaintiff, filed a
putative class action in Circuit Court for the 20th Judicial
District, St. Clair County, Illinois, against the company.

The case seeks unspecified damages based on the company's
alleged failure to steer patients to medical providers who are
members of the CorVel CorCare PPO network and also alleges that
the company used biased and arbitrary computer software to
review medical providers' bills.

In December 2007, the court certified a class in this case of
all Illinois health care providers with CorVel PPO agreements,
excluding hospitals.

In January 2008, CorVel filed with the Illinois Appellate Court
a petition for interlocutory appeal of the trial court's class
certification order which was denied in April 2008.

In May 2008, the company appealed the appellate court's denial
of its petition for interlocutory appeal, which appeal was also
denied by the Illinois Supreme Court in September 2008.

CorVel Corporation -- http://www.corvel.com/-- is an
independent nationwide provider of medical cost containment and
managed care services designed to manage the medical costs of
workers' compensation and other healthcare benefits, primarily
for coverage under group health and auto insurance policies.
The company's services are sold as separate services directed
toward managing claims, care, networks, reimbursements and
settlements.  They include automated medical fee auditing,
preferred provider networks, out-of-network/line-item bill
negotiation and repricing, utilization review and management,
medical case management, vocational rehabilitation services,
early intervention, Medicare set-asides and life-care planning,
and a variety of directed care services, including independent
medical examinations, diagnostic imaging, transportation and
translation, and durable medical equipment.  Such services are
provided to insurance companies, third-party administrators
(TPAs) and self-administered employers.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Appeal to "Ellis" Suit Certification Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Costco Wholesale Corp.'s appeal to a decision granting class-
action status to a purported class-action lawsuit filed over the
alleged denial of promotion to certain female managers of the
company remains pending.

The case was brought as a class action on behalf of certain
present and former female managers in which the plaintiffs
allege denial of promotion based on gender in violation of Title
VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and California state law.

The plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, punitive damages,
injunctive relief, interest and attorneys' fees.  Class
certification was granted on Jan. 11, 2007.

On May 11, 2007, the Ninth Circuit granted a petition to hear
Costco's appeal of the certification.

On May 30, 2007, the District Court ordered a stay of the case
during the pendency of the appeal.

The appeal was argued on April 14, 2008.  Proceedings in the
district court have been stayed during the appeal, according to
the company's June 12, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended May 10,
2009.

The suit is "Ellis v. Costco Wholesale Corporation, Case No.
3:04-cv-03341-MHP," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, Judge Marilyn H. Patel
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         James M. Finberg, Esq. (jfinberg@lchb.com)
         Lexi Joy Hazam, Esq. (lhazam@lchb.com)
         Bill Lann Lee, Esq. (blee@lchb.com)
         Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP
         275 Battery Street, 30th Floor
         San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
         Phone: 415-956-1000
         Fax: 415-956-1008

              - and -

         Jocelyn Dion Larkin, Esq. (jlarkin@impactfund.org)
         Brad Seligman, Esq. (bseligman@impactfund.org)
         The Impact Fund, 125 University Avenue
         Berkeley, CA 94710
         Phone: 510-845-3473 ext. 304
         Fax: 510-845-3654

Representing the defendants are:

         David D. Kadue, Esq. (dkadue@seyfarth.com)
         William Owen Kampf, Esq. (wkampf@la.seyfarth.com)
         Seyfarth Shaw LLP
         2029 Century Park East, Suite 3300
         Los Angeles, CA 90067
         Phone: 310-201-5211
                310-277-7200 x1515
         Fax: 310-201-5219


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Calif. Overtime Suit Deal Gets Preliminary OK
---------------------------------------------------------------
A $16 million settlement was preliminarily approved in one of
two purported class-action lawsuits against Costco Wholesale
Corp. that were purportedly brought on behalf of certain present
and former managers in California who principally allege that
they have not been properly compensated for overtime work.

Initially, two lawsuits were filed.  The suits are:

      1. "Scott M. Williams v. Costco Wholesale Corp., U.S.
         District Court (San Diego), Case No. 02-CV-2003 NAJ
         (JFS);" and

      2. "Greg Randall v. Costco Wholesale Corp., Superior Court
         for the County of Los Angeles, Case No. BC-296369."

The Randall matter is currently in the class certification
briefing phase.  The Williams case has been stayed pending the
class certification outcome in the Randall case.

Claims in these actions are made under various provisions of the
California Labor Code and the California Business and
Professions Code.

The plaintiffs seek restitution/disgorgement, compensatory
damages, various statutory penalties, punitive damages,
interest, and attorneys' fees.

On Feb. 21, 2008, the court in "Randall" granted in part and
denied in part plaintiffs' motion for class certification.  The
company intends to seek appellate review in part of that
decision.

On Feb. 21, 2008 the court in Randall tentatively granted in
part and denied in part plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.  That order was signed/finalized by the court on
May 13, 2008.  The company is seeking appellate review in part
of that decision.

The Williams case has been stayed pending the class
certification outcome in "Randall," but the stay has not yet
been lifted.

The parties in "Randall" have agreed in principle on a partial
settlement of the action, requiring a payment of up to $16
million by the company, which was reserved for in 2008.

The court granted preliminary approval of the settlement on
March 6, 2009.

The Williams action remains stayed, according to the company's
June 12, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended May 10, 2009.

Costco Wholesale Corp. -- http://www.costco.com/-- operates
membership warehouses that offer a selection of nationally
branded and private-label products in a range of merchandise
categories in self-service warehouse facilities.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Oct. 16 Hearing Set for Membership Suit Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
An Oct. 16, 2009 final approval hearing is set for the
settlement of two purported class-action lawsuits against Costco
Wholesale Corp. in relation to its membership renewal practices.

One of the suits is "Evans, et ano., v. Costco Wholesale Corp.,
Case No. BC351869," which was filed with the Superior Court for
the County of Los Angeles and later removed to the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California.

The other suit is "Dupler v. Costco Wholesale Corp., Index No.
06-007555," which was commenced in the Supreme Court of Nassau
County, New York and removed to the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York.

The suits are asserting that the company violated various
provisions of California and New York common law and statutes in
connection with a membership renewal practice.

Under that practice, members who pay their renewal fees late
generally have their 12-month membership renewal periods
commence at the time of the prior year's expiration rather than
the time of the late payment.

The plaintiffs in the two actions seek compensatory damages,
restitution, disgorgement, preliminary and permanent injunctive
and declaratory relief, attorneys' fees and costs, prejudgment
interest and, in "Evans," punitive damages.

The court has certified a class in the Dupler action.

On April 2, 2009, the district court preliminarily approved a
settlement that, if finally approved, will resolve both of these
actions.  The settlement entails a provisional certification of
a nationwide class of present and former Costco members who from
March 1, 2001, to March 31, 2009, paid their membership renewal
fees late and had their renewal periods commence at the prior
year's expiration date rather than the date of payment.

Depending upon their individual circumstances, class members can
be eligible for up to a three-month extension of their current
membership or, if they are no longer Costco members, a temporary
membership of up to three months.  Other than payments to two
class representatives, the settlement does not provide for cash
payments to class members. The company has agreed not to oppose
a request for an award of attorneys' fees to class counsel in an
amount up to $5 million.  A hearing is set for Oct. 16, 2009,
for the court to consider whether the settlement should receive
final approval.

According to the company's June 12, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended May 10, 2009, further details of the proposed settlement
can be obtained from the notice to class members, which can be
viewed at http://www.costco.com/renewalsettlement.pdf.

Costco Wholesale Corp. -- http://www.costco.com/-- operates
membership warehouses that offer a selection of nationally
branded and private-label products in a range of merchandise
categories in self-service warehouse facilities.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Seeks U.S. Supreme Court Review of Salmon Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Costco Wholesale Corp. is seeking for a U.S. Supreme Court
review of  a ruling in a in a purported class-action lawsuit
against the company relating to sales of farm-raised salmon,
according to the company's June 12, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended May 10, 2009.

The case is known as "Farm Raised Salmon Coordinated Proceedings
(lead case, Kanter v. Safeway et al.), Los Angeles Superior
Court Case No. JCCP No. 4329."

The action alleges that the Company violated California law
requiring farm-raised salmon to be labeled as "color added."  It
asserts violations of the California Unfair Competition Law, the
California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and the California False
Advertising Law, and negligent misrepresentation, and seeks
restoration of money acquired by means of unfair competition or
false advertising and compensatory damages in unspecified
amounts, injunctive relief remedying the allegedly improper
disclosures, and costs and attorneys' fees.

A California Superior Court ruling dismissing the action on the
ground that federal law does not permit claims for mislabeling
of farm-raised salmon to be asserted by private parties was
reversed by the California Supreme Court; a petition seeking
review by the U.S. Supreme Court is pending.

Costco Wholesale Corp. -- http://www.costco.com/-- operates
membership warehouses that offer a selection of nationally
branded and private-label products in a range of merchandise
categories in self-service warehouse facilities.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Settlement of "Hot Fuel" Suit Pending Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed settlement of a consolidated class action suit
captioned "In re Motor Fuel Temperature Sales Practices
Litigation, MDL Docket No 1840," is pending approval by the U.S.
District Court for the District of Kansas.

Initially, numerous putative class action suits were brought
around the U.S. against motor fuel retailers, including Costco
Wholesale Corp., over allegations that they have been
overcharging drivers by selling gasoline or diesel that is
warmer than 60 degrees without adjusting the volume sold to
compensate for heat-related expansion or disclosing the effect
of such expansion on the energy equivalent received by the
consumer.

The suits are:

      -- "Raphael Sagalyn, et al. v. Chevron USA, Inc., et al.,
         Case No. 07-430 (D. Md.);"

      -- "Phyllis Lerner, et al. v. Costco Wholesale
         Corporation, et al., Case No. 07-1216 (C.D. Cal.);"

      -- "Linda A. Williams, et al. v. BP Corporation North
         America, Inc., et al., Case No. 07-179 (M.D. Ala.);"

      -- "James Graham, et al. v. Chevron USA, Inc., et al.,
         Civil Action No. 07-193 (E.D. Va.);"

      -- "Betty A. Delgado, et al. v. Allsups, Convenience
         Stores, Inc., et al., Case No. 07-202 (D.N.M.);"

      -- "Gary Kohut, et al. v. Chevron USA, Inc., et al., Case
         No. 07-285 (D. Nev.);"

      -- "Mark Rushing, et al. v. Alon USA, Inc., et al., Case
         No. 06-7621 (N.D. Cal.);"

      -- "James Vanderbilt, et al. v. BP Corporation North
         America, Inc., et al., Case No. 06-1052 (W.D. Mo.);"

      -- "Zachary Wilson, et al. v. Ampride, Inc., et al., Case
         No. 06-2582 (D. Kan.);" and

      -- "Diane Foster, et al. v. BP North America Petroleum,
         Inc., et al., Case No. 07-02059 (W.D. Tenn.)."

      -- "Mara Redstone, et al. v. Chevron USA, Inc., et al.,
         Case No. 07-20751 (S.D. Fla.);"

      -- "Fred Aguirre, et al. v. BP West Coast Products LLC, et
         al., Case No. 07-1534 (N.D. Cal.);"

      -- "J.C. Wash, et al. v. Chevron USA, Inc., et al.; Case
         No. 4:07cv37 (E.D. Mo.);"

      -- "Jonathan Charles Conlin, et al. v. Chevron USA, Inc.,
         et al.; Case No. 07 0317 (M.D. Tenn.);"

      -- "William Barker, et al. v. Chevron USA, Inc., et al.;
         Case No. 07-cv-00293 (D.N.M.);"

      -- "Melissa J. Couch, et al. v. BP Products North America,
         Inc., et al., Case No. 07cv291 (E.D. Tx.);"

      -- "S. Garrett Cook, Jr., et al. v. Hess Corporation, et
         al., Case No. 07cv750 (M.D. Ala.);"

      -- "Jeff Jenkins, et al. v. Amoco Oil Company, et al.,
         Case No. 07-cv-00661 (D. Utah);" and

      -- "Mark Wyatt, et al. v. B. P. America Corp. dba Atlantic
         Richfield Company, et al., Case No. 07-1754 (S.D.
         Cal.)."

On June 18, 2007, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
assigned the action entitled "In re Motor Fuel Temperature Sales
Practices Litigation, MDL Docket No 1840," to Judge Kathryn
Vratil of the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas.

On Aug. 28, 2007, Judge Vratil held an initial scheduling
conference in this proceeding.  At that time, she ordered
plaintiffs to file a consolidated complaint in these actions on
Oct. 19, 2007, and set a briefing schedule on challenges to this
consolidated complaint that calls for a hearing Jan. 11, 2008.

On Feb. 21, 2008, the court denied a motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint.

On April 12, 2009, the company agreed to a settlement involving
the actions in which it is named as a defendant.  Under the
settlement, which is subject to approval by the district court,
the company has agreed, to the extent allowed by law, to install
over five years from the effective date of the settlement
temperature-correcting dispensers in the States of Alabama,
Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Nevada, New
Mexico, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah,
and Virginia.  Other than payments to class representatives, the
settlement does not provide for cash payments to class members.
No schedule has yet been set for consideration of the settlement
by the district court, according to the company's June 12, 2009
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended May 10, 2009.

Costco Wholesale Corp. -- http://www.costco.com/-- operates
membership warehouses that offer a selection of nationally
branded and private-label products in a range of merchandise
categories in self-service warehouse facilities.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Suits Over Organic Milk Sales Junked in June
--------------------------------------------------------------
All claims against Costco Wholesale Corp. in two purported
federal class-action lawsuits in Washington and Colorado in
relation to sales of organic milk were dismissed in June 2009.

The suits are:

      1. "Hesse v. Costco Wholesale Corp., No. C07-1975 (W.D.
         Wash.);"

      2. "Snell v. Aurora Dairy Corp., et al., No. 07-CV-2449
         (D. Col.)."

Both actions claim violations of the laws of various states,
essentially alleging that milk provided to Costco by its
supplier Aurora Dairy Corp. was improperly labeled "organic."

Costco has not yet responded to the complaints; Aurora has
maintained that it has held and continues to hold valid organic
certifications.

The complaints seek, among other things, actual, compensatory,
statutory, punitive and exemplary damages in unspecified
amounts, as well as costs and attorneys' fees.

On June 3, 2009, the court entered an order dismissing with
prejudice, among others, all claims against the company,
according to the company's June 12, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended May 10, 2009.

Costco Wholesale Corp. -- http://www.costco.com/-- operates
membership warehouses that offer a selection of nationally
branded and private-label products in a range of merchandise
categories in self-service warehouse facilities.


DOLLAR FINANCIAL: Settlement of Ontario Suit Pending Final OK
-------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed settlement of an Ontario class action litigation
against National Money Mart Company and Dollar Financial Group,
Inc., each a wholly-owned direct or indirect subsidiary of
Dollar Financial Corp., is pending final court approval.

On June 5, 2009, National Money Mart and Dollar Financial Group
entered into a Summary Settlement Agreement providing for the
settlement of their outstanding Ontario class action litigation,
in which the plaintiffs claimed that the business model used by
National Money Mart resulted in the collection of fees in excess
of the statutory limit for the payday loans made since 1997 to a
group of National Money Mart's customers.  The settlement
requires final Court approval and there can be no assurance that
the settlement will receive such approval.  The settlement does
not reflect any admission of wrongdoing by the defendants.

The Summary Settlement Agreement includes:

1. Periodic payments over the next two years aggregating
   CDN27.5 million in cash; this consists of:

   a. CDN7.5 million paid to Plaintiff's counsel in trust upon
      signing the Summary Settlement Agreement:

   b. CDN2.5 million upon final approval of the settlement by
      the Court;

   c. CDN10.0 million to be paid on July 15, 2010; and

   d. CDN7.5 million to be remitted on July 15, 2011.

2. National Money Mart will release approximately CDN43.0
million of defaulted indebtedness of class members that has
built up since 1997, and which is still outstanding as of the
date the settlement is approved by the Court. National Money
Mart will take steps to notify all such class members that, as a
result of this defaulted debt amnesty program, they will be
returned to a status in good standing at any National Money Mart
location throughout Canada.

3. National Money Mart will provide CDN30.0 million in
transaction credits for this broad group of customers, which can
be applied in CDN5.00 increments to future product transactions
on most of National Money Mart's products.

According to the company's Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission dated June 9, 2009, Dollar
Financial expects to record a charge of CDN27.5 million
associated with the scheduled cash payments, and an additional
amount that will be based on the expected value of the
transaction credits utilized under the settlement provisions.

For financial statement purposes, the company's loss
provisioning policy requires that defaulting debt over six
months of age is fully provisioned against in the company's
financial statements.

Dollar Financial Corp. -- http://www.dfg.com-- is a leading
diversified international financial services company serving
unbanked and under-banked consumers.  Its customers are
typically service sector individuals who require basic financial
services but, for reasons of convenience and accessibility,
purchase some or all of their financial services from the
Company rather than from banks and other financial institutions.
To meet the needs of these customers, the Company provides a
range of consumer financial products and services primarily
consisting of check cashing, short-term consumer loans, pawn
lending, Western Union money order and money transfer products,
currency exchange, reloadable VISA(R) and MasterCard(R) branded
debit cards, electronic tax filing, and bill payment services.


GINN CO: Faces Fla. Litigation From Disgruntled Homebuyers
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.denverpost.com/headlines/ci_12656481
Ginn Co. is facing a class-action lawsuit in Florida filed by
disgruntled homebuyers, stunned by plummeting property values in
Ginn resorts, alleging devious sales tactics and insider deals,
Jason Blevins of The Denver Post reports.

The suit -- filed in May -- is alleging that the developer and
its longtime financial partner, private-equity firm Lubert-
Adler, conspired with appraisers, brokers and lenders in "one of
the largest real estate and mortgage frauds in recent history,"
according to The Denver Post.

The buyers say their properties are now worth 10 percent of
their once appraised value, The Denver Post reported.


GT SOLAR: Amended Consolidated Braun Suit Still Pending in N.H.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The amended consolidated complaint in the federal class-action
suit captioned, "Braun et al. v. GT Solar International, Inc.,
et al.," remains pending in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Hampshire.

Beginning on Aug. 1, 2008, seven putative securities class-
action lawsuits were commenced in the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Hampshire, against the company, certain of
its officers and directors, certain underwriters of the
company's July 24, 2008 initial public offering and others,
including certain investors in the company.

On Oct. 3, 2008, the Court entered an order consolidating the
federal class actions into a single action captioned, "Braun et
al. v. GT Solar International, Inc., et al."

The Court selected the lead plaintiff and lead plaintiff's
counsel in the consolidated matter on Oct. 29, 2008.

The lead plaintiff filed an amended consolidated complaint on
Dec. 22, 2008.  The defendants are scheduled to respond to the
amended consolidated complaint on or before Feb. 5, 2009.

The lead plaintiff asserts claims under various sections of the
Securities Act.

The amended consolidated complaint alleges, among other things,
that the defendants made false and materially misleading
statements and failed to disclose material information in
certain SEC filings, including the registration statement and
Prospectus for the company's July 24, 2008 initial public
offering, and other public statements, regarding the company's
business relationship with LDK Solar, Ltd., one of the company's
customers, JYT Corporation, one of the company's competitors,
and certain of the company's products, including its DSS
furnaces.

Among other relief, the amended consolidated complaint seeks
class certification, unspecified compensatory damages,
rescission, interest, attorneys' fees, costs and such other
relief as the Court should deem just and proper.

No further developments on the case were reported in the
company's June 9, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended March 28,
2009.

The suit is "Braun et al v. GT Solar International, Inc., et
al., Case No. 1:08-cv-00312-JL," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Hampshire, Judge Joseph N.
Laplante, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Christopher Cole, Esq. (ccole@sheehan.com)
          Sheehan Phinney Bass & Green
          1000 Elm St.
          P.O. Box 3701
          Manchester, NH 03105-3701
          Phone: 603-668-0300

               - and -

          Michelle H. Blauner, Esq. (mblauner@shulaw.com)
          Shapiro Haber & Urmy
          53 State St, 13th Flr.
          Boston, MA 02109
          Phone: 617-439-3939

Representing the defendants are:

          W. Daniel Deane, Esq. (ddeane@nixonpeabody.com)
          Nixon Peabody LLP
          900 Elm St, 14th Flr
          Manchester, NH 03101-2031
          Phone: 603-628-4047

               - and -

          William H. Paine, Esq. (william.paine@wilmerhale.com)
          Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr LLP
          60 State St.
          Boston, MA 02109
          Phone: 617-526-6000


GT SOLAR: N.H. State Court Endorses Joint Case Management Order
---------------------------------------------------------------
The New Hampshire state court in the Superior Court for
Hillsborough County, Southern District, on June 3, 2009,
endorsed the proposed joint case management order in the
putative securities class-action suit captioned, "Hamel v. GT
Solar International, Inc., et al."

On Sept. 18, 2008, a putative securities class-action suit was
filed in New Hampshire State Court, under the caption, "Hamel v.
GT Solar International, Inc., et al.," against the company,
certain of its officers and directors and certain underwriters
of the company's July 24, 2008 initial public offering.

The Company removed the state class action to the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Hampshire on Oct. 22, 2008.

The state class-action suit was consolidated with the federal
class actions on Nov. 25, 2008.

On Feb. 2, 2009, the federal Court granted the plaintiff's
motion to remand the state class action to New Hampshire State
Court.

The state class action plaintiff asserts claims under various
sections of the Securities Act.

The state class-action complaint alleges, among other things,
that the defendants made false and materially misleading
statements and failed to disclose material information in
certain SEC filings, including the registration statement for
the company's July 24, 2008 initial public offering, and other
public statements, regarding the company's business relationship
with LDK Solar, Ltd., one of the company's customers, JYT
Corporation, one of the company's competitors, and certain of
the company's products, including its DSS furnaces.

Among other relief, the state class action complaint seeks class
certification, unspecified compensatory damages, rescission,
interest, attorneys' fees, costs and such other relief as the
State Court should deem just and proper.

On May 4, 2009, the parties agreed to a stay of the state class
action, pending resolution of the motion to dismiss in the
consolidated federal case.

At a case structuring conference on June 3, 2009, the state
court endorsed the proposed joint case management order filed by
the parties, according to the company's June 9, 2009 Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended March 28, 2009.

GT Solar International, Inc. -- http://www.gtsolar.com/-- is
provider of manufacturing equipment and turnkey manufacturing
solutions to the photovoltaic (PV) industry.  The company's
products and solutions are used for production of solar grade
polysilicon, manufacturing of multicrystalline silicon wafers,
production of solar cells and assembly of complete modules.  GT
Solar International, Inc. provides facility and process design
and integration know-how with its equipment.  The company offers
its products and services to PV product manufacturers on a
worldwide basis, and a substantial percentage of its sales are
to customers outside the United States.  Effective Jan. 1, 2006,
GT Solar Holdings, LLC acquired the Company.


KENTUCKY FRIED: Faces Calif. "Bait & Switch" Suit Over Oprah Ad
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Kentucky Fried Chicken (KFC) its parent company Yum Brands,
Inc. are facing a purported class-action lawsuit in Los Angeles
Superior Court that claims it reneged on an offer of a free
grilled chicken sandwich after a promotion on the Oprah Winfrey
Show was so popular that people lined up across the country,
demanding "millions" of the sandwiches, Printer Ink Cartridges
News & Blog reports.

The suit was filed by James Asanuma of Northridge and Veronica
Mora of Sylmar, who are both seeking class-action status.  It
mentioned that Mr. Asanuma had to use a color printer and paper
to print out coupons, as well as install a special program on
the computer.  Ms. Mora reportedly had to drive to a KFC in San
Fernando and another in Sylmar, where they were told that they
were too late as the restaurant had reached its limit of 100
free meals for the day, according to a report by Printer Ink
Cartridges News & Blog.

The Courthouse News Service reports, that the suit calls the KFC
promo a "classic example of a bait and switch."  According to
the complaint, KFC ran the promo on the May 5 Oprah show, and
told customers they could download a coupon from Oprah's Web
site for the next 24 hours.  The coupon would entitle people to
a free Kentucky Grilled Chicken meal - the sandwich, two side
orders, and a biscuit.

The Courthouse News Service reported that the demand was so
great KFC extended it for a day and moved the downloadable to
its own Web site.  But on May 7, 2009, KFC started backing out
of the deal, the class claims.

First it said it would not honor the coupons "today," but
offered a rain check.  Then it said people had to exchange the
downloaded coupons for a rain check, "which will be redeemable
at a later date for a two-week period."

It also demand that requests for rain checks be accompanied by a
downloaded coupon and presented or mailed to a KFC outlet by May
19, according to a KFC press release cited in the complaint, a
copy of which was obtained by The Courthouse News Service.

The suit claims that these terms and conditions are more onerous
than the original offer, and will deprive many people of their
free sandwiches.  Plaintiffs claim KFC knew that people would be
lured to a restaurant by the offer, and when their coupons were
refused, would buy something.  They call that a "classic example
of a bait and switch."

The plaintiffs -- represented by Adam Gutride, Esq. with Gutride
Safier LLP of San Francisco -- demand punitive damages for
fraud, misrepresentation and unfair trade, The Courthouse News
Service reports.

For more details, contact:

          Gutride Safier LLP
          835 Douglass Street
          San Francisco, CA 94114
          Phone: 415 271-6469
          Fax: 415 449-6469
          e-mail: info@gutridesafier.com
          Web site: http://www.gutridesafier.com/


LIBERTY HARBOR: Seeks Dismissal of Ga. Consumer Fraud Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Liberty Harbor, the developer of an upscale condo project on
Brunswick's waterfront asked a Georgia Superior Court judge to
dismiss a suit claiming customers were defrauded when they were
charged for work that was not done, Carole Hawkins of The
Florida Times-Union reports.

The suit was filed by William and Marilyn Hall and Victoria
Medina.  The Halls and Medina paid initial deposits of $56,000
and $36,500, respectively.  The Halls also paid a second
installment of $62,000, but became upset when they visited the
site in January 2009 and saw no buildings under construction.
Ms. Medina never paid her second installment of $36,500 and
received a letter from Liberty Harbor saying her initial deposit
would be forfeited, according to Florida Times-Union.

In a response filed in Superior Court, Liberty Harbor's owners
that they played by the rules when the company asked the
plaintiffs to pay a second installment on the condos they had
purchased.

The plaintiffs sued Liberty Harbor in April 2009 and a lawyer
representing both said there are dozens of others who have been
similarly affected, reports the Florida Times-Union.

The suit asserts that site preparation and sewer construction do
not meet requirements for construction as laid out in the
contract.  Both sides have requested a jury trial, the Florida
Times-Union reported.


LOUIS VUITTON: Calif. Judge Denies Dismissal Motion in "Arthur"
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge A. Howard Matz of the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California denied a motion by Louis Vuitton North
America, Inc. that sought for the dismissal of the purported
class-action lawsuit "Arthur v. Louis Vuitton North America Inc
et al., Case No. 2:08-cv-04731-AHM-FFM."

Judge Matz also set a pretrial conference for Aug. 24, 2009.

The Los Angeles Times previously reported that Louis Vuitton
North America, Inc. is seeking the dismissal of a purported
class-action lawsuit (Class Action Reporter, April 30, 2009).

The suit was originally filed in the Los Angeles Superior Court,
but was later transferred to the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California.

When it was initially filed in June 2008, the suit alleged only
the company failed to provide information about the artworks
required under California's Fine Prints Act.  In August 2008
though, attorneys added fraud allegations, reports The Los
Angeles Times (Class Action Reporter, April 27, 2009).

The Los Angeles Times previously reported that Louis Vuitton is
facing a class-action complaint filed in the Los Angeles
Superior Court alleging that the luxury retailer did not provide
proper documentation for the works sold at its Museum of
Contemporary Art (MOCA) boutique (Class Action Reporter, July 8,
2008).

Named plaintiff Clint Arthur alleges that Louis Vuitton failed
to take the law into account when selling limited-edition prints
by Japanese Pop artist Takashi Murakami at his show at the
museum's Geffen Contemporary.

He says two limited-edition prints he bought for $6,000 each
were signed by Japanese Pop artist Takashi Murakami but not also
numbered by the artist as promised in an accompanying
certificate.  MOCA, he says, provided no documentation at all
for two $855 Murakami prints.

The Los Angeles Times recounts that since 1970, California law
has required dealers who sell limited-edition prints of artists'
work to disclose an array of information supporting the prints'
authenticity.

Mr. Arthur says that because Louis Vuitton failed to provide
sufficient information, 500 Murakami prints that were on sale
for an average of $8,000 lacked the ironclad certification
required, making them less valuable for resale.  The show --
Vuitton store included -- is now at the Brooklyn Museum in New
York.

The California law allows triple damages for violations,
exposing Louis Vuitton to a potential multimillion-dollar
liability.

Mr. Arthur, who sued Louis Vuitton on June 23, 2008 said he
discovered the law on the Internet after having misgivings about
the prints he had purchased last winter during the "Murakami"
exhibition at MOCA's Geffen Contemporary building.

According to the LA Times report, the law on fine art prints
apparently has been enforced rarely, if ever, since it went on
the books in 1970, but on paper it carries considerable clout:
It specifically authorizes the state attorney general, district
attorneys and city attorneys to bring civil charges carrying
fines of up to $1,000 for each violation.

The suit is "Arthur v. Louis Vuitton North America Inc et al.,
Case No. 2:08-cv-04731-AHM-FFM," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California.

Representing the plaintiff are:

          Daniel E. Engel, Esq. (dan@danengel.com)
          Daniel E. Engel Law Offices
          18150 Archwood Street
          Los Angeles, CA 91335-5502
          Phone: 818-345-2634
          Fax: 866-535-1248

               - and -

          Matthew J. Butterick, Esq. (mb@buttericklaw.com)
          Butterick Law Corporation
          5419 Hollywood Blvd Suite C731
          Los Angeles, CA 90027
          Phone: 323-544-1435
          Fax: 866-801-1147

Representing the defendants are:

          Rebecca J. Edelson, Esq. (redelson@steptoe.com)
          Steptoe and Johnson
          2121 Avenue of the Stars Suite 2800
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-5052
          Phone: 310-734-3200
          Fax: 310-734-3300

               - and -

          Robert E. Shapiro, Esq. (rob.shapiro@bfkn.com)
          Barack Ferrazzano Kirschbaum and Nagelberg LLP
          200 West Madison Street
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Phone: 312-984-3100
          Fax: 312-984-3150


MOTOROLA INC: Prevails in Ill. 401(k) Lawsuit Over Telsim Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Motorola, Inc. won its fight to toss a class-action lawsuit by
participants in the company's 401(k) plans stemming from its
botched deal with Turkish telecommunications company Telsim,
saying the company and its executives had no fiduciary
obligations to reveal problems with the transaction, Law360
reports.

Judge Rebecca Pallmeyer of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois granted Motorola summary judgment
on June 17, 2009, ruling that the company was shielded from
liability, according to the Law360 report.


OPPENHEIMER PENNSYLVANIA: New Developments in "Woods" Announced
---------------------------------------------------------------
     Finkelstein & Krinsk LLP announces new developments
concerning the class action complaint against Oppenheimer
Pennsylvania Municipal Fund filed in the Western District of
Pennsylvania, "Woods v Oppenheimer Pennsylvania Municipal Fund,
et. al., Case No. 09-cv-00514 (JFC)."

     On June 17, 2009, the United States Panel for Multidistrict
Litigation issued a conditional transfer order transferring the
Woods action to the District of Colorado. The case number is MDL
No. 2063.

     Purchasers of shares of the Pennsylvania Fund between
November 28, 2005 and November 28, 2008 are reminded that June
29, 2009 is the deadline for shareholders to petition for lead
plaintiff.

     The complaint filed in the Western District of
Pennsylvania, alleges that the Pennsylvania Fund and certain of
its officers and trustees violated securities laws by departing
from the filed investment protocol which injured Fund
shareholders.  The complaint alleges that Oppenheimer's
Registration Statements and Prospectuses misled investors about
the Fund's investment objectives, policies and the underlying
risk by representing Fund investments would be consistent with
preservation of capital.  In fact, the Fund lost over 33% of its
net asset value ("NAV") in 2008.  According to the complaint,
the overarching principle of capital preservation was improperly
compromised by concentrating large positions in low rated bonds,
bonds not reviewed by an independent rating agency and by
concentration in high risk securities including Tobacco Bonds,
Dirt Bonds, and Inverse Floaters.

     A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain
criteria and be made on or before June 29, 2009.

For more information, contact:

          Finkelstein & Krinsk, LLP
          501 West Broadway, Suite 1250
          San Diego, CA, 92101
          Toll free: 877-493-5366
          Fax: 619-238-5425
          e-mail: jrk@classaction.com


SEALED AIR: Defends Suit on Asbestos-related Public Disclosures
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sealed Air Corporation remains a defendant in a lawsuit seeking
class action status concerning the company's public disclosures
regarding asbestos-related claims.

According to the company's Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission dated June 11, 2009, if the
settlement of the asbestos-related claims that the company has
agreed to is not implemented, it will not be released from the
various asbestos-related, fraudulent transfer, successor
liability, and indemnification claims made against Sealed Air
arising from a 1998 transaction with W. R. Grace & Co.

Sealed Air Corporation -- http://www.sealedair.com-- is a
manufacturer of a range of packaging and performance-based
materials and equipment systems that serve an array of food,
industrial, medical and consumer applications.  The company
conducts its business through two direct wholly owned
subsidiaries, Cryovac, Inc. and Sealed Air Corporation (United
States).  It operates in three business segments: Food
Packaging, Food Solutions and Protective Packaging.  The Other
category includes specialty materials, medical applications and
new ventures.  Food Packaging segment focuses on industrial food
packaging and developments in technologies that enable food
processors to package and ship fresh and processed meats and
cheeses through their supply chain.  Its Food Solutions segment
focuses on case-ready packaging, ready meals and vertical pouch
packaging. Protective Packaging includes protective packaging
technologies and solutions.


SEALED AIR: Settlement of MPERS Suit Pending N.J. Court Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
An agreement in principle to settle the class action suit styled
"MPERS v. Sealed Air Corporation, et al. case," remains subject
to documentation and court approval.

The company is a defendant in the case of "MPERS v. Sealed Air
Corporation, et al. (Case No. 03-CV-4372)" in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey (Newark).

This lawsuit seeks class action status on behalf of all persons
who purchased or otherwise acquired securities of Sealed Air
during the period from March 27, 2000 through July 30, 2002.

The lawsuit named the company and five current and former
officers and directors of Sealed Air as defendants.  One of
these individuals and the company remain as defendants after a
partial grant of the defendants' motion to dismiss the action.

The plaintiff's principal allegations against the defendants are
that during the above period the defendants materially misled
the investing public, artificially inflated the price of the
company's common stock by publicly issuing false and misleading
statements and violated U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting
Principles, or U.S. GAAP, by failing to properly account and
accrue for the company's contingent liability for asbestos
claims arising from past operations of Grace.

The plaintiffs seek unspecified compensatory damages and other
relief.

On April 27, 2009, the company reached an agreement in principle
with the plaintiffs to settle the "MPERS v. Sealed Air
Corporation, et al." case, subject to documentation and Court
approval.  The agreement provides for payment of $20.0 million,
which will be fully funded by the company's primary and excess
insurance carriers, according to the company's Form 8-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission dated June 11,
2009.

Sealed Air Corporation -- http://www.sealedair.com-- is a
manufacturer of a range of packaging and performance-based
materials and equipment systems that serve an array of food,
industrial, medical and consumer applications.  The company
conducts its business through two direct wholly owned
subsidiaries, Cryovac, Inc. and Sealed Air Corporation (United
States).  It operates in three business segments: Food
Packaging, Food Solutions and Protective Packaging.  The Other
category includes specialty materials, medical applications and
new ventures.  Food Packaging segment focuses on industrial food
packaging and developments in technologies that enable food
processors to package and ship fresh and processed meats and
cheeses through their supply chain.  Its Food Solutions segment
focuses on case-ready packaging, ready meals and vertical pouch
packaging. Protective Packaging includes protective packaging
technologies and solutions.


SEALED AIR: Suits Over W. R. Grace' Activities Pending in Canada
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sealed Air Corporation continues to face a number of cases,
including a number of putative class actions, arising from W. R.
Grace & Co.'s activities in Canada prior to the 1998
transaction.

Since November 2004, the company and specified subsidiaries have
been named as defendants in several cases brought in Canada as a
result of Grace's alleged marketing, manufacturing or
distributing of asbestos or asbestos-containing products in
Canada prior to the Cryovac transaction in 1998.  Grace has
agreed to defend and indemnify the company and its subsidiaries
in these cases.

The Canadian cases are currently stayed.

A global settlement of these Canadian claims to be funded by
Grace has been approved by the Canadian court, and the PI
Settlement Plan provides for payment of these claims.

The global settlement of the Canadian claims will, unless
amended, become null and void if a confirmation order in the
Grace U.S. bankruptcy proceeding is not granted prior to Oct.
31, 2009.

According to the company's Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission dated June 11, 2009, if a
final plan of reorganization that is confirmed and becomes
effective does not provide for these claims or if the Canadian
courts refuse to enforce the final plan of reorganization in the
Canadian courts, and if in addition Grace is unwilling or unable
to defend and indemnify the company and its subsidiaries in
these cases, then the company could be required to pay
substantial damages, which it cannot estimate at this time and
which could have a material adverse effect on its consolidated
financial position and results of operations.

Sealed Air Corporation -- http://www.sealedair.com-- is a
manufacturer of a range of packaging and performance-based
materials and equipment systems that serve an array of food,
industrial, medical and consumer applications.  The company
conducts its business through two direct wholly owned
subsidiaries, Cryovac, Inc. and Sealed Air Corporation (United
States).  It operates in three business segments: Food
Packaging, Food Solutions and Protective Packaging.  The Other
category includes specialty materials, medical applications and
new ventures.  Food Packaging segment focuses on industrial food
packaging and developments in technologies that enable food
processors to package and ship fresh and processed meats and
cheeses through their supply chain.  Its Food Solutions segment
focuses on case-ready packaging, ready meals and vertical pouch
packaging. Protective Packaging includes protective packaging
technologies and solutions.


SNELLING STAFFING: Faces Suit Alleging Unfair Business Practices
----------------------------------------------------------------
Snelling Staffing Services of Dallas, Texas is seeking for the
dismissal of a purported class-action alleging unfair business
practices and other claims, Workforce Management reports.

The suit was filed in March by Nick Zanze, who was previously
employed as a recruiter at Snelling Staffing.  Mr. Zanze claims
the company deprived former internal personnel of money earned
because of rules for payment of commissions, according to
Workforce Management.

It cites the company's employment contract that states workers
must be employed with Snelling Staffing on the last day of the
month for which the monthly commission is to be paid in order to
receive the commission.  For direct hire placements, commissions
aren't paid to internal workers if a client pays after the
staffing firm internal worker has left the employment of
Snelling Staffing, according to the complaint, a copy of which
was obtained by Workforce Management.

The suit also claims Snelling Staffing wrongfully has noncompete
clauses in its employment contract in states where such clauses
aren't allowed, including California, Colorado, Montana and
Hawaii, reports Workforce Management.

Attorneys for Snelling Staffing have filed a motion to dismiss
the case, which is scheduled to be heard in court July 6, 2009,
Workforce Management reported.


SOUTHERN HEALTH: Faces Ky. Inmates' Suit Over Medical Treatment
---------------------------------------------------------------
Southern Health Partners, Inc. is one of several defendants in a
purported class-action lawsuit filed two former inmates at the
Campbell County jail in Kentucky who are claiming that they were
denied medical treatment while incarcerated, WKRC TV Cincinnati
reports.

The suit was filed on June 17, 2009 in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Kentucky by Anthony Holt and David
Weber, under the caption, "Holt et al v. Campbell County,
Kentucky et al., Case No. 2:2009-cv-00082."

Aside from Southern Health, which is responsible for medical
care of prisoners at the jail, other defendants named in the
suit are Campbell County, Kentucky, Campbell County Fiscal
Court, Greg Buckler, Unknown Deputy Jailers 1-10, Steve Mullins,
Amanda Pangallo, James Todd Collins and John or Jane Does 1-10.

According to the suit, both plaintiffs served time in the
Campbell County jail, however it was not specified what charges
both men were facing when they were incarcerated, WKRC TV
Cincinnati reported.

Messrs. Holt and Weber are asking for unspecified damages,
according to WKRC TV Cincinnati.

For more details, contact:

          Eric C. Deters, Esq. (llittle@ericdeters.com)
          Eric C. Deters & Associates, P.S.C.
          5247 Madison Pike
          Independence, KY 41051
          Phone: 859-363-1900
          Fax: 859-363-1444


TWEEN BRANDS: Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit Granted Last June 2
----------------------------------------------------------------
The motion to dismiss the amended complaint in the consolidated
securities fraud class-action lawsuit against Tween Brands,
Inc., was granted by the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio on June 2, 2009.

Since Aug. 24, 2007, three purported class-action complaints had
been filed by purported purchasers of the Company's common stock
against the Company and certain of its officers, asserting
claims under the federal securities laws.

To date, all of these actions have been filed with the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Ohio.

These cases are:

      1. "June Gruhn v. Tween Brands, Inc., et al. (07 CV
         852),"

      2. "Allison Andrews v. Tween Brands, Inc., et al. (07 CV
         894)," and

      3. "John Sefler v. Tween Brands, Inc., et al (07 CV
         925)."

These actions purport to be brought on behalf of all purchasers
of the Company's common stock during various periods beginning
as early as Feb. 21, 2007, and ending on Aug. 21, 2007, and
allege, among other things, that the defendants violated Section
10(b) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder
and, in one action, Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act by making
false and misleading statements concerning the Company's
business and prospects during the class period.

These actions also allege that the Company's CEO sold stock
while in possession of adverse non-public information.

On Dec. 21, 2007, the Court appointed the Electrical Works
Pension Fund, Local 103, I.B.E.W., as lead plaintiff.

On March 20, 2008, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated
complaint naming the Company and certain current and former
officers as defendants (Class Action Reporter, April 22, 2008).

On May 5, 2008, a Motion to Dismiss the consolidated complaint
was filed on behalf of all defendants.

On June 17, 2008, a Motion for Leave to File a First Amended
Consolidated Complaint was filed by the lead plaintiff.  On
Sept. 4, 2008, the Court granted the lead plaintiff's Motion for
Leave to File a First Amended Consolidated Complaint and on Oct.
3, 2008, the lead plaintiff filed an Amended Consolidated
Complaint.

On Nov. 17, 2008, a Motion to Dismiss the Amended Consolidated
Complaint was filed on behalf of all defendants.

On Jan. 20, 2009, lead plaintiff filed an Opposition to
Defendants Motion to Dismiss.  On March 2, 2009, defendants
filed a Reply in Support of the Motion to Dismiss.

On June 2, 2009, the Court granted Defendants' Motion to Dismiss
with prejudice.  Lead plaintiff has 30 days to appeal the
Court's decision, according to the company's June 9, 2009 Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended May 2, 2009.

The suit is "June Gruhn, et al. v. Tween Brands, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 07-CV-00852," filed with the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Ohio, Judge Gregory L. Frost presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Richard Stuart Wayne, Esq. (rswayne@strausstroy.com)
          Strauss & Troy - 1
          The Federal Reserve Building
          150 E Fourth Street
          4th Floor
          Cincinnati, OH 45202-4018
          Phone: 513-621-2120

Representing the defendants is:

          James A. King, Esq. (jking@porterwright.com)
          Porter Wright Morris & Arthur - 2
          41 S High Street
          Suite 2800
          Columbus, OH 43215-6194
          Phone: 614-227-2000


TYSON FOODS: Delivers Chickens to Central Illinois Foodbank
-----------------------------------------------------------
Tyson Foods, Inc. delivered nearly 13 tons of frozen chicken to
the Central Illinois Foodbank to settle claims in a class-action
lawsuit that accuses the company of overcharging customers for
poultry products, Elle Moxley of The State Journal-Register
reports.

Sanford J. Schmidt of The Telegraph previously reported that
Associate Judge Ralph Mendelsohn of the Madison County Circuit
Court gave final approval to a proposed settlement of a class
action-lawsuit against Tyson Foods, Inc. (Class Action Reporter,
May 29, 2009).

According to a previous report by Steve Korris of St. Clair
Record Tyson Foods tentatively settled a purported class-action
suit in Madison County Circuit Court that accuses it of reaping
unjust profit by selling soggy chickens (Class Action Reporter,
February 4, 2009).

Stephen Tillery, Esq., attorney for the plaintiffs, and Tyson
Foods notified Madison County Associate Judge Ralph Mendelsohn
on Jan. 27, 2009 that they reached agreement.

The St. Clair Record reported that Judge Mendelsohn then set a
Feb. 5, 2009 hearing on a joint motion for preliminary approval.

Timothy Rogers sued Tyson in 2001, claiming it purposely soaked
chickens in water to add weight.  The suit claimed that
customers paid the same price per pound for the extra water as
they paid for the bird itself, according to the St. Clair Record
reports.

In general, the case accuses Tyson Foods of artificially
inflating the weight of poultry products sold to consumers
between 1997 and 2003 through a cold-water immersion chilling
process, which inevitably results in the absorption and
retention of water under the skin and muscle tissues of the
birds, according to The Telegraph report.

As part of the settlement, Tyson Foods will donate 1.7 million
pounds of chicken to food banks in Illinois.

But, because tracking down individual consumers would be next to
impossible, Tyson agreed to donate 1.7 million pounds of chicken
- valued at $2.3 million - to Illinois' eight community food
banks, according to The State Journal-Register report.

Court records indicate Judge Mendelsohn approved attorneys' fees
of $750,000, a $2 million fund to settle claims by individual
class members and the donation to the food pantries, The
Telegraph reported.

Overall, the retail value of the donation is approximately $2.3
million, reports The Telegraph.


UTI WORLDWIDE: Still Faces Freight Forwarding Services Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
UTi Worldwide Inc. and several other global logistics providers
continue to face a purported class-action suit that was filed
with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New
York, alleging antitrust violations, according to the company's
June 9, 2009 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 30, 2009.

The suit was filed on Jan. 3, 2008, under the caption,
"Precision Associates, Inc. v. Panalpina World Transport
(Holding) Ltd."  It alleges that the defendants engaged in
various forms of anti-competitive practices and seeks an
unspecified amount of treble monetary damages and injunctive
relief under U.S. antitrust laws (Class Action Reporter Jan. 14,
2008).

Also named as defendants in the lawsuit are:

     -- Panalpina, Inc.;
     -- Kuhne + Nagel International AG;
     -- Kuehne + Nagel, Inc.;
     -- Expeditors International of Washinton, Inc.;
     -- EGL, Inc.;
     -- EGL Eagle Global Logistics, LP;
     -- Deutsche Bahn AG;
     -- Schenker AG;
     -- Schenker, Inc.;
     -- Deutsche Post AG;
     -- DHL EXpress (USA), Inc.;
     -- UTi Worldwide, Inc.; and
     -- Spedlogswiss a/k/a The Association of Swiss Forwarders.

Precision Associates, Inc., James Barnes and Anything Goes LLC
d/b/a Mail Boxes Etc., bring this action under the provisions of
Rule 23(a) and (b)(2) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure on behalf of all persons (excluding governmental
entities, defendants, their subsidiaries and affiliates, and
their co-conspirators) who directly purchased Freight Forwarding
Services in the U.S. from any of the defendants or any
subsidiary or affiliate thereof, or any co-conspirator, at any
time during the period from Jan. 1, 2001, to the present.

They want the court to rule on:

     (a) whether defendants and their co-conspirators engaged in
         a contract, conspiracy or combination to raise, fix,
         stabilize, or maintain the prices of Freight Forwarding
         Services sold in the United States;

     (b) whether the alleged contract, conspiracy or combination
         violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act;

     (c) the duration and extent of the contract, conspiracy or
         combination alleged;

     (d) whether the defendants and their co-conspirators took
         affirmative steps to conceal the contract, conspiracy
         or combination;

     (e) whether each of the defendants was a participant in the
         contract, conspiracy or combination alleged;

     (f) whether the defendants' conduct caused the prices of
         Freight Forwarding Services to be set at an
         artificially high and non-competitive level;

     (g) the effect of defendants' contract, conspiracy or
         combination upon interstate commerce;

     (h) the appropriate measure of damages; and

     (i) whether plaintiffs and class members are entitled to
         declaratory and/or injunctive relief.

The plaintiffs pray:

     -- that the court determine that the Sherman Act claim
        contained may be maintained as a class action under Rule
        23(a), (b)(2), and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil
        Procedure;

     -- that the unlawful contract, conspiracy or combination
        alleged be adjudged and decreed to be a per se restraint
        of trade or commerce in violation of Section 1 of the
        Sherman Act;

     -- that plaintiffs and the class recover damages, as
        provided by law, and that a joint and several judgment
        in favor of plaintiffs and the class be entered against
        the defendants in an amount to be trebled in accordance
        with the antitrust laws;

     -- that defendants, their affiliates, successors,
        transferees, assignees, and the officers, directors,
        partners, agents and employees thereof, and all other
        persons acting or claiming to act on their behalf, be
        permanently enjoined and restrained from in any manner:

        (1) continuing, maintaining, or renewing the contract,
            conspiracy or combination alleged, or from entering
            into any other conspiracy alleged, or from entering
            into any other contract, conspiracy or combination
            having a similar purpose of effect, and from
            adopting or following any practice, plan, program or
            device having a similar purpose or effect; and

        (2) communicating or causing to be communicated to any
            other person engaged in the distribution or sale of
            Freight Forwarding Services, information concerning
            prices or other terms or conditions of sale of any
            such products except to the extent necessary in
            connection with bona fide sale transactions between
            the parties to such communication;

     -- that plaintiffs and members of the class be awarded pre-
        and post-judgment interest and that interest be awarded
        at the highest legal rate from and after the date of
        service of the initial complaint in this action;

     -- that plaintiffs and members of the class recover their
        costs of this suit, including reasonable attorneys' fees
        as provided by law; and

     -- that plaintiffs and members of the class have such
        other, further, and different relief as the case may
        require and the court may deem just and proper under the
        circumstances.

The suit is "Precision Associates, Inc. et al. cv. Panalpina
World Transport (Holding) Ltd. et al., Case No. CV 08 0042,"
filed with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
New York.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Christopher Lovell, Esq. (clovell@lshllp.com)
          Lovell Stewart Halebian LLP
          500 Fifth Avenue, Floor 58
          New York, NY 10110
          Phone: (212) 608-1900
          Fax: (212) 719-4677

Representing the defendants are:

          August C. Venturini, Esq. (acv@venturini-law.com)
          Venturini & Associates
          230 Park Avenue
          Suite 545
          New York, NY 10169
          Phone: 212-826-6800
          Fax: 212-949-6162

          James Joseph Calder, Esq. (james.calder@kattenlaw.com)
          Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP
          575 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: 212-940-6460
          Fax: 212-940-3871

               - and -

          Breon S. Peace, Esq. (bpeace@cgsh.com)
          Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP
          One Liberty Plaza
          New York, NY 10006
          Phone: 212-225-2059
          Fax: 212-225-3999


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

OPPENHEIMER PENNSYLVANIA: Brower Piven Announces Lawsuit Filing
---------------------------------------------------------------
     Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation announces that a
class action lawsuit has been commenced in the United States
District Court for the District of Colorado on behalf of all
persons or entities who acquired shares of the Oppenheimer
Pennsylvania Municipal Bond Fund (NASDAQ: OPATX) (NASDAQ: OPABX)
(NASDAQ: OPACX) during the period between November 28, 2005 and
November 28, 2008, inclusive.

     The complaint accuses the defendants of violations of the
Securities Act of 1933 and the Investment Company Act by virtue
of the Fund's failure to comply with its investment objective to
secure a high level of current interest income as is consistent
with preservation of capital as stated in the Fund's
Registration Statement and Prospectus.  According to the
complaint, because the Fund engaged in excessively risky
investment strategies by concentrating its investments in large
positions in low rated bonds, bonds not reviewed by an
independent rating agency and by portfolio concentration in high
risk securities including, Tobacco Bonds, Dirt Bonds, and
derivative instruments known as "inverse floaters," the Fund
suffered an approximate 33% decline in the net asset value in
2008.

     A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain
criteria and be made on or before June 29, 2009.

For more details, contact:

          Charles J. Piven, Esq. (hoffman@browerpiven.com)
          Brower Piven
          The World Trade Center-Baltimore
          401 East Pratt Street, Suite 2525
          Baltimore, Maryland 21202
          Phone: 410/332-0030
          Web site: http://www.browerpiven.com


RAYMOND JAMES: Howard G. Smith Announces Securities Suit Filing
---------------------------------------------------------------
     Law Offices of Howard G. Smith announces that a securities
class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of all purchasers
of the common stock of Raymond James Financial, Inc. (NYSE:RJF)
between April 22, 2008 and April 14, 2009, inclusive.  The class
action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York.

     The Complaint alleges that the defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing material misrepresentations to the
market concerning Raymond James Financial's operations,
prospects and financial performance, thereby artificially
inflating the price of the Company's securities.

     No class has yet been certified in the above action.

     A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain
criteria and be made on or before August 10, 2009.

          For more details, contact:

          Howard G. Smith, Esq. (howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com)
          Law Offices of Howard G. Smith
          3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112
          Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020
          Phone: (215) 638-4847 or (888) 638-4847


SHEARSON FINANCIAL: Walden Law Firm Files Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
     Walden Law Firm, PLLC announced that a class action has
been commenced in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Arkansas on behalf of purchasers of Shearson
securities between May 7, 2009, and May 12, 2009.

     The complaint charges Shearson and certain of its officers
and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

     Shearson is a financial services company that conducts
business in 47 states throughout the United States.

     The complaint alleges that during the Class Period,
defendants issued materially false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's emergence from bankruptcy.  The Company
caused a press release to be issued on May 7, 2009, that stated
the Company had emerged from bankruptcy.

     In the press release, the Company used the ticker symbol,
SHSNQ to identify itself, which was the ticker symbol belonging
to the Company's old stock which would ultimately be cancelled.

     However, at the time the Company issued the press release
the stock listed under the ticker symbol SHSNQ was still trading
and had not been cancelled.  As a result of defendants' false
and misleading statements, Shearson's securities traded at
artificially inflated prices during the Class Period, reaching a
high of $.039 on May 8, 2009.

     On May 11, 2009, the Company issued a press release stating
among other things that the stock trading under the ticker
symbol SHSNQ would be cancelled and that Shearson's new stock
would trade under a different ticker symbol.

     Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all
purchasers of Shearson's securities during the Class Period.


For more details, contact:

       Richard E. Walden, Esq.
       Walden Law Firm, PLLC
       Phone: 501-907-7000
       e-mail: charterlitigation@gmail.com
       Web site:
       http://www.waldenlawfirm.com/Cases/Shearson/Shearson.html


                            *********

A list of Meetings, Conferences and Seminars appears in each
Wednesday's edition of the Class Action Reporter.  Submissions
via e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged.

Each Friday's edition of the CAR includes a section featuring
news on asbestos-related litigation and profiles of target
asbestos defendants that, according to independent research,
collectively face billions of dollars in asbestos-related
liabilities.

                            *********

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.  Glenn Ruel S. Senorin, Stephanie T. Umacob, Gracele D.
Canilao, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2009.  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  * * *