---

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

             Tuesday, July 14, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 137

                           Headlines

ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Ninth Circuit Reverses Norvir Case Ruling
AEROFLEX INC: In Talks to Settle Stockholders' Suit in New York
AUDIOVOX CORP: Suits Over Cell Phone Radiation Remain Pending
AUTHENTIDATE HOLDING: Appeal to Dismissal of N.Y. Suit Pending
AVERY DENNISON: Bid to Dismiss Label Stock Suit in Tenn. Pending

AVERY DENNISON: Inked UPM-MACtac Merger Suit Settlement in May
BFC FINANCIAL: Unit Continues to Defend "Dance" Securities Suit
BURR OAK: Faces Illinois Litigation Over Cemetery Desecration
FIRST BANKS: Deal in Securities Suit v. CFHI Pending Approval
FIRST HEALTH: Fairness Hearing for "Coy" to Resume on July 15

GLOBAL CASH: Faces Pa. Suit Over ATM Fee Disclosure Requirements
HARRAH'S ENTERTAINMENT: Bid to Junk Suit Over Debt Plan Pending
HCA INC: Final Settlement for Tenn. ERISA Suit Approved in March
HCA INC: Remanded Understaffing Suit Remains Ongoing in Kansas
INTEL CORP: Faces Calif. Litigation Over Laptop Battery Life

INTERNATIONAL GAME: Trial in Brochu v. Loto Quebec Suit Ongoing
JEFFERSON COUNTY: Faces Hospital Patients' Suit Over Budget Cuts
LEAR CORP: Settlement of Consolidated ERISA Suit Pending Ruling
LIFE SCIENCES: Brodsky & Smith Files N.J. Lawsuit Over Lion Deal
LIFE SCIENCES: Levi & Korsinsky Files N.J. Suit Over Lion Deal

MANULIFE FINANCIAL: Abbey Spanier Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
METABANK: Still Faces N.H. Litigation Over $4.2M Embezzlement
MOTOROLA INC: Calif. Court Approves Bluetooth Headset Settlement
MSC SOFTWARE: Brodsky & Smith Files Lawsuit Over Symphony Deal
PHILIP MORRIS: Faces Arkansas Litigation Over "Light" Cigarettes

PRESSTEK INC: July 20 Hearing Set for "Sloman" Suit Settlement
R.L.J. LENDING: Faces Ill. Lawsuit Over Payment of $10,000 Loan
SAL'S LANDSCAPING: Faces Overtime Pay Litigation in Pennsylvania
SCORES HOLDING: To Contest "Diaz" Liability & Violation Claims
STATION CASINOS: "Lukevich" Labor Suit Still Pending in Nevada

VIGNETTE CORP: Reaches Settlement in Suit Over Open Text Merger


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

TRONOX INC: Coughlin Stoia Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
TRONOX INC: Izard Nobel LLP Announces Securities Lawsuit Filing


                           *********

ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Ninth Circuit Reverses Norvir Case Ruling
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the
certification of a class in the matter, "In re Abbot
Laboratories Norvir Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 4:04-cv-
01511-CW," Ben Hallman of Am Law Litigation Daily reports.

Previously, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California granted a motion seeking class certification of the
consolidated litigation (Class Action Reporter, June 9, 2008).

The consolidated class action suit filed on behalf of individual
consumers John Doe 1 (filed in April 2004), and third party
payors Service Employees International Union Health & Welfare
Fund (filed in October 2004), generally alleges antitrust
violations in connection with the 2003 Norvir re-pricing.

Ritonavir is manufactured as Norvir by Abbott Laboratories.  It
is an anti-retroviral drug from the protease inhibitor class
used to treat HIV infection and AIDS.

Specifically, the suit claims that Abbott unlawfully raised the
wholesale price of Norvir by 400% in an attempt to restrict
competition in the market for protease inhibitors.  It asks the
Court to award money damages and injunctive relief.

The company argues that the current price of Norvir is
appropriate given its valuable use as a booster.  Abbot also
denies that the price increase had any negative impact on
competition.

A copy of the decision is available free of charge at:
              http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?3f18

For more details, contact:

          Norvir Litigation Administrator
          c/o Complete Claim Solutions, LLC
          P.O. Box 24784
          West Palm Beach, FL 33416
          Phone: 1-877-625-9425
          Web site: http://www.NorvirClassAction.com/

          Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo
          425 California Street
          Suite 2100
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Phone: 800-516-9926
                 415-433-3200
          Fax: 415-433-6382
          e-mail: law@bermanesq.com
          Web site: http://www.bermanesq.com/

          Labaton Sucharow LLP
          140 Broadway
          New York, NY 10005
          Phone: 888-753-2796
                 212-907-0700
          Fax: 212-818-0477
          e-mail: info@labaton.com
          Web site: http://www.labaton.com/


AEROFLEX INC: In Talks to Settle Stockholders' Suit in New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
Aeroflex, Inc. is in settlement discussions with the plaintiffs
of a class action in the Supreme Court of the State of New York,
Nassau County, according to the company's May 14, 2009 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2009

An amended class action complaint was filed against the company
and the Predecessor Entity's board of directors on June 20, 2007
in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Nassau County.

The complaint alleges that the board breached its fiduciary
duties to the company's stockholders: (i) by issuing a
preliminary proxy statement on June 5, 2007, that was issued in
connection with seeking stockholder approval of the Merger; and
(ii) in approving certain amendments, that were allegedly beyond
the scope of the company's corporate powers, to its SERP and the
employment agreements of defendants Harvey R. Blau, the
company's then Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, and Leonard
Borow, its then President and Chief Operating Officer and
currently, the Successor Entity's President and Chief Executive
Officer.

Aeroflex, Inc. -- http://www.aeroflex.com/-- is engaged in the
design, engineering, manufacturing, production and sales of
microelectronic and test solutions to the broadband
communications, aerospace and defense markets.  The company also
designs and manufactures motion control systems that are used
for aerospace and defense applications.


AUDIOVOX CORP: Suits Over Cell Phone Radiation Remain Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Certain consolidated class actions transferred to a Multi-
District Litigation Panel of the U.S. District Court of the
District of Maryland against Audiovox Corp. and other suppliers,
manufacturers and distributors of hand-held wireless telephones
are still pending.

The suits are generally alleging damages relating to exposure to
radio frequency radiation from hand-held wireless telephones.

The company reported no development in the matter in its May 14,
2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Feb. 28, 2009.

Audiovox Corp. -- http://www.audiovox.com/-- is an
international distributor and value added service provider in
the accessory, mobile and consumer electronics industries.


AUTHENTIDATE HOLDING: Appeal to Dismissal of N.Y. Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the dismissal of a consolidated securities fraud
class action pending against Authentidate Holding Corp. and
certain of its current and former officers and directors is
pending, according to the company's May 14, 2009 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2009.

Between June and August 2005, six purported shareholder class
action complaints were filed before the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York against the company and
certain of current and former officers and directors.  The
plaintiffs in these actions allege that the defendants violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Sections 11, 12(a), and 15 of the Securities Act of
1933.

The securities law claims are based on the allegation that the
company failed to disclose that the U.S. Postal Service could
cancel its August 2002 contract with it if the company did not
meet certain performance metrics, and when it disclosed in 2005
that the USPS could cancel its contract because the company had
not met those performance metrics, the market price of its stock
declined.  The class-action complaints seek unspecified monetary
damages.

Certain plaintiffs and purported shareholders filed motions
seeking to consolidate the class actions and to be appointed a
lead plaintiff under the Private Securities Litigation Reform
Act.

On Oct. 5, 2005, the court consolidated the class actions as "In
re Authentidate Holding Corp. Securities Litigation, C.A. No. 05
Civ. 5323 (LTS)," and appointed the Illinois State Board of
Investment as lead plaintiff under the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act.

The plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint in
January 2006, asserting the same claims as the prior complaints
and also alleged that the company violated the federal
securities laws by misrepresenting that it possessed certain
patentable technology.

In July 2006, the court dismissed the amended complaint in its
entirety.  Certain claims were dismissed with prejudice and the
plaintiffs were given leave to replead those claims, which were
not dismissed with prejudice.

In August 2006, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint,
which does not assert any claims relating to the company's
patents, but which otherwise is substantially similar to the
prior complaint.  The second amended complaint seeks unspecified
monetary damages.

The company moved to dismiss the second amended complaint on
Nov. 13, 2006.

On March 26, 2009, the company reported that the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed with
prejudice the shareholder class actions filed against the
company and certain of its current and former directors and
former officers.

On April 24, 2009, the lead plaintiff filed a notice of appeal
of the decision of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit.

The suit is "In Re: Authentidate Holding Corp. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 1:05-cv-05323-LTS," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge
Laura Taylor Swain, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Richard William Gonnello, Esq.
         (rgonnello@entwistle-law.com)
         Andrew J. Entwistle, Esq.
         (aentwistle@entwistle-law.com)
         Johnston de Forest Whitman, Jr., Esq.
         (jwhitman@entwistle-law.com)
         Entwistle & Cappucci, LLP
         280 Park Avenue, 26th Floor West
         New York, NY 10017
         Phone: 212-894-7200
         Fax: 212-894-7272

              - and -

         Samuel Howard Rudman, Esq. (srudman@lerachlaw.com)
         Lerach, Coughlin, Stoia, Geller, Rudman & Robbins, LLP
         200 Broadhollow Road, Ste. 406
         Melville, NY 11747
         Phone: 631-367-7100
         Fax: 631-367-1173

Representing the defendants is:

         Irwin Howard Warren, Esq. (irwin.warren@weil.com)
         Weil, Gotshal & Manges, LLP
         767 Fifth Avenue
         New York, NY 10153
         Phone: 212-310-8000
         Fax: 212-833-3148


AVERY DENNISON: Bid to Dismiss Label Stock Suit in Tenn. Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
A motion to dismiss a purported class action suit against Avery
Dennison Corp., UPM-Kymmene and UPM's subsidiary, Raflatac,
filed on behalf of indirect purchasers of label stock in
Tennessee remains pending.

On May 21, 2003, The Harman Press filed a purported class action
suit before the Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles,
California, on behalf of indirect purchasers of label stock.
The suit asks treble damages and other relief for alleged
unlawful competitive practices.

Three similar complaints were filed with various California
courts.  In November 2003, on petition from the parties, the
California Judicial Council ordered the cases coordinated for
pretrial purposes.  The cases were assigned to a coordination
trial judge in the Superior Court for San Francisco County on
March 30, 2004.

On Jan. 21, 2005, American International Distribution Corp.
filed a purported class action suit on behalf of indirect
purchasers with the Superior Court for Chittenden County,
Vermont.

Similar actions were then filed by Richard Wrobel, on Feb. 16,
2005, in the District Court of Johnson County, Kansas; and by
Chad and Terry Muzzey, on Feb. 16, 2005, with the District Court
of Scotts Bluff County, Nebraska.

On Feb. 17, 2005, Judy Benson filed a purported multi-state
class action on behalf of indirect purchasers in the Circuit
Court for Cocke County, Tennessee.

The Nebraska, Kansas and Vermont cases are currently stayed.

The defendants filed a motion on March 30, 2006, to dismiss the
Tennessee case.  This request is pending.

The Nebraska, Kansas and Vermont cases are currently stayed.
Defendants' motion to dismiss the Tennessee case, filed on March
30, 2006, is pending, according to the company's May 14, 2009
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended April 4, 2009.

Avery Dennison Corp. -- http://www.averydennison.com/-- is
engaged in the production of pressure-sensitive materials,
office products and a variety of tickets, tags, labels and other
converted products.  It also manufactures and sells a variety of
office products, and other converted products and other items
not involving pressure-sensitive components, such as binders,
organizing systems, markers, fasteners, business forms, as well
as tickets, tags, and imprinting equipment for retail and
apparel manufacturers.


AVERY DENNISON: Inked UPM-MACtac Merger Suit Settlement in May
--------------------------------------------------------------
Avery Dennison Corp. entered into a settlement agreement with
plaintiffs in a class-action lawsuit, "Sentry Business Products,
Inc. v. Avery Dennison Corp., et al., Case No. 3:03-cv-01999-
TIV," on May 12, 2009.

An appeal by Avery Dennison Corp. in connection with a ruling by
the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
granting class-action status to the lawsuit, "Sentry Business
Products, Inc. v. Avery Dennison Corp., et al., Case No. 3:03-
cv-01999-TIV," has been denied.

On April 24, 2003, Sentry Business Products, Inc., filed the
purported class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for
the Middle District of Pennsylvania against Avery Dennison in
relation to a proposed merger of UPM-Kymmene and the Morgan
Adhesives (MACtac) division of Bemis Co., Inc.  The suit seeks
treble damages and other relief for alleged unlawful competitive
practices.

Ten similar complaints were later filed in various federal
district courts.

In November 2003, the cases were transferred to the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania and
consolidated for pretrial purposes.

On Jan. 21, 2004, plaintiff Pamco Tape & Label voluntarily
dismissed its complaint, leaving a total of 10 named plaintiffs.
The plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint on Feb. 16, 2004,
which the company answered in March 2004.

On April 14, 2004, the court separated the proceedings as to
class certification and merits discovery, and limited the
initial phase of discovery to the issue of the appropriateness
of class certification.

On Jan. 4, 2006, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.  On
Jan. 20, 2006, the company filed an answer to the amended
complaint.

On Aug. 14, 2006, the plaintiffs moved to certify a proposed
class.  The defendants opposed this motion.  On March 1, 2007,
the court heard oral argument on the issue of the
appropriateness of class certification.

On Aug. 28, 2007, the plaintiffs moved to lift the stay imposed
on discovery, which request the company opposed.

On Nov. 19, 2007, the court certified a class consisting of
direct purchasers of self-adhesive label stock from the
defendants during the period from Jan. 1, 1996, to July 25,
2003.

The company filed a petition to appeal the decision on Dec. 4,
2007, which petition was later denied.

On July 22, 2008, the court held a hearing to set a schedule for
merits discovery.

On May 12, 2009, the company entered into a settlement agreement
with plaintiffs. Without admitting liability, the company has
agreed to pay plaintiffs $36.5 million, plus up to $.5 million
related to notice and administration expenses, in two equal
installments of $18.5 million.

The company expects the first installment to be paid in the
second quarter of 2009 and the second installment to be paid in
the third quarter of 2009.  The company recorded an accrual of
$37 million for this settlement in the three-month period ended
April 4, 2009.  The settlement is subject to approval by the
court.  If court approval is obtained, the matter will be
dismissed with prejudice, according to the company's May 14,
2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended April 4, 2009.

The suit is "Sentry Business Products, Inc. v. Avery Dennison
Corp., et al., Case No. 3:03-cv-01999-TIV," filed before the
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania,
Judge Thomas I. Vanaskie presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Stewart M. Weltman, Esq. (sweltman@cmht.com)
         Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, PLLC
         39 South LaSalle Street, Suite 1100
         Chicago, IL 60603
         Phone: 312-357-0370

Representing the company are:

         Joshua N. Holian, Esq. (joshua.holian@lw.com)
         J. Thomas Rosch, Esq. (Tom.Rosch@lw.com)
         Latham & Watkins LLP
         505 Montgomery Street, Suite 1900
         San Francisco, CA 94111
         Phone: 415-646-8343
         Fax: 415-395-8095


BFC FINANCIAL: Unit Continues to Defend "Dance" Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
BFC Financial Corp.'s subsidiary, Woodbridge Holdings Corp.
formerly known as Levitt Corp.), continues to defend a purported
class-action complaint filed by Robert D. Dance in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida, according
to the company's May 14, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March
31, 2009.

On Jan. 25, 2008, plaintiff Robert D. Dance filed a purported
class-action complaint as a putative purchaser of securities
against Woodbridge and certain of its officers and directors,
asserting claims under the federal securities law and seeking
damages.

This action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida and is captioned, "Dance v. Levitt
Corp. et al., No. 08-CV-60111-DLG."

The securities litigation purports to be brought on behalf of
all purchasers of Woodbridge's securities beginning on Jan. 31,
2007 and ending on Aug. 14, 2007.

The complaint alleges that the defendants violated Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by issuing a series of false and/or misleading
statements concerning Woodbridge's financial results, prospects
and condition.

BFC Financial Corp. -- http://www.bfcfinancial.com/-- is a
holding company.  Its ownership interests include direct and
indirect interests in businesses in a variety of sectors,
including consumer and commercial banking, master-planned
community development, time-share and vacation ownership, an
Asian-themed restaurant chain and various real estate and
venture capital investments.  BFC's holdings consist of direct
controlling interests in BankAtlantic Bancorp, Inc. and Levitt
Corporation.  BFC owns a direct investment in Benihana, Inc. BFC
itself has no significant operations other than activities
relating to the monitoring of existing investments.  BFC
operates through six segments: BFC Activities, Financial
Services and four segments within its Real Estate Development
Division.


BURR OAK: Faces Illinois Litigation Over Cemetery Desecration
-------------------------------------------------------------
Burr Oak Cemetery in Alsip, and its owners are facing a
purported class-action lawsuit that was filed on behalf of
people who have relatives buried at the suburban Chicago
cemetery where bodies were allegedly removed from graves and
dumped so that the plots could be resold, The Associated Press
reports.

The families of twenty-one people buried at Burr Ridge Cemetery
are also suing four workers accused of desecrating their
relatives' graves, The Associated Press reported.

The class-action suit was filed on July 10, 2009 in Cook County
Circuit Court in Illinois by Bobbie Sanders, according to The
Associated Press.


FIRST BANKS: Deal in Securities Suit v. CFHI Pending Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------
The settlement of a securities class action complaint against
First Banks, Inc.'s wholly owned subsidiary holding company,
Coast Financial Holdings, Inc. (CFHI), remains subject to court
approval.

Prior to acquisition by First Banks, CFHI and certain of its
present and former officers were named as defendants in three
purported class action complaints filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division (the
Court) alleging violations of the federal securities laws, the
first of which was filed with the Court on March 20, 2007 (the
Securities Actions).

On June 22, 2007, the Court entered an order pursuant to which
the Court: (i) consolidated the Securities Actions, with the
matter proceeding under the docket for "Grand Lodge of
Pennsylvania v. Brian P. Peters, et al., Case No. 8:07-cv-429-T-
26-EAJ;" and (ii) appointed Troy Ratcliff and Daniel Altenburg
(the Lead Plaintiffs) as lead plaintiffs pursuant to the
provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of
1995.

Subsequent to the disposition of certain preliminary motions
filed by plaintiffs and defendants, on April 2, 2008, the Lead
Plaintiffs and an additional plaintiff, St. Denis J. Villere &
Co., LLC, filed a second consolidated amended class action
complaint (the Amended Complaint).

The Amended complaint named as defendants (i) certain former
officers and members of CFHI's board of directors, (ii) the
underwriters of CFHI's October 5, 2005 public offering of common
stock, and (iii) CFHI's external auditors.

The Amended Complaint was brought on behalf of a putative class
of purchasers of CFHI's common stock between Jan. 21, 2005 and
Jan. 22, 2007.

In general, the Amended Complaint alleges that CFHI's U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission filings and public statements
contained misstatements and omissions regarding its residential
construction-to-permanent lending operations and, more
specifically, regarding a home builder and its affiliates, and
also alleges that CFHI's financial statements violated U.S.
generally accepted accounting principles.

The Amended Complaint asserts claims under Sections 11 and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.

On Aug. 30, 2007, the Lead Plaintiffs filed a notice with the
Court voluntarily dismissing their claims against Anne V. Lee
and Justin D. Locke without prejudice.

On Feb. 17, 2009, CFHI and the plaintiffs entered into an
agreement for the settlement of the Securities Actions.
Pursuant to the agreement, CFHI and its insurer will pay an
amount in settlement of the claims, and CFHI, the former officer
and director defendants, and the underwriter defendants will be
released and dismissed with prejudice from the action.  In
accordance with the agreement, on March 16, 2009, CFHI paid its
allocation of the settlement in the amount of $750,000, which
was recorded as other expense in the consolidated statement of
operations for the year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

Among other terms and conditions, the settlement is subject to
approval by the Court and will not be consummated if the Court
fails to grant approval, according to the company's May 14, 2009
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009.

First Banks, Inc. -- http://www.firstbanks.com-- keeps it in
the family. The holding company for First Bank is owned by
chairman James Dierberg and his family, and a number of its
branches and ATMs are located in Dierbergs Markets, a Missouri-
based grocery chain owned by relatives of the chairman.  First
Bank has about 215 branches in California, Florida, Illinois,
Missouri, and Texas, with a concentration in metropolitan
markets such as Chicago, Dallas, Houston, Los Angeles, St.
Louis, San Diego, San Francisco, and Tampa. The bank offers
standard services like deposit products, mortgages, and business
and consumer loans in addition to brokerage, insurance, trust,
private banking, and institutional money management services.


FIRST HEALTH: Fairness Hearing for "Coy" to Resume on July 15
-------------------------------------------------------------
A fairness hearing for the settlement of the matter, "Richard C.
Coy, D.C. d/b/a Coy Chiropractic Health Center, P.C., and
Lawrence Shipley, D.C., v. CCN Managed Care, Inc. and First
Health Group Corp., Circuit Court of Madison County, Illinois,
Case No. 04-L-1055," which was halted in May by Judge Daniel
Stack of the Madison County Circuit Court will resume on July
15, 2009, Amelia Flood of The St. Clair Record reports.

Judge Stack will hear more arguments over the settlement,
according to The St. Clair Record.

Previously, The St. Clair Record reported that Judge Stack moved
to continue the fairness hearing over the proposed settlement in
the matter, the case to July (Class Action Reporter, May 29,
2009).

After three hours of argument at a fairness hearing held on May
26, 2009, Judge Stack told attorneys, "My brain hurts."  He
added, "I've had just about all I can take," according to The
St. Clair Record report.

Judge Stack was referring to arguments over the settlement of a
suit against First Health Insurance Co.  While both parties
reached a settlement back in 2008, the settlement has yet to be
approved due to an objection filed by a class member with a
similar lawsuit pending in St. Clair County, The St. Clair
Record reported.

The judge has continued the hearing until July 15 at 10 a.m.  He
will hear the remainder of the objector's arguments and
responses from plaintiff and defense counsel, reports The St.
Clair Record.

Amelia Flood of The St. Clair Record previously reported that a
fairness hearing is set for May 26, 2009 to determine whether a
charitable contribution of more than $1.2 million is a fair end
to a 2004 chiropractor class-action suit against insurer First
Health Group Corp. over claims adjustments (Class Action
Reporter, May 26, 2009).

Previously, it was reported that the Circuit Court of the Third
Judicial District, Madison County, Illinois, will hold a
fairness hearing on May 26, 2009 at 1:30 p.m. for the proposed
settlement in the purported class-action lawsuit captioned,
"Richard C. Coy, D.C. d/b/a Coy Chiropractic Health Center,
P.C., and Lawrence Shipley, D.C., v. CCN Managed Care, Inc. and
First Health Group Corp., Circuit Court of Madison County,
Illinois, Case No. 04-L-1055," (Class Action Reporter, April 6,
2009).

This lawsuit was filed Sept. 24, 2004.  In the suit, plaintiffs
claim that CCN Managed Care, Inc. (f/k/a Community Care Network,
Inc.), and First Health Group Corp., (collectively First
Health), operated Preferred Provider Organization (PPO) networks
through which healthcare payors improperly discounted the bills
of Illinois healthcare providers who treated workers'
compensation claimants and Illinois automobile accident policy
claimants.

Granite City chiropractor Lawrence Shipley and Glen Carbon
chiropractor Richard Coy settled the class-action suit against
First Health in Madison County in January, reports The St. Clair
Record.

In the settlement, First Health did not admit to any wrongdoing.
It was to give $1.25 million to a charity.  The company would
pay $650,000 in attorneys' fees and costs to Wood River attorney
Brad Lakin's law firm and a $10,000 incentive award to the class
representatives, according to The St. Clair Record report.

For more details, contact:

          LakinChapman, LLC
          300 Evans Ave,
          PO Box 229,
          Wood River, IL
          Phone: 618-254-1127
          e-mail: ppo.classaction@lakinchapman.com
          Web site: http://www.lakinchapman.com

               - and -

          PPO Settlement Administrator
          PO Box 1971
          Fairbault MN 55021-6167
          Phone: 1-866-680-6562
          Web site: http://www.pposettlements.com


GLOBAL CASH: Faces Pa. Suit Over ATM Fee Disclosure Requirements
----------------------------------------------------------------
Global Cash Access Holdings, Inc. faces a purported class-action
lawsuit filed by a Pennsylvania woman over ATM fee disclosure
requirements, Steve Green of The Las Vegas Sun reports.

The suit was filed on July 8, 2009 in the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania by Theresa Jackman,
under the caption, "Jackman v. Global Cash Access Holdings,
Inc., Case No. 2:2009-cv-00897."

Ms. Jackman of Allegheny County, Pa. seeks class-action status
for her lawsuit, which claims Global Cash failed to properly
disclose a fee it imposed on a transaction involving Ms. Jackman
in violation of the federal Electronic Fund Transfer Act,
according to The Las Vegas Sun.

According to attorneys for Ms. Jackman, the federal law requires
ATM operators to disclose fees for use of the machines both on
the machines and, before the transaction is completed, on
machine screens.

The lawsuit alleges Ms. Jackman made a cash withdrawal June 30,
2009 at a Global Cash ATM at the Meadows Casino in Washington,
Pa., reports The Las Vegas Sun.

"Defendant charged plaintiff a 'terminal fee' of $3 in
connection with the above-described transaction.  However, at
the time of the ... transaction, there was no notice posted 'on
or at' any of the ATMs operated by the defendant at the Meadows
Casino that apprised consumers that a fee would be charged for
use of the ATM," the suit charges.

The Las Vegas Sun reported that the proposed class-action would
represent everyone charged a terminal fee at a Global Cash ATM
for electronic fund transfers or balance inquiries where
disclosure of the fee was not posted on the outside of the ATM
machine.

A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at:
              http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?3f13

For more details, contact:

          R. Bruce Carlson, Esq. (bcarlson@carlsonlynch.com)
          Carlson Lynch
          P.O. Box 367
          231 Melville Lane
          Sewickley, PA 15143
          Phone: (412) 749-1677


HARRAH'S ENTERTAINMENT: Bid to Junk Suit Over Debt Plan Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Harrah's Entertainment, Inc.'s motion to dismiss the amended in
a purported class-action suit by two bondholders is pending
before the Delaware court, according to the company's May 14,
2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009.

The suit was filed on Jan. 9, 2009, in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Delaware by S. Blake Murchison and Willis
Shaw.

Named as defendants in the case are:

       -- Harrah's Entertainment Inc.,
       -- Harrah's Operating Company Inc.,
       -- Charles L. Atwood,
       -- Jeffrey Benjamin,
       -- David Bonderman,
       -- Anthony Civale,
       -- Jonathan Coslet,
       -- Kelvin Davis,
       -- Jeanne P. Jackson,
       -- Gary W. Loveman,
       -- Karl Peterson,
       -- Eric Press,
       -- Marc Rowman,
       -- Lynn C. Swann, and
       -- Christopher J. Williams.

The two bondholders claim that the recent debt-exchange deal
engineered by Harrah's benefited some big corporate bondholders
while placing other classes of bondholders in jeopardy, should
Harrah's default on its debt or file for bankruptcy protection,
reports The Las Vegas Sun.

Harrah's is "on the verge of bankruptcy, debt default and other
events of insolvency," the lawsuit charges.

According to the suit, a copy of which was obtained by The Las
Vegas Sun, "In an effort to ensure that only a limited class of
individuals and entities reap the rewards of their debt
investments in Harrah's to the detriment of other investors,
defendants have completed bond tender offers that benefit those
select individuals and entities to the exclusion of all others.
Without any lawful justification for cherry-picking among its
investors, defendants' bond tender offers have allowed those
elite individuals and entities to obtain newly-issued bonds that
will take priority over and otherwise subordinate previously-
issued bonds of the exact same category."

It charges, "Plaintiffs' bond holdings have been subordinated to
the newly-issued bonds and, as a result, have been likely
rendered worthless as the specter of Harrah's insolvency
approaches," according to The Las Vegas Sun report.

On April 30, 2009, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint.

The suit is "Murchison et al v. Harrah's Entertainment Inc. et
al., Case No. 1:09-cv-00020-SLR," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Delaware, Judge Sue L. Robinson,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Joseph A. Rosenthal, Esq. (jrosenthal@rmgglaw.com)
          Rosenthal, Monhait & Goddess, P.A.
          Mellon Bank Center, Suite 1401
          P.O. Box 1070
          919 Market Street
          Wilmington, DE 19899-1070
          Phone: (302) 656-4433

Representing the defendants is:

          Kelly E. Farnan, Esq. (farnan@rlf.com)
          Richards, Layton & Finger, PA
          One Rodney Square
          920 N. King Street
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Phone: (302) 651-7705


HCA INC: Final Settlement for Tenn. ERISA Suit Approved in March
----------------------------------------------------------------
The final settlement in a purported class-action lawsuit against
HCA, Inc. over alleged violations of the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act was approved by the U.S. District Court for
the Middle District of Tennessee in March 2009.

On Nov. 22, 2005, Brenda Thurman, a former employee of an HCA
affiliate, filed the complaint before the Tennessee federal
court on behalf of herself, the HCA Savings and Retirement
Program, and a class of participants in the Plan who held an
interest in the company's common stock, against the company's
chairman and chief executive officer, president and chief
operating officer, executive vice president and chief financial
officer, and other unnamed individuals.

The lawsuit, filed under sections 502(a)(2) and 502(a)(3) of
ERISA, 29 U.S.C. 1132(a)(2) and (3), alleged that the defendants
breached their fiduciary duties owed to the Plan and to the plan
participants.

On Jan. 13, 2006, the court entered an order staying all
proceedings and discovery in the matter, pending resolution of a
motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint in the
related federal securities class action against the company.

On Jan. 18, 2006, the magistrate judge signed an order:

      -- consolidating Ms. Thurman's cause of action with all
         other future actions making the same claims and arising
         out of the same operative facts;

      -- appointing Ms. Thurman as lead plaintiff; and

      -- appointing Ms. Thurman's attorneys as lead counsel and
         liaison counsel in the case.

On Jan. 26, 2006, the court issued an order reassigning the case
to Judge William J. Haynes, Jr.

Subsequently, the company reached an agreement in principle to
settle the suit.

The court approved a final settlement of this lawsuit in March
2009, according to the company's May 14, 2009 Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2009.

The suit is "Thurman v. HCA, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:05-cv-
01001," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District
of Tennessee, Judge William J. Haynes, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Paul Kent Bramlett, Esq. (pknashlaw@aol.com)
         Bramlett Law Offices
         P.O. Box 150734
         Nashville, TN 37215-0734
         Phone: 615-248-2828

         Thomas J. McKenna, Esq.
         (tjmckenna@gaineyandmckenna.com)
         Gainey & McKenna
         485 Fifth Ave., 3rd Floor
         New York, NY 10017
         Phone: 212-983-1300
         Fax: 212-983-0383

         Samuel K. Rosen, Esq. (srosen@whesq.com)
         Wechsler Harwood, LLP
         488 Madison Avenue
         New York, NY 10022
         Phone: 212-935-7400
         Fax: 212-753-3630

              - and -

         Kenneth J. Vianale, Esq. (kvianale@vianalelaw.com)
         Vianale & Vianale, LLP
         2499 Glades Road, Suite 112
         Boca Raton, FL 33431
         Phone: 561-392-4750
         Fax: 561-392-4774

Representing the defendants are:

         James N. Bowen, Esq. (jimbowen@bowenriley.com)
         Amy E. Neff, Esq. (aneff@bowenriley.com)
         Steven Allen Riley, Esq. (sriley@bowenriley.com)
         Bowen, Riley, Warnock & Jacobson, PLC
         1906 West End Avenue
         Nashville, TN 37203
         Phone: 615-320-3700


HCA INC: Remanded Understaffing Suit Remains Ongoing in Kansas
--------------------------------------------------------------
The remanded case against HCA, Inc, over allegations that, to
maximize profits, HCA compromises patient care by deliberately
understaffing registered nurses at its hospitals is ongoing,
according to the company's May 14, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2009.

The class-action complaint was filed on April 10, 2006, against
the company in the U.S. District Court for District of Kansas
alleging, among other matters, nurse understaffing at all of the
company's hospitals, certain consumer protection act violations,
negligence and unjust enrichment.

Mildred Spires, a widow who claims that her husband died on
April 22, 2004, at the company's Wesley Medical Center in
Wichita, filed the suit.  She claims that her husband died
because the hospital did not have enough nurses working to care
for him when he was hospitalized in 2004 (Class Action Reporter,
Dec. 11, 2007).

Lawrence Williamson, Esq., Mrs. Spires' attorney, said that the
company set out in about 1996 to become a $50-billion company
and has tried to reach that goal by reducing costs, primarily by
cutting staff.  The company reported revenues of $24.5 billion
in 2005.

According to the lawsuit, "The defendant's reduction of staffing
of registered nurses is the evil and the fuel that led to the
revenues that has allowed the defendant to expand into all its
markets."

Mr. Williamson seeks to include in the suit millions of patients
at the company's other hospitals since 1996.

The complaint is seeking, among other relief, declaratory relief
and monetary damages, including disgorgement of profits of
$12.250 billion.

A motion to dismiss the case was granted on July 27, 2006, but
the plaintiffs have appealed this dismissal.  While the appeal
was pending, the Kansas Supreme Court for the first time
construed the Kansas Consumer Protection Act to apply to the
provision of medical services.

Based on that new ruling, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Tenth Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal and
remanded the action for further consideration by the trial
court.

The suit is "Spires v. Hospital Corp. of America, Case No. 2:06-
cv-02137-JWL-JPO," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Kansas, Judge John W. Lungstrum, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Lawrence W. Williamson, Jr., Esq.
          (l.williamson@swolawfirm.com)
          Uzo L. Ohaebosim, Esq. (u.ohaebosim@swolawfirm.com)
          Shores, Williamson & Ohaebosim, LLC
          301 N. Main, 1400 Epic Center
          Wichita, KS 67202
          Phone: 316-261-5400
          Fax: 316-261-5404


INTEL CORP: Faces Calif. Litigation Over Laptop Battery Life
------------------------------------------------------------
Intel Corp. faces a purported class-action lawsuit that claims
claims it is capitalizing on customers' willingness to pay for
extra laptop battery life by "designing a program to inflate
battery life measurements for laptops with Intel processors,"
The Courthouse News Service reports.

The suit was filed on June 26, 2009 in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California by Esmeralda Mendez,
under the caption, "Mendez -v- Intel Corporation, Case No.
5:09-cv-02889-JW."

The plaintiff claims Intel Corp. designed its MobileMark 2007
software to tell customers their computers have more battery
life than they actually do "under reasonable, real-life
conditions," according to The Courthouse News Service.

According to Ms. Mendez, the batteries on her two laptops each
lasted less than an hour, though Intel's MobileMark 2007
software measured the batteries' life at almost three hours.
Had she known this, she says, "she would not have purchased her
laptops with Intel processors and she would not have paid as
much as she paid."

The Courthouse News Service reported that MobileMark 2007
allegedly measures battery life under unrealistic circumstances,
with the screen dimmed to 20 percent capacity, the wireless card
turned off or with the processor only running at 7.5 percent
capacity.

The plaintiff -- represented by Eric Gibbs, Esq. of Girard Gibbs
and Austin Tighe, Esq. of Feazell and Tighe of Austin, Texas --
demands restitution for unjust enrichment and unfair
competition, reports The Courthouse News Service.

For more details, contact:

          Eric H. Gibbs, Esq. (ehg@girardgibbs.com)
          Girard Gibbs LLP
          601 California Street
          14th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Phone: 415-981-4800
          Fax: 415-981-4846

               - and -

          Austin P. Tighe, Jr., Esq. (austin@feazell-tighe.com)
          Feazell & Tighe LLP
          6300 Brigepoint Parkway
          Bridgepoint 2
          Suite 220
          Austin, TX 78730
          Phone: 512-372-8100
          Fax: 512-372-8140


INTERNATIONAL GAME: Trial in Brochu v. Loto Quebec Suit Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Trial remains ongoing in a class action styled "Brochu v. Loto
Quebec," according to International Game Technology's May 14,
2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009.

Loto Quebec commenced an action in warranty against VLC, Inc., a
wholly-owned subsidiary of IGT, and another manufacturer of
video lottery machines in October 2003, in the Superior Court of
the Province of Quebec, District of Quebec, seeking
indemnification for any damages that may be awarded against Loto
Quebec in a class action suit, also filed in the Superior Court
of the Province of Quebec.

The class action claim against Loto Quebec, to which neither IGT
nor any of its affiliates are parties, was filed by Jean Brochu
on behalf of himself and a class of other persons who allegedly
developed pathological behaviors through the play of video
lottery machines made available by Loto Quebec in taverns and
other public locations.

In this action, the plaintiff seeks to recover on behalf of the
class damages of approximately CAD$578.7 million, representing
CAD$4,863 per class member, and CAD$119.0 million in punitive
damages. Loto Quebec filed its Plea in Defense in the main
action in February 2006.

On Aug. 1, 2008, Loto Quebec filed a discontinuance of the
action in warranty against VLC.  Notwithstanding the
discontinuance, Loto Quebec may still pursue the claims it
asserted, or could have asserted, in the action in warranty
through arbitration against VLC.

The trial of the class action against Loto Quebec commenced on
Sept. 15, 2008 and is ongoing.

International Game Technology -- http://www.igt.com/-- is a
global gaming company specializing in the design, manufacture,
and marketing of electronic gaming equipment and network
systems, as well as licensing and services.  The Company
maintains an array of entertainment-inspired gaming product
lines.  In addition to its United States production facilities
in Nevada, it manufactures gaming products in the United Kingdom
and through a third-party manufacturer in Japan.  The Company
derives its revenues from the distribution of electronic gaming
equipment and network systems, as well as licensing and
services.  Gaming operations generate recurring revenues by
providing customers with its proprietary gaming equipment and
network systems, as well as licensing, services, and component
parts.  Its product sales include the sale of gaming equipment
and network systems, as well as licensing, services, and
component parts.  In January 2009, it acquired certain operating
assets of Progressive Gaming International Corp.


JEFFERSON COUNTY: Faces Hospital Patients' Suit Over Budget Cuts
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jefferson County, Alabama is facing a purported class-action
suit from hospital patients who contest the county's sweeping
budget cuts, Tracey Dalzell Walsh of The Courthouse News Service
reports.

The suit was filed on July 8, 2009 in the Circuit Court of
Jefferson County, Alabama by Maralyn Mosley under Case No.
C200902042, according to The Courthouse News Service.

It was brought on behalf of indigent hospital patients who claim
the county illegally converted $4.7 million from Cooper Green
Hospital, which serves mostly indigent patients.  The hospital
patients, who are represented by William J. Baxley, Esq., claim
that money must be used for the Jefferson County Indigent Care
Fund.  The County Commission also cut 90 jobs from the hospital,
The Courthouse News Service reported.

A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at:
              http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?3f12


LEAR CORP: Settlement of Consolidated ERISA Suit Pending Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------------
The settlement in a consolidated securities fraud class-action
suit against Lear Corp. was scheduled for a final approval
hearing last June 22, 2009.

A former Lear employee filed the purported class-action suit in
April 2006 before the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan against the company, certain members of its
board of directors, members of its Employee Benefits Committee,
and certain members of its human resources personnel.

The suit alleges violations of the Employment Retirement Income
Security Act with respect to the company's retirement savings
plans for salaried and hourly employees.

In the second quarter of 2006, the company was served with three
additional purported class action ERISA lawsuits, each of which
contained similar allegations against it, the members of its
Board, members of its EBC and certain members of its senior
management and its human resources personnel.

The court subsequently consolidated the four lawsuits as "In re:
Lear Corp. ERISA Litigation."  The plaintiffs filed a
consolidated complaint, which alleges breaches of fiduciary
duties substantially similar to those alleged in the four
individually filed lawsuits.  The consolidated complaint
continued to name the same defendants, but added certain other
current and former members of the EBC.

The consolidated complaint generally alleges that the defendants
breached their fiduciary duties to plan participants in
connection with the administration of Lear's retirement savings
plans for salaried and hourly employees.

The fiduciary duty claims are largely based on allegations of
breaches of the fiduciary duties of prudence and loyalty and of
over-concentration of plan assets in the company's common stock.

The plaintiffs purport to bring these claims on behalf of the
plans and all persons who were participants in or beneficiaries
of the plans from Oct. 21, 2004, to the present and seek to
recover losses allegedly suffered by the plans.  The complaints
do not specify the amount of damages sought.

During the fourth quarter of 2006, the defendants asked to have
all defendants and all counts in the consolidated complaint
dismissed.  The court denied this dismissal motion during the
second quarter of 2007.

On Aug. 8, 2007, the court ordered that discovery be completed
by April 30, 2008.

During the first quarter of 2008, the parties exchanged written
discovery requests, the defendants filed with the court a motion
to compel the plaintiffs to provide more complete discovery
responses, which was granted in part and denied in part, and the
plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification.

In mid-April 2008, the parties entered into an agreement to stay
all matters pending mediation.  The mediation took place on May
12, 2008, but has not resulted in a settlement to date.

The defendants took the named plaintiffs' depositions in June
2008.  Discovery closed on June 23, 2008, and the defendants
filed their opposition to the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification on July 7, 2008.

The plaintiffs have requested additional time for discovery, and
the court has not yet ruled on that request (Class Action
Reporter, Aug. 15, 2008).

On Sept. 25, 2008, the parties informed the court that they had
reached a settlement in principle.  The parties currently are
negotiating the terms of the full settlement agreement and class
notification, court approval and other related filings (Class
Action Reporter, Jan. 9, 2009).

On March 6, 2009, the parties executed a class action settlement
agreement.  The settlement agreement provides, among other
things, for the payment of $5.3 million into a settlement fund
in exchange for a release of all defendants from any and all of
plaintiffs' claims, whether known or unknown, based upon
investment in the Company's common stock or the Lear Corporation
Stock Fund by or through the plans from Oct. 21, 2004 through
March 6, 2009.

The court preliminarily certified the class and preliminarily
approved the settlement agreement during a hearing on March 23,
2009.  The final approval hearing has been scheduled for June
22, 2009, according to the company's May 14, 2009 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended April 4, 2009

The suit is "Malloy v. Lear Corp., et al., Case No. 5:06-cv-
11735-JCO-VMM," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan, Judge John Corbett O'Meara presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Stephen F. Wasinger, Esq. (sfw@sfwlaw.com)
          Stephen F. Wasinger, PLC
          32121 Woodward Avenue
          300 Balmoral Centre
          Royal Oak, MI 48073-0999
          Phone: 248-554-6306

Representing the defendant is:

          Thomas G. McNeill, Esq. (TMcNeill@dickinsonwright.com)
          Dickinson Wright
          500 Woodward Avenue, Suite 4000
          Detroit, MI 48226-3425
          Phone: 313-223-3500


LIFE SCIENCES: Brodsky & Smith Files N.J. Lawsuit Over Lion Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
     The Law office of Brodsky & Smith, LLC announces that a
class action lawsuit has been filed in the Superior Court of New
Jersey against Life Sciences Research, Inc. (NYSE: LSR) and the
Company's Board of Directors challenging the proposed
acquisition of the Company by Lion Holdings, Inc.  Andrew Baker,
CEO of Life Sciences Research, is the controlling member of Lion
Holdings and currently owns more than 17% of the outstanding
stock of Life Sciences Research.

     Under the proposed agreement, Life Sciences Research
shareholders will receive $8.50 in cash for each share they own.
The deal is valued at approximately $113 million.  Throughout
2008, Life Sciences Research traded at significantly above the
offer price. As recently as October 2008 it was trading above
$35.00 a share and was still trading above $10.00 a share in
December 2008.

For more details, contact:

          Evan J. Smith, Esq.
          Marc L. Ackerman, Esq.
          Brodsky & Smith, LLC
          Two Bala Plaza, Suite 602
          Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
          Phone: 877-LEGAL-90
          e-mail: clients@brodsky-smith.com


LIFE SCIENCES: Levi & Korsinsky Files N.J. Suit Over Lion Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
     Levi & Korsinsky announces that a class action lawsuit has
been filed in the Superior Court of the State of New Jersey
challenging the proposed acquisition of Life Sciences Research,
Inc. (NYSE: LSR).

     The Complaint arises out of the announcement by Life
Sciences to sell the Company to Lion Holdings, Inc., an entity
that is controlled by Andrew Baker, Chairman and CEO of Life
Sciences.

     Under the terms of the agreement, Life Sciences
shareholders will receive $8.50 in cash for each share of Life
Sciences they own, or a total transaction value of approximately
$113 million.

     This raises questions as to whether the Life Sciences Board
of Directors breached their fiduciary duties to shareholders
given that: (i) the Company's shares traded at $9.83 as recently
as January 5, 2009 and over $32 per share in the fourth quarter
of 2008; (ii) at least one analyst set a price target for Life
Sciences stock at $20 per share; and (iii) the Company agreed to
a non-solicitation provision and a termination fee of up to
$4,460,000 that will all but ensure that no superior offer will
ever be forthcoming.

     The Company expects to consummate the transaction in the
fourth quarter, subject to customary closing conditions,
including all necessary regulatory and stockholder approvals.

For more details, contact:

          Eduard Korsinsky, Esq.
          Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
          Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
          30 Broad Street - 15th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Phone: (212) 363-7500
          Fax: (212) 363-7171
          Web site: http://www.zlk.com/lsr1.html


MANULIFE FINANCIAL: Abbey Spanier Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
     Abbey Spanier Rodd & Abrams, LLP has filed a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York (09-cv-6185) on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons or entities who purchased the
securities of Manulife Financial Corporation between March 28,
2008 and June 22, 2009.  Manulife trades as "MFC" on the TSX,
NYSE and PSE, and under "945" on the SEHK.

     The Complaint charges Manulife and certain of the Company's
executive officers with violations of federal securities laws.

     On June 19, 2009, after the market closed, Manulife
announced that it received an enforcement notice from the
Ontario Securities Commission ("OSC") relating to Manulife's
disclosure of risks concerning its variable annuity guarantee
and segregated funds business.  The OSC notice stated that
Manulife failed to meet its continuous disclosure obligations
related to its exposure to market price risk in its variable
annuity guarantee and Segregated Fund Contracts business.
Segregated Fund Contracts are insurance contracts also known as
individual variable annuities that offer death benefits and
maturity guarantees.

     The complaint alleges that Manulife made false and
misleading statements regarding its ability to manage and
control risk.  In fact, contrary to the Company's own risk
management strategy, Manulife applied no material hedging
strategy to manage risk particularly during an economic
downturn.  The complaint further alleges that notwithstanding
its risk management strategy Manulife built up a massive stock
portfolio, which it chose to leave unhedged.  This resulted in a
huge decline in the funds available to guaranty the Separate
Fund Contract obligations, forcing the Company to raise billions
in capital to make up for a widening shortfall in the amount it
had promised to pay customers decades from now.

     Stunned investors responded to the OSC's announcement when
trading markets reopened on June 22, 2009.  The Company's shares
dropped 12% to close at $17.67 on an unusually high trading
volume of almost 8 million shares.

     Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class
members.

     A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain
criteria and be made on or before Sept. 8, 2009.

For more information, contact:

          Nancy Kaboolian, Esq. (nkaboolian@abbeyspanier.com)
          Susan Lee, Esq. (slee@abbeyspanier.com)
          Abbey Spanier Rodd & Abrams, LLP
          212 East 39th Street
          New York, New York 10016
          Phone: (212) 889-3700 or 1-800-889-3701 (Toll Free)
          Web Site: http://www.abbeygardy.com


METABANK: Still Faces N.H. Litigation Over $4.2M Embezzlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
MetaBank and Meta Financial Group, Inc. continues to face a
class-action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Hampshire over allegations that it refuses to
repay an embezzled $4.2 million, Karen Mracek of
DesMoinesRegister.com reports.

The Courthouse News Service previously reported that Guardian
Angel Credit Union, of Berlin, N.H., claims that MetaBank
allowed an employee to embezzle $4.2 million in deposits, and
has refused to reimburse the customers from whom she stole the
money (Class Action Reporter, July 4, 2008).

The credit union claims MetaBank admits that its employee
Charlene Pickhinke absconded with the money, including Guardian
Angel's $99,000.

The credit claims MetaBank admits that Ms. Pickhinke stole
$99,000 deposits from 50 MetaBank customers, and it has refused
to refund any of the money, or interest owed on it.

It claims Ms. Pickhinke stole the money over three years.

The plaintiffs bring this action as a class action pursuant to
Rules 23(a) and (b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, on
behalf of all other persons or entities residing or doing
business within the United States who satisfy the following
criteria:

     (i) the class member made a deposit with MetaBank, or any
         employee, representative or agent thereof, with the
         intention of receiving a certificate of deposit from
         such institution;

    (ii) MetaBank, or any employee, representative or agent
         thereof, issued the class member a certificate of
         deposit on account of such deposit;

   (iii) MetaBank believes, or the available evidence indicates,
         that a MetaBank employee, representative or agent,
         whether current or former, has absconded with the
         deposit made by the class member; and

    (iv) as of the date of the complaint, MetaBank has failed to
         repay the class member the deposit which it made or any
         accrued interest.

The plaintiffs want the court to rule on:

     (a) whether MetaBank's actions and conduct constitute a
         breach of contract;

     (b) whether MetaBank's actions and conduct constitute a
         negligence on its behalf, or on behalf of its officers
         and management;

     (c) whether MetaBank is vicariously liable for the unlawful
         actions of its employee; and

     (d) whether MetaBank's insurance coverage is applicable to
         the claims of the class members.

The plaintiffs ask the court for:

     -- an award in the amount of its damages;

     -- attorney's fees and costs of litigation; and

     -- any further relief which this court deems appropriate.

The suit is "Guardian Angel Credit Union, et al. v. MetaBank et
al, Case No. 1:2008-cv-00261," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of New Hampshire.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Christopher T. Meier, Esq.
          (cmeier@coopercargillchant.com)
          Cooper Cargill Chant, PA
          29563 White Mountain Highway
          North Conway, NH 03860
          Phone: 603-356-5439
          Fax: 603-356-76-975


MOTOROLA INC: Calif. Court Approves Bluetooth Headset Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
approved the the proposed settlement in the matter, "Bluetooth
Headset Products Liability Litigation, Case No. 2:07-ml-01822-
DSF-E," which names Motorola, Inc.; Plantronics, Inc.; and GN
Netcom, Inc./"Jabra" as defendants, Amanda Bronstad of The
National Law Journal reports.

However, the judge raised questions about a request for $800,000
in attorney fees, which recently were criticized by objectors to
the settlement, according to The National Law Journal.

At a recent hearing, Judge Dale S. Fischer ruled that the
attorneys for the defendants should draft a detailed order
approving the settlement within 14 days, while the plaintiffs'
attorneys must provide further information regarding their fee
request.  The judge gave the plaintiffs' attorneys 30 days to do
so, The National Law Journal reported.

It was previously reported that the court will hold a fairness
hearing on July 6, 2009 on 1:30 p.m. For the proposed settlement
of the case.  The hearing will be held before Judge Dale S.
Fischer, Roybal Federal Building, Courtroom 840, 255 East Temple
St., Los Angeles, CA 90012 (Class Action Reporter, April 20,
2009).

In 2006, Motorola faced several class-action complaints in
several states over allegations that it has put the hearing of
consumers at risk, since its Bluetooth headsets exceed safe
decibel levels and it failed to warn customers of the potential
dangers (Class Action Reporter, June 13, 2007).

The suits allege that Motorola's headsets have volume controls,
which produce sounds exceeding 85 decibels, with sound often
peaking in excess of 100 decibels.  It contends that without
resorting to scientific testing, the consumer cannot determine
the decibel level of the sound being emitted from the headset.

In a 2006 test performed by the American Speech-Hearing-Language
Association, Motorola's H700 model headset produced decibel
levels of up to 106 decibels (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 20,
2006).

The suits pointed out that that someone can develop hearing loss
if they are exposed to such levels between three and four
minutes a day.

Though the company sold the headsets with a booklet containing
safety information, the suit alleges that it "omitted and
concealed [from consumers] any safety information pertaining to
the headsets' propensity for causing noise-induced hearing
loss."  The suits add that the company also omitted information
about the headsets' decibel level.

The suits claim that users are often forced to turn up the
volume on the devices, due to the background noise that comes in
through the users' non-Bluetooth-connected ear.

"By design," the suits allege that the company "put consumers at
risk of suffering serious hearing loss when the headsets are put
to their normal and intended use." It goes on to allege that
"millions of consumers have had their hearing put at risk by
Motorola's headsets."

The suits seek:

      -- an award of unspecified damages to the class;

      -- a temporary restraining order to keep Motorola from
         selling, marketing or advertising the headsets without
         a detailed warning regarding potential hearing loss;
         and

      -- other unspecified damages.

In February 2007, the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, ordered that pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
Section 1407, the actions pending outside the Central District
of California are transferred to the Central District of
California and with the consent of that Court, assigned to the
Honorable Dale S. Fischer for coordinated or consolidated
pretrial proceedings.

The multidistrict litigation consolidates dozens of cases
brought forth by plaintiffs alleging that the headsets cause
hearing loss and Motorola failed to warn consumers of that
danger.

The suit is "Bluetooth Headset Products Liability Litigation,
Case No. 2:07-ml-01822-DSF-E," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California under Judge Dale S.
Fischer, with referral to Judge Charles F. Eick.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Stephen M. Garcia
          David Michael Medby
          Garcia Law Firm
          One World Trade Center, Suite 1950
          Long Beach, CA 90831
          Phone: 562-216-5270
          562-216-5270
          E-mail: sgarcia@lawgarcia.com or dmedby@lawgarcia.com

Representing defendants are:

          Terrence J. Dee P.C.
          Kirkland & Ellis LLP
          Aon Center
          200 East Randolph Drive
          Chicago, IL 60601-6636
          Phone: (312) 861-2099
          Fax: (312) 861-2200

               - and -

          Michelle Inouye Schultz
          Kirkland & Ellis LLP
          777 South Figueroa Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90017-5800
          Phone: (213) 680-8489
          Fax: (213) 680-8500


MSC SOFTWARE: Brodsky & Smith Files Lawsuit Over Symphony Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
     The Law office of Brodsky & Smith, LLC announces that a
class action lawsuit has been filed in the Superior Court of
California against MSC Software Corporation (NASDAQ: MSCS) and
the Company's Board of Directors challenging the proposed
acquisition of MSC Software by Symphony Technology Group and
Elliott Management Corp.

     Under the proposed agreement, MSC Software shareholders
will receive $7.63 in cash for each share of MSC Software they
own.  The deal is valued at approximately $360 million.  On June
1, 2009, MSC Software was trading at the exact price now offered
by Symphony Technology Group and Elliott Management Corp.
Moreover, throughout 2008, MSC Software traded at significantly
above the offer price and as recently as October 2008, was
trading above $10.25 a share, substantially higher than the
current offer.


For more details, contact:

          Jason L. Brodsky, Esq.
          Marc L. Ackerman, Esq.
          Brodsky & Smith, LLC
          Two Bala Plaza, Suite 602
          Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
          Phone: 877-LEGAL-90
          e-mail: clients@brodsky-smith.com


PHILIP MORRIS: Faces Arkansas Litigation Over "Light" Cigarettes
----------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris USA, Inc., Altria Group, Inc., R J Reynolds
Tobacco Company and Reynolds American, Inc. are facing a
purported class-action lawsuit over claims regarding light
cigarettes, Michelle Massey of The Southeast Texas Record
reports.

The suit was filed on July 6, 2009 in the U.S. Distirct Court
for the Eastern District of Wisconsin by David Hunter Williams,
under the caption, "Williams v. Philip Morris USA Inc et al.,
Case No. 4:09-cv-00471."  It was filed against several tobacco
companies alleging the companies falsified the benefits of
smoking light cigarettes.

Mr. Williams of Little Rock says he switched from regular to
light cigarettes as an alternative to quitting smoking.  He
claims that he believed the light cigarettes were less harmful
and delivered less tar and nicotine, according to The Southeast
Texas Record.

Current attempts to stop smoking altogether are difficult
because of his addiction to the nicotine found in the light
cigarettes, according to Mr. Williams' suit.

The suit alleges that cigarette makers participated in a "scheme
of deception."  It alleges that the defendants knew that their
representations that light cigarettes delivered less nicotine
and were less harmful were false, deceptive, misleading and
unfair, The Southeast Texas Record reported.

In addition, the suit alleges the defendants designed their
light cigarettes to register lower levels of tar and nicotine
when tested than the levels actually delivered to consumers.

The plaintiff argues that the defendants intentionally
manipulated the design and content "by modifying the tobacco
blend, weight, rod length, and circumference, using
reconstituted tobacco sheets and expanded tobacco; and by
increasing the smoke PH levels of the cigarettes through
chemical processing and the use of additive such as ammonia,
resulting in the delivery of great amounts of tar and nicotine,"
reports The Southeast Texas Record.

The defendants are accused of breaching express and implied
warranties, violating the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices
Act, unjust enrichment, and fraudulently concealment.

The case will include all Arkansas residents who from July 1,
2004, until the end of the litigation, purchased cigarettes
labeled as "light" or "ultra-lights," The Southeast Texas Record
reports.

The Southeast Texas Record reported that the suit seeks economic
damages arising from their purchases and does not seek damages
for personal injury or health care.  It specifically seeks a
restitution of money paid at retail for light cigarettes,
disgorgement of profits, and the establishment of a constructive
trust to reimburse the class for economic damages and to
establish a smoker cessation program.

For more details, contact:

          Thomas P. Thrash, Esq. (tomthrash@sbcglobal.net)
          Thrash Law Firm
          1101 Garland Street
          Little Rock, AR 72201
          Phone: (501) 374-1058

          Walter Umphrey, Esq.
          Provost Umphrey Law Firm, L.L.P. - Beaumont
          Post Office Box 4905
          Beaumont, TX 77704-4905
          Phone: 409-835-6000
          Fax: 409-838-8811

               - and -

          John Eddie Williams, Jr., Esq.
          Williams, Kherker, Hart, Boundas, LLP
          8441 Gulf Freeway
          Suite 600
          Houston, TX 77017
          Phone: 713-230-2200
          Fax: 713-643-6226


PRESSTEK INC: July 20 Hearing Set for "Sloman" Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
A proposed $1.25 million settlement of the matter, "Sloman v.
Presstek, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-00377-JD," remains
pending, according to the company's May 14, 2009 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended April 4, 2009.

The U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire will
hold a fairness hearing on July 20, 2009 at 10:00 a.m.  The
hearing will be held before the Honorable Joseph. N. LaPlante,
in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire, 55
Pleasant  St., Concord, NH 03301.

Bod Sanders of New Hampshire Business Review reported that
Presstek, Inc. agreed to pay $1.25 million to settle a class-
action lawsuit charging that the company misled investors about
its earnings in 2006 (Class Action Reporter, May 8, 2008).

Previously, it was reported that Presstek, Inc. settled a
purported securities fraud class-action suit filed before the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire (Class
Action Reporter, Nov. 21, 2008).

In October 2006, the company and two of its former executive
officers were named as defendants in a purported securities
class action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Hampshire.  The suit claims to be brought on
behalf of purchasers of the company's common stock during the
period from July 27, 2006, through Sept. 29, 2006.

The suit alleges, among other things, that the company and the
other defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S.
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder based on
allegedly false forecasts of fiscal third quarter and annual
2006 revenues.

As relief, the plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of monetary
damages, but make no allegation as to losses incurred by any
purported class member, court costs and attorneys' fees.

On Sept. 25, 2008 the parties reached a settlement of the
action, subject to confirmatory discovery by plaintiffs and
court approval.

The suit is "Sloman v. Presstek, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-
00377-JD," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Hampshire, Judge Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr., presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Theodore M. Hess-Mahan, Esq. (ted@shulaw.com)
          Thomas G. Shapiro, Esq. (tshapiro@shulaw.com)
          Shapiro Haber & Urmy
          53 State St., Boston, MA 02109
          Phone: 617-439-3939
          Fax: 617-439-0134

               - and -

          Mark L. Mallory, Esq. (mark@malloryandfriedman.com)
          Mallory & Friedman PLLC
          8 Green St., Concord, NH 03301
          Phone: 603-228-2277

Representing defendants is:

          Robert E. McDaniel, Esq. (remcdanielesq@aol.com)
          McDaniel Law Offices
          755 North Main St.
          Laconia, NH 03246
          Phone: 603-527-0520
          Fax: 603-279-0540


R.L.J. LENDING: Faces Ill. Lawsuit Over Payment of $10,000 Loan
---------------------------------------------------------------
R.L.J. Lending is facing a purported class-action lawsuit in
Madison County Circuit Court alleging that the lending company
lent money to people and expected to be repaid out of proceeds
from personal injury cases, Kelly Holleran of The St. Clair
Record reports.

The lawsuit was filed on July 1, 2009 by Timothy Rosenburg, who
says he entered into a contract with R.L.J. Lending in July 2007
in which R.L.J. lent him $10,000.

According to the complaint, Case Number 09-L-688, R.L.J.
required Mr. Rosenburg to assign a personal injury case he filed
in Madison County Circuit Court to it.  That way, the company
could recoup the $10,000 it loaned to Mr. Rosenburg, reports The
St. Clair Record.

"In reliance upon the contract and assignment at issue in this
case, Defendant RLJ is demanded from Plaintiff, $10,000.00, plus
a 14% interest rate, payable from the proceeds of Plaintiff's
personal injury action," the suit states.

However, Mr. Rosenburg contends it is a violation of public
policy and Illinois law to allow personal injury cases to be
assigned to another party, and so his contract with R.L.J.
should be considered void and unenforceable, The St. Clair
Record reported.

The same scenario has happened to many other people across
Illinois, and the class includes anyone who recovered any money
from a personal injury or workers' compensation action and was
then forced to turn the money over to R.L.J., according to the
complaint.

In the three-count suit, Mr. Rosenburg -- represented by Thomas
G. Maag, Esq. and Peter J. Maag, Esq. of Wendler Law in
Edwardsville -- is asking the court to certify the case as a
class action; declare that the class members do not owe R.L.J.
any money by virtue of the contract; direct R.L.J. to disgorge
any amounts actually paid by class members; declare the contract
void; and enjoin R.L.J. from enforcing or collecting any money
on the basis of the contract, The St. Clair Record reports.

The plaintiff is also seeking actual and treble damages of more
than $50,000, plus additional damages allowed by law in excess
of $50,000, attorney's fees, costs and other relief the court
deems just, according to The St. Clair Record.

For more details, contact:

          Thomas G. Maag, Esq.
          Peter J. Maag, Esq.
          Wendler Law, P.C.
          900 Hillsboro, Suite 10,
          Edwardsville, IL 62025
          Phone: (618)-692-0011
          Fax: (618)-692-0022
          Web site: http://www.maaglaw.com/


SAL'S LANDSCAPING: Faces Overtime Pay Litigation in Pennsylvania
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sal's Landscaping & Lawn Care in Reinholds, Pa. is facing a
purported class-action lawsuit filed by dozens of migrant
workers in Berks County who are alleging that the company
refused to pay them overtime, Dwayne Parker of WFMZ reports.

The lawsuit was filed by attorney Larry Norton, Esq. at the
State Court in Reading on behalf of a group of illegal workers
who are fighting for their back wages, according to WFMZ.

It alleges that the company refused to pay a legal immigrant and
more than 20 illegal immigrants time and half for overtime.  Mr.
Norton, alleges the landscaping company paid his clients $13 an
hour for a 40-hour workweek by check, WFMZ reported.

Overtime hours were paid under the table, with no wage increase,
a scheme that Mr. Norton says is illegal, reports WFMZ report.


SCORES HOLDING: To Contest "Diaz" Liability & Violation Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Scores Holding Company Inc. intend to contest the claimed
liability as well as the violations alleged in a purported
class-action suit, captioned "Diaz v. Scores Holding Company,
Inc. et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-08718-RMB-THK,", according to the
company's May 14, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009.

The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York against Scores Holding Co., Inc., formerly
Adonis Energy, Inc.

On Oct. 9, 2007, former Go West bartender Siri Diaz filed the
purported class action suit and collective action on behalf of
all tipped employees against the company and other defendants
alleging violations of federal and state wage/hour laws.

The suit is captioned, "Siri Diaz et al. v. Scores Holding
Company, Inc.; Go West Entertainment, Inc. a/k/a Scores West
Side; and Scores Entertainment, Inc., a/k/a Scores East Side,
Case No. 07 Civ. 8718," which was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York.

On Nov. 6, 2007, the plaintiffs served an amended purported
class-action and collective action complaint, naming dancers and
servers as additional plaintiffs and alleging the same
violations of federal and state wage/hour laws.

On or about Feb. 21, 2008, the plaintiffs served a second
amended complaint adding two additional party defendants, but
limiting the action to persons employed in the New York Scores'
clubs.  The amended complaint alleges that the defendants are
"an integrated enterprise" and that the company jointly employ
the plaintiffs, subjecting all of the defendants to liability
for the alleged wage/hour violations.

On April 18, 2008, co-defendant Go West filed for bankruptcy.

On behalf of Scores Holding and the other defendants, the
company filed a motion to dismiss that portion of the complaint
that asserted state law class action allegations.  The company
also moved to dismiss the claims of two of the named plaintiffs
for failure to appear for depositions.

At the same time, the plaintiffs moved for conditional
certification under the federal law for a class of the servers,
bartenders and dancers.

On May 9, 2008, the court issued its decision, denying the
motion to dismiss and granting conditional certification for a
class of servers, cocktail waitresses, bartenders and dancers
who have worked at Scores East since October 2004.

The case is stayed as against Go West pursuant to the bankruptcy
law.  The court directed that notice be sent to all potential
class members.

Discovery into both the procedural and substantive issues is
ongoing, as are settlement negotiations.

The suit is "Diaz v. Scores Holding Company, Inc. et al., Case
No. 1:07-cv-08718-RMB-THK," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York, Judge Richard M. Berman,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Tammy Marzigliano, Esq. (tm@outtengolden.com)
         Outten & Golden Law Firm
         3 Park Avenue, 29th Floor
         New York, NY 10016
         Phone: 212-245-1000
         Fax: 212-977-4005

Representing the defendants is:

         Jerrold Foster Goldberg, Esq. (GoldbergJ@gtlaw.com)
         Greenberg Traurig, LLP
         200 Park Avenue
         New York, NY 10166
         Phone: 212-801-9209
         Fax: 212-805-9209


STATION CASINOS: "Lukevich" Labor Suit Still Pending in Nevada
--------------------------------------------------------------
A labor-related class-action lawsuit remains pending against
Station Casinos, Inc., in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Nevada.

The purported class-action complaint against the company was
initiated on Feb. 4, 2008, by former Station Casinos employees
Josh Luckevich, Cathy Scott and Julie St. Cyr.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that the company:

       -- failed to pay its employees for all hours worked,
       -- failed to pay overtime,
       -- failed to timely pay wages, and
       -- unlawfully converted certain earned wages.

The complaint seeks, among other relief, class certification of
the lawsuit, compensatory damages in excess of $5,000,000,
punitive damages and an award of attorneys' fees and expenses to
the plaintiffs' counsel.

The company filed a response to the complaint on March 10, 2008.
The parties are currently in the discovery process.

The company has yet to file a response to the complaint,
according to the company's May 14, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2009.

The suit is "Josh Lukevich v. Station Casinos, Inc., Case No.
2:08-cv-00141-LRH-LRL," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Nevada, Judge Larry R. Hicks, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Kelly McInerney, Esq. (kelly@mcinerneylaw.net)
          McInerney & Jones
          9460 Double R Blvd., Suite 103
          Reno, NV 89521
          Phone: 775-853-6440
          Fax: 775-853-6445

               - and -

          Matthew Righetti, Esq. (matt@righettilaw.com)
          Righetti Law Firm, P.C.
          456 Montgomery Street
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Phone: 415-983-0900
          Fax: 415-397-9005

Representing the defendants is:

          Joanna S. Kishner, Esq. (joanna.kishner@dlapiper.com)
          DLA Piper US LLP
          3960 Howard Hughes Pkwy, Suite 400
          Las Vegas, NV 89169
          Phone: 702-677-3900
          Fax: 702-737-1612


VIGNETTE CORP: Reaches Settlement in Suit Over Open Text Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
     Vignette Corporation (NASDAQ: VIGN) announced that it has
reached an agreement in principle with a stockholder of Vignette
that provides for the settlement of the purported class action
litigation commenced by such stockholder against Vignette and
its directors following the announcement of the merger between
Vignette and Open Text Corporation.

     The settlement will not affect the merger consideration to
be paid to stockholders of Vignette in connection with the
proposed merger between Vignette and Open Text or the timing of
the special meeting of stockholders of Vignette scheduled for
Tuesday, July 21, 2009, beginning at 9:00 a.m. local time, at
the Inter-Continental Stephen F. Austin Hotel, 701 Congress
Avenue, Austin, Texas 78701, to vote on a proposal to adopt the
merger agreement between Vignette and Open Text and to approve
the merger.

     On May 11, 2009, a Vignette stockholder filed a purported
class action against Vignette, its directors, Open Text
Corporation, and Scenic Merger Corp. in the District Court for
the 201st Judicial District of Travis County, Texas.  On July 2,
2009, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed Open Text and Scenic
from the lawsuit.

     Vignette and its directors have reached an agreement in
principle with the plaintiff providing for the settlement of the
litigation.  In connection with this settlement, Vignette agreed
to make available additional information to its stockholders.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

TRONOX INC: Coughlin Stoia Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
     Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP announced that a
class action has been commenced in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of
purchasers of Tronox, Inc. (OTC:TRXAQ.PK, OTC:TRXBQ) common
stock (Class A or Class B) between November 28, 2005 and January
12, 2009, inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies under the
Securities and Exchange Act of 1934.  Tronox is not named in
this action as a defendant because it filed for bankruptcy
protection in January 2009.

     The complaint charges Kerr-McGee Corporation ("Kerr-
McGee"), Anadarko Petroleum Corporation ("Anadarko") and certain
of Kerr-McGee and Tronox's executives with violations of the
Exchange Act.  Tronox is a Delaware corporation engaged in the
business of producing and marketing titanium dioxide - a white
pigment used in a wide range of products to impart whiteness,
brightness and opacity.

     Tronox was spun-off from Kerr-McGee in a two-step
transaction. In November 2005, Kerr-McGee sold 17.5 million
shares of Tronox Class A shares in an initial public offering
for $14.00 per share (the "IPO") generating proceeds for Kerr-
McGee of $225 million.  After the IPO, Kerr-McGee continued to
hold 56.7% of Tronox's outstanding common stock.  In March 2006,
Kerr-McGee distributed the balance of the shares that it owned
as Class B shares to its shareholders as a dividend (the "Spin-
Off").

     The Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period,
Defendants failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's true financial condition, business and prospects.
Specifically, the Complaint alleges that Defendants failed to
disclose the true scope and extent of Tronox's environmental and
tort liabilities.  When the market learned of the true facts
about the Company, the price of Tronox stock declined
precipitously.

     Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all
purchasers of Tronox common stock during the Class Period.

For more details, contact:

          Darren J. Robbins, Esq. (djr@csgrr.com)
          Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
          Phone: 800-449-4900 or 619-231-1058
          Web site: http://www.csgrr.com/cases/tronox/


TRONOX INC: Izard Nobel LLP Announces Securities Lawsuit Filing
---------------------------------------------------------------
     The law firm of Izard Nobel LLP, which has significant
experience representing investors in prosecuting claims of
securities fraud, announces that a lawsuit seeking class action
status has been filed in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of the
common stock (Class A or B) of Tronox, Inc. (PINKSHEETS: TRXAQ)
(PINKSHEETS: TRXBQ) between November 28, 2005 and January 12,
2009, inclusive.  Tronox is not named in this action as a
defendant because it filed for bankruptcy protection in January
2009.

     Tronox was spun-off from Kerr-McGee Corporation ("Kerr-
McGee"), in a two-step transaction.  In November 2005, Kerr-
McGee sold 17.5 million shares of Tronox Class A shares in an
initial public offering for $14.00 per share (the "IPO")
generating proceeds for Kerr-McGee of $225 million.  After the
IPO, Kerr-McGee continued to hold 56.7% of Tronox's outstanding
common stock.  In March 2006, Kerr-McGee distributed the balance
of the shares that it owned as Class B shares to its
shareholders as a dividend.

     The Complaint charges Kerr-McGee, Anadarko Petroleum
Corporation ("Anadarko") and certain of Kerr-McGee and Tronox's
executives with violations of federal securities laws.  The
Complaint alleges that Defendants failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's financial condition and
prospects.  Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose the true
scope and extent of Tronox's environmental and tort liabilities.

     A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain
criteria and be made on or before Sept. 8, 2009.

For more details, contact:

          Nancy A. Kulesa, Esq.
          Wayne T. Boulton, Esq.
          Izard Nobel LLP
          Phone: (800) 797-5499
          e-mail: firm@izardnobel.com
          Web site: http://www.izardnobel.com/


                            *********

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  * * *